Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Educational resources to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model
(USC Thesis Other)
Educational resources to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO IMPROVE STUDENT LEARNING:
EFFECTIVE PRACTICES USING AN EVIDENCE-BASED MODEL
by
Christopher Michael Gutierrez-Lohrman
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 Christopher Michael Gutierrez-Lohrman
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family, especially my loving wife Diane whose
unconditional love and encouragement supported me throughout the process while often
pulling triple duty as wife, mother, and editor. My two adorable sons Jack and Kent, who
never questioned why Dad was always typing at the breakfast table during early morning
cartoons. Someday they will hopefully understand that this journey was about bettering
their lives and future. To my loving parents Jeannette and Ken, who by sending me to
Loyola instilled a joyful enthusiasm for the discovery of integrity and truth through the
development of independence and critical judgment. To my three sisters, Shannon,
Mindi, and Heather, with whom I share my childhood memories and grown-up dreams.
My wonderful loving grandparents Grammy (Joanne) and Bompa (George), who always
took an interest in my endeavors and supported me every chance they could along the
way. Finally this dissertation is dedicated in the loving memory of my grandparents
Beebe (Margaret) and Chick (Manuel). Beebe, who along with Grammy, was always
there to care for us when our parents had to work late in order to provide us a better
opportunity in life. To Grandpa Chick, who I unfortunately never met but whose
accomplishments in life I will always be measured against.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation was made possible through the on-going support of my dissertation
chair, Dr. Lawrence Picus, who never seemed to tire even when it appeared the majority
of us were losing steam. I would also like to acknowledge and show appreciation to Dr.
Guilbert Hentschke and Dr. John Nelson for providing additional insight and words of
encouragement along the way. Although the principals shall remain anonymous, I would
like to recognize each one of them for taking the time out of their schedules to provide
the valuable insights contained within this study. Finally, I would like to express
gratitude to my fellow cohort members with whom I will always share my memories of
this wonderful process.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures viii
Abstract x
Chapter 1 – Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 10
Purpose of the Study 10
Importance of the Study 11
Research Design 12
Definitions 14
Chapter 2 – Literature Review 18
California Educational Resource Allocation 18
Using Educational Resources More Effectively 26
Evidence-Based Model 43
Summary 54
Chapter 3 – Methods 56
Design 57
Sample and Population 57
Data Collection 60
Case Studies 62
Ethical Considerations 63
Data Analysis 63
Limitations 65
Chapter 4 – Findings 66
School Demographics and Data 67
Improvement Process Themes 74
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 93
Summary 103
v
Chapter 5 – Discussion 106
Summary of Findings 107
Limitations 109
Lessons Learned 110
Allocating Resources in Practice 115
Implications for Future Research 119
References 121
Appendices
Appendix A – IRB Approval 150
Appendix B – Quantitative Data Collection 151
Appendix C – Qualitative Data Collection 161
Appendix D – Bryce Elementary 163
School Background 163
Improvement Process Themes 168
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 179
Lessons Learned 182
Appendix E – Crater Lake Elementary 184
School Background 184
Improvement Process Themes 189
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 208
Lessons Learned 211
Appendix F – Joshua Tree Elementary 214
School Background 214
Improvement Process Themes 219
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 231
Lessons Learned 235
Appendix G – Redwood Elementary 238
School Background 238
Improvement Process Themes 243
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 252
Lessons Learned 256
Appendix H – Sequoia Elementary 258
School Background 258
Improvement Process Themes 263
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 273
Lessons Learned 276
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Adequate Resources for a Prototypical Elementary School 45
Table 3.1: School Sample PI and API Status, 2009 AYP Report 59
Table 3.2: School Sample Demographics, 2008-2009 60
Table 4.1: Summary of Case Studies Demographics, 2009-2010 68
Table 4.2: Summary of Case Studies PI and API Status, 2010 AYP Report 70
Table 4.3: Summary of Case Studies Language Arts – Proficient & Above Trend 71
Table 4.4: Summary of Case Studies Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend 73
Table 4.5: Case Studies Cross-Comparison Analysis of Evidence-Based Strategies 76
Table 4.6: Summary of Case Studies Performance of Evidence-Based Strategies 77
Table 4.7: Average Case Study – Comparison to Evidence-Based Model 94
Table 4.8: Basic School Configuration – Comparison to Evidence-Based Model 96
Table 4.9: Administrative Support – Comparison to Evidence-Based Model 98
Table 4.10: General Personnel – Comparison to Evidence-Based Model 99
Table 4.11: Extended Support – Comparison to Evidence-Based Model 101
Table 4.12: Other Staffing Resources – Comparison to Evidence-Based Model 102
Table D.1: Bryce Elementary Demographic Comparison, 2009-2010 164
Table D.2: Bryce Elementary Evidence-Based Model Comparison 180
Table D.3: Bryce Elementary Performance of Evidence-Based Strategies 183
Table E.1: Crater Lake Elementary Demographic Comparison, 2009-2010 185
Table E.2: Crater Lake Elementary Evidence-Based Model Comparison 209
Table E.3: Crater Lake Elementary Performance of Evidence-Based Strategies 212
vii
Table F.1: Joshua Tree Elementary Demographic Comparison, 2009-2010 215
Table F.2: Joshua Tree Elementary Evidence-Based Model Comparison 233
Table F.3: Joshua Tree Elementary Performance of Evidence-Based Strategies 236
Table G.1: Redwood Elementary Demographic Comparison, 2009-2010 239
Table G.2: Redwood Elementary Evidence-Based Model Comparison 253
Table G.3: Redwood Elementary Performance of Evidence-Based Strategies 257
Table H.1: Sequoia Elementary Demographic Comparison, 2009-2010 259
Table H.2: Sequoia Elementary Evidence-Based Model Comparison 274
Table H.3: Sequoia Elementary Performance of Evidence-Based Strategies 276
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: California’s School Finance System 23
Figure 2.2: The Evidence-Based Model 53
Figure 4.1: Summary of Case Studies Language Arts – Proficient & Above Trend 72
Figure 4.2: Summary of Case Studies Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend 74
Figure 4.3: Implementation of Setting High Expectations for Student Learning 79
Figure 4.4: Implementation of Data-Based Decision Making 82
Figure 4.5: Implementation of Professional Development 84
Figure 4.6: Implementation of Effective Instruction 86
Figure 4.7: Implementation of Extending Learning Opportunities 89
Figure 4.8: Implementation of Collaborative and Distributed Leadership 91
Figure D.1: Bryce Elementary API Trend 165
Figure D.2: Bryce Elementary Language Arts – Proficient & Above 167
Figure D.3: Bryce Elementary Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend 168
Figure E.1: Crater Lake Elementary API Trend 186
Figure E.2: Crater Lake Elementary Language Arts – Proficient & Above Trend 188
Figure E.3: Crater Lake Elementary Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend 189
Figure F.1: Joshua Tree Elementary API Trend 216
Figure F.2: Joshua Tree Elementary Language Arts – Proficient & Above Trend 218
Figure F.3: Joshua Tree Elementary Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend 219
Figure G.1: Redwood Elementary API Trend 240
Figure G.2: Redwood Elementary Language Arts – Proficient & Above Trend 241
Figure G.3: Redwood Elementary Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend 243
Figure H.1: Sequoia Elementary API Trend 260
ix
Figure H.2: Sequoia Elementary Language Arts – Proficient & Above Trend 262
Figure H.3: Sequoia Elementary Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend 263
x
ABSTRACT
In May of 2010, California followed the pattern of other states regarding educational
adequacy lawsuits (Hanushek, 2006a; Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009) when plaintiffs filed
suit contending that California fails to align funding with its academic requirement
expectations (National Access Network, 2011; Weston, 2010b). According to the Robles-
Wong v. California (2010) lawsuit, education has been defined as a fundamental right
under the California Constitution which delineates this right through the adoption of
academic content standards (California School Finance, 2010). However, California is
still being asked to do more with less financial resources and design schools that will
enable students to meet the state standards within tighter fiscal constraints (Picus, 2006).
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to help identify effective educational strategies and
how resource dollars should be allocated for improving elementary schools utilizing an
evidence-based model as a framework. Utilizing the Evidence-Based Model by Odden
and Picus (2008), school level resource allocations at five elementary schools in Program
Improvement (PI) are examined. Through the cross-case analysis of case studies
(Appendices D-H) and the triangulation of multiple sources of data (Brinson & Mellor,
2005; Patton, 2002), this study contributes to the discussion of how an evidence-based
approach can help identify effective educational strategies for improving elementary
schools, recommend resource allocations for practitioners, and suggest implications for
future research considerations based on these findings.
1
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
In May of 2010, a coalition of students, parents, school districts, and educational
organizations filed a lawsuit against the state alleging that California’s school finance
system is unconstitutional and fails to adequately provide all students with an equal
opportunity to learn to the state’s academic goals and standards (Weston, 2010b). The
fact is a number of studies have already established that California’s funding model is
inequitable, inadequate, and complex (Chambers & Levin, 2006; Chambers, Levin, &
Delancey, 2007; Gandara & Rumberger, 2007; Grubb, Goe, & Huerta, 2004; Imazeki,
2008; Kirst, 2006; Loeb, Bryk, & Hanushek, 2007; Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2010;
Sonstelie, 2007; Timar, 2004; Williams et al., 2005). Nevertheless, given the financial
difficulties that local and state governments are experiencing, additional funds for
education are not expected (School Services of California, 2010; Weston, 2010b).
Even with the threat of additional educational adequacy lawsuits looming, in
October of 2010, California adopted a budget that included a second year of significant
reductions in educational funding (Legislative Analyst's Office, 2010a). Based on the
current fiscal outlook, it is anticipated that California will continue to be asked to do
more with less financing (School Services of California, 2011). However, given the
current Robles-Wong v. California (2010) adequacy lawsuit, educators need to examine
their goals for students and determine how to design schools that enable students to meet
the state standards within the fiscal constraints outlined by the legislature (Picus, 2006;
Weston, 2010b). Therefore, the purpose of this research is to help identify effective
educational strategies and how resource dollars should be allocated for improving
2
elementary schools utilizing an Evidence-Based Model provided by Odden and Picus
(2008) as a framework.
Background of the Problem
Due to the globalization of our economy, businesses and tax payers have
demanded more from the education system and entering workforce. In turn, policymakers
have responded to their constituents by including additional reform and accountability
measures into legislation. One such reform policy is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act of 2001. NCLB, also referred to as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), has affected education from kindergarten through high school by (a) requiring
accountability for results in schools, (b) providing more choices for parents, (c) giving
greater local control and flexibility, and (d) emphasizing adoption of evidence-based
practices. NCLB builds upon on the standards-based reform movement of the 1990s and
requires that all students reach a certain level of proficiency as defined by their state
education system (Chambers & Levin, 2006; C. Scott, 2006; Stecher, Hamilton, &
Gonzalez, 2003). If a local educational agency (LEA) fails to make Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) towards the statewide proficiency goals, they are subject to Program
Improvement (PI) status which can result in corrective action measures and a loss of
federal funding (California Department of Education, 2010i; C. Scott, 2006; Timar,
2006a).
In the next two to three years, educators will likely experience the beginnings of a
new chapter to the standards-based reform movement as evidenced by the recent grant
proposal Race to the Top Fund (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b). When Congress
3
begins to reauthorize the NCLB, federal officials will most likely continue to call for a
policy leading to educational reform (EdSource, 2009c). This movement is not new; in
fact, several authors (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Slavin, 2005; Swanson
& Stevenson, 2002; Toppo, 2008) have traced the origins of a call for reform to the
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) report A Nation at Risk. This
report declared that American schools were in danger of falling behind their international
competitors because of the poor performance of their students (Slavin, 2005). This report
initiated much debate and culminated with standards-based and accountability reform
through the NCLB Act of 2001 (Toppo, 2008).
During this same period of debate, school finance litigation also began to shift
from equity to adequacy models (Clune, 1994). According to Clune (1994), equity in
regards to school finance means equal and implies that each district or school receives the
same amount of funding as its peers within the state. In contrast, adequacy means to be
adequate for a specific purpose, such as student achievement (Clune, 1994). Proponents
of adequacy models argue that it is possible to define what must be done to provide an
effective education for all children and determine what such an education would cost
(Hill, Roza, & Harvey, 2008). Based on this definition and its relationship with
accountability in the form of student performance outcomes and achievement, one cannot
investigate education policy reform without also reviewing its connection with school
finance.
Equity v. Adequacy. According to Hanushek (1997), the investigation into the
effects of school resources on student performance can trace its beginnings to the
4
publication of the Coleman Report (1966). As part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
Coleman Report (1966) was authorized by legislators to provide the legal system further
evidence-based guidance into legal decisions regarding education desegregation and
equity (Gamoran & Long, 2006). Although Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
(1954) initiated the courts active role in education and desegregation by establishing
education as a common good or equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution, it was not until the Coleman Report (1966) that educators experienced
a dramatic drop in school segregation based on equity decisions (Gamoran & Long,
2006). What then followed were a number of additional court decisions that examined
education based on equity; and eventually, now to one that examines education based on
adequacy (Hanushek, 2006a; Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009).
The initial rulings by the federal courts on desegregation concentrated on racial
balance, thus assuming that if both Black or African American and White students
attended the same schools, equity would follow (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). The first
case brought to the Supreme Court to deal solely with the issue of equity was Rodriguez
v. San Antonio (1973). According to Lindseth (2006), this was a landmark case because it
moved equity challenges from the federal courts to the state courts. In this case, the
plaintiffs argued that the quality of education a child receives should not depend on their
residence. In their decision, the Supreme Court cited that there was no provision within
the U.S. Constitution that holds education as a fundamental right, thus leaving the matter
to the states under the Tenth Amendment (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Therefore, the
5
Supreme Court ruled that the Texas funding system based on property taxes was an
appropriate method of funding schools (Rodriguez v. San Antonio, 1973).
What followed were a number of equity lawsuits litigated in the state courts
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Essentially, plaintiffs argued that the funding pie should
be divided more equally among state’s school districts and should not be based on a
student’s place of residence (Coons, Clune, & Sugarman, 1970; Hanushek & Lindseth,
2009). The forerunner case for such an argument was the Serrano v. Priest (1971) case
argued in California courts. To summarize, California’s method for funding public
education was challenged based on disparities between district-to-district funding. In
Serrano v. Priest (1971) the plaintiffs argued that low-income district areas were required
to pay a higher tax rate than that of wealthier districts in order to obtain an equal
education opportunity for their children. The results of this case and other state lawsuits
resulted in legislatures pressured into modifying their education funding formulas to
provide further equalization (National Access Network, 2011). According to Hanushek
and Lindseth (2009), supporters of equity cases assumed that equalization would occur
by leveling up or closing the disparity gaps between low-wealth and high-wealth districts.
As will be further investigated, methods used did not always accomplish this goal, and in
some cases further exacerbated the problem of inequality (Evers & Clopton, 2006;
Hanushek, 1996; McNeil, 2010; Rebell, Wolff, & Yaverbaum, 2010; Timar, 1994, 1996,
2004).
As a result of the court decisions in several equity cases (National Access
Network, 2011), individual school districts faced the possibility of losing funding to
6
lower poverty districts (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). Due to this result, equity cases
began to lose steam in the early 1990’s, and those challenging education funding moved
to adequacy lawsuits (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). According to Hanushek and Lindseth
(2009), adequacy cases were viewed as a winner for all school districts because they did
not require a redistribution of funds. With adequacy based lawsuits and funding models,
the funding pie was typically expanded (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). As one can
imagine, this was very popular among educators, school union leaders, and parents of
school-aged children. This coupled with the standards-based reform movement paved the
way for an onslaught of adequacy studies (Guthrie, 2001; Rebell, 2007).
Adequacy cases differ from equity cases in that they challenge education clauses
within state constitutions and not the equal protection clause. According to Hanushek and
Lindseth (2009), this clause is typically stated in general or vague terms within various
state constitutions. For example, the statement can range from providing “free common
schools” in New York, establishing a “thorough and efficient system” of public schools
in Wyoming, and “encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual,
scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement” in California. Due to the nature of
adequacy suits, courts must decide (1) what level of education is required under the state
constitution, (2) whether the state provides that level of education, and (3) if it doesn’t
provide that level, what should be done to remedy the results (Hanushek & Lindseth,
2009). The results of these cases have led to a variety of approaches in remedying the
adequacy questions within states (Baker, 2005; Baker, Taylor, & Vedlitz, 2008), and thus
7
have led to four dominant approaches to providing an adequate education under state
constitutions.
Four approaches to adequacy. According to Hanushek and Lindseth (2009), the
two questions that educators, policy makers, and the courts continuously grapple with
are: What should funding be spent on in order to achieve the desired results of the public;
and, how much is enough to be considered an adequate amount for education spending?
Given these two questions and the complexities of performing true experimental designs
within the education system, four approaches have emerged to solving the adequacy
question. To date, no single approach is dominant across the country, and each approach
outlined below can produce different base dollar amounts at sometimes significantly
higher levels than currently adopted state funding models (Odden, 2003).
Professional judgment approach. The professional judgment method involves
asking a panel of educators to develop an educational program model that, in their
opinion, would successfully meet a specified set of achievement outcomes (Hanushek &
Lindseth, 2009). The panel identifies the resources required including any extra resources
needed to educate at-risk students (Augenblick, Palaich, & Associates, 2003b; Rebell,
2007). The end result according to Hanushek and Lindseth (2009) is a cost figure based
on a “baskets of resources” approach to meet the desired goals in hopes to maximize
expenditures. The weakness of the approach is that the model is based predominately on
the opinion of professionals, and in most cases is not linked to actual research-based
performance resulting in a variety of models that vary greatly region to region within the
United States (Odden, 2003). California spent considerable time and money pursuing this
8
approach, but the model was later abandoned because it produced costs far in excess of
existing funding levels (Augenblick, Myers, & Anderson, 1997; Chambers, et al., 2007).
Successful school approach. One of the most common methodologies utilized to
determine education adequacy has been the use of the successful schools approach
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007). This process typically begins
with setting some sort of criteria to identify schools or districts that are demonstrating
successes in meeting a specified educational goal. Typically under the successful school
approach model, spending on specialized programs such as special education, low socio-
economic status (SES) students, English learners, arts or music programs are stripped out;
moreover, high and low spending district outliers are also removed from the sample set in
order to determine the base cost of educating students (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). The
major assumption of the successful school approach model is that if an individual school
or a set of schools can meet the achievement standards set forth by the educational
agency, then all schools should be able to obtain the same achievement standards with a
similar base funding level (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Odden, 2003). Criticisms of this
model have included arguments regarding the limitations of the successful schools
approach model to generalize to large populations of schools given the small sample sets,
and arguments to the inappropriateness of factoring out such influential factors as SES or
other at-risk student factors (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Odden, 2003).
Cost functional approach. The cost functional approach uses a regression
analysis model to set the average expenditure level for an average district in a sample set
(Imazeki, 2008; Laine, Greenwald, & Hedges, 1996; Odden, 2003). Like the successful
9
school approach, weighted averages are calculated to determine adjusted spending levels
for at-risk students. According to Hanushek and Lindseth (2009), a criticism regarding
the cost functional approach is the inconsistent and wide variability in the implementation
of the complex regression analysis model. In addition, the approach lacks the specificity
of what educational strategies were most effective in increasing student performance
goals (Odden, 2003).
Evidence-based approach. The evidence-based approach identifies a set of
effective educational procedures based on proven research strategies to deliver an
adequate and comprehensive instructional program for all students at a school site level
(Odden, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008). According to Hanushek and Lindseth (2009), the
model relies on those that implement the approach to review the current research
literature on a variety of education service topics, such as class size, school size, reading
instruction strategies, etc., and then develop a set model based on the services they
determine effective. These models can then be applied district or statewide in
determining base costs for an adequacy model. An argument opposing this methodology
is that the model is designed to maximize expenditures and not student outcomes
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). In addition, evidence-based approaches are difficult to
measure the effectiveness since an entire district or site must adopt the model (Hanushek,
2006b; Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). However, compared to the three counterpart
approaches to adequacy outlined, the evidence-based model’s foundation is based upon
empirical-based and best practices research to drive the approach; therefore, leads to
proven education strategies to guide schools and districts in using their resources more
10
effectively and efficiently (Odden, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008; Picus, Odden, Aportela,
Mangan, & Goetz, 2008; Rebell, 2007). One such approach that can be used as a
framework is the Evidence-Based Model outlined by Odden and Picus (2008).
Statement of the Problem
According to Rebel (2007), judicial scrutiny as to what constitutes an adequate
education, along with a public drive to raise educational standards, has resulted in a
sudden increase in the number of studies aimed at determining appropriate cost model
approaches in determining an adequate education. To date, there is not one dominant or
widely agreed upon approach for determining adequate funding within schools
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009). In addition, current studies have typically been focused at
the large urban school district or state level (Augenblick, Palaich, & Associates, 2003a;
Augenblick, et al., 2003b; Chambers, Taylor, Robinson, Esra, & Shuldt, 2003; B. Cooper,
1993; Guthrie, Calvo, & Smith, 2001; Odden et al., 2007; Odden et al., 2005). In order to
evaluate the effectiveness of the evidence-based approach, more studies should go
beyond these typical large scale quantitative analyses.
Purpose of the Study
Utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework, the
purpose of this study is to examine school level resource allocation at schools in Program
Improvement (PI), yet demonstrated significant growth in their Academic Performance
Index (API). By providing this analysis at the school level, this research study contributes
to the discussion of how an evidence-based approach can help identify effective
educational strategies for improving elementary schools.
11
Research Questions. The following 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 resources at the school and district 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 Odden and Picus’ (2008)
Evidence-Based Model?
Importance of the Study
Given the budgetary woes that were outlined almost daily within our newspapers
regarding educational funding (Blume, 2010; Dillon, 2010; EdBrief, 2010; EdSource,
2010e; Mazzei & McGrory, 2010; McCarthy, 2010; McNeil, 2010; Meyer & Hubbard,
2010; Sanders, 2010; Yamamura, 2011), it has become critical to examine the efficiency
and efficacy of our school resource allocations. In fact, even with the enhanced scrutiny
and incentive based structures such as Title I and other categorical grants, schools
continue to exhibit inefficiency in their operations and lack a strong relationship between
school resources and student performance (Hanushek, 1997). For example, California’s
2009-2010 education budget of $56.7 billion could hardly have been considered
insignificant (Office of the Secretary of Education, 2010). Nevertheless, when funding
12
was broken down by per-pupil spending, California funded education well below the
national average, paid its teachers among the best when factored for cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA), yet ranked among the worst on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) in the United Sates (EdSource, 2007, 2008, 2009b, 2009c;
National Center for Education Statistics, 2010b).
By using the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008), this study seeks to
provide local educators and state policy makers a better understanding of how previously
low-performing schools can utilize their resources effectively to institute change. Further,
this research study builds upon two years’ worth of resource allocation studies already
conducted at the University of Southern California, and is 1 of 12 thematic studies that
took place in the autumn of 2010. It is the intent of this researcher to not only provide
district educators in California a practical guide on how to more efficiently utilize
resources at the local level, but also contribute to the academic literature regarding
educational resource allocation models.
Research Design
The study design implemented to investigate the research questions above is a
multiple methods, case study design, including a combination of qualitative and
quantitative data (Morse, 2003; Patton, 2002). Data was obtained from California
Department of Education (2010d) in order to identify five elementary schools within a
suburban Southern California County, that during the 2008-2009 academic year were
identified as in Program Improvement yet demonstrated a significant gain in their API
score. Due to the studies multiple methods, case study approach and use of interviews as
13
a primary source of information, this study relied upon the honesty of the participants to
portray an accurate picture of resource allocation and instructional strategies being
implemented at the individual school level. Based on these assumptions, there were four
limitations and three delimitations identified with this study.
Limitations. As with all research, this study has limitations. Due to the small
sample size of the study, the findings cannot be generalized to many other schools or
student populations. Second, the study relied on selection criteria and events that
occurred several months prior to the implementation of data collection. Therefore, it is
difficult to determine if success growth in API was due to the allocation models being
described by the school site principals, or other factors beyond the schools’ control.
Third, due to individual district restrictions regarding research access, not all of the
schools that met the original selection criteria within the suburban Southern California
County were examined. Finally, the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008)
framework utilized for this study assumes site level control of resource allocation.
However, due to the variation of district control regarding funding resources, what may
actually have been studied was district level allocation of resources and not the school
site level as intended.
Delimitations. Due to the limitations previously described, the following
systematic investigations were undertaken as part of this research study. Given the
limited resources of the researcher, a sample size was not selected outside the suburban
Southern California County area. Second, due to time constraints, a detailed formative
evaluation of the particular instructional programs was not investigated. Finally, there
14
was not an analysis conducted to verify if the growth demonstrated by the schools was
statistically significant when compared to similar schools within California.
Definitions
1. Academic Performance Index (API): A number designated by California
Department of Education (2009d) that ranges from 200 to 1000 and is calculated
from student results on statewide assessments. California has set a target score of
800 for all schools to meet, and those that do not achieve a score of 800 are
required to meet annual growth targets set forth by the state.
2. Add-ons: A funding source that is typically considered as adding to the local
education agencies (LEAs) general purpose revenue outside of local property
taxes and state aid (Timar, 2006b).
3. Adequacy: Framed and interpreted within each individual state constitution,
adequate educational funding is defined as the level of funding that would allow
each LEA to provide a range of instructional strategies and educational programs
so each student is afforded an equal opportunity to achieve to the state’s education
performance standards (Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008).
4. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A report required by the federal NCLB Act and
is used to measure how well individual schools and districts are doing in meeting
the following requirements: (a) student participation rates on statewide tests; (b)
percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or above in English-language
arts and mathematics on statewide tests; (c) in California only, API growth; and
(d) graduation rate (California Department of Education, 2009d, 2010a).
15
5. Base Revenue Limits: Is the amount of general purpose funding per average daily
attendance (ADA) that a LEA receives in state aid and local property taxes to pay
for the basic cost of educating a student regardless of special classifications or
categories (EdSource, 2009a). In California, the base revenue limit equals the
state aid to the LEA plus local property tax collected by the LEA (Timar, 2006b).
6. California Standards Tests (CSTs): A series of tests that measure students’
achievement of California’s content standards in the areas of English-language
arts, mathematics, science, and history-social sciences (California Department of
Education, 2009c).
7. Categorical Funding: Funds that are targeted to support specific groups or class of
students, such as students with special needs, low-income, or English learners.
There are four types of categorically funded programs: entitlement, incentive,
discretionary grants, and mandated cost reimbursement (EdSource, 2010a; Timar,
2006b).
8. Comprehensive School Reform: A systematic approach in providing evidence-
based strategies and methods for learning, teaching, and school management that
aligns its focus on helping students meet state standards through professional
development, technical assistance, and formative evaluation (U.S. Department of
Education, 2004).
16
9. Equity: Within education, the term is used to measure (1) horizontal equity, or the
equal access of education from individual to individual; and (2) vertical equity, or
the appropriate treatment of each individual based on their unique needs (Bhatt &
Wraight, 2009).
10. Evidence-Based Model: An educational funding approach based on identifying
individual, school-based programs and educational strategies that research has
shown to improve student learning (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
11. Excess Taxes: Considered an add-on in California, LEAs are allowed to keep any
excess taxes that they generate beyond their revenue limits and is calculated by
determining the difference between a LEAs revenue limit and property tax
revenues (Timar, 2006b).
12. Expenditures: For elementary and secondary schools, all charges incurred, both
paid and unpaid and debt, applied to the current fiscal year (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2010a). Expenditure types include current expenditures,
instructional expenditures, and expenditures per student.
13. General Purpose Funding: Money that is granted to school districts for general
purposes in which districts have discretion on how to spend as they see fit for the
day-to-day operation of schools (EdSource, 2010b). In California, general purpose
funding equals the base revenue limits plus revenue limit add-ons plus excess
local property taxes (Timar, 2006b).
17
14. Program Improvement (PI): A formal designation required under NCLB for Title
I funded LEAs and schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years
(California Department of Education, 2010i). While a LEA or school is under PI
status, they are obligated to implement certain federal and state requirements.
15. Socio-economic Status (SES): A measure of an individual or family's relative
economic and social ranking (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010a)
16. Title I: A federal program that provides financial assistance to LEAs and schools
with high numbers and percentages of low-socioeconomic children in order to
help all children meet state adopted academic standards (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010a).
18
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
Linking a funding structure to an education system that can teach nearly all
students to high performance levels has been a long-time goal for educators (Odden &
Picus, 2008). This chapter seeks to further provide insight into how resources are
allocated within California schools and how these resources may be utilized using an
evidence-based approach as a framework to help identify effective educational strategies
for improving student performance. The literature is synthesized to provide an orientation
to the following three topics: (1) educational resource allocation within California, (2)
evidence-based strategies for using educational resources more effectively, and (3) the
use of an evidence-based model to guide effective resource use.
California Educational Resource Allocation
One cannot investigate education policy reform within California without
reviewing its connection with school finance. California’s 2009-2010 education budget of
$66.7 billion would be considered by most as an adequate amount to allocate to
educational resources (California Department of Education, 2010f). However, several
researchers (W. Brown, 2010; Loeb, Bryk, et al., 2007; Picus, 2006; Weston, 2010a)
continue to argue that funding within California is neither adequate nor equitable. To
understand these positions one must first look at the history of educational finance within
California to understand the current climate.
History of funding. Prior to 1970, California school revenues were based
primarily on local property taxes. As California grew and property values increased, local
governments around the state regularly raised taxes (California Coalition for Fair School
19
Finance, 1979; EdSource, 2009b; Kirst, 2006; Lipson & Lavin, 1980). According to Kirst
(2006), this continued rise in property taxes spurred individuals to seek property-tax
relief; as a result, state politicians came up with a plan called a base revenue limit which
would freeze the amount that each local educational agency LEA could take in per pupil
for general expenditures. A revenue limit is the amount of general purpose money
districts could receive, based on per pupil average daily attendance (ADA), from a
combination of state taxes and local property taxes; furthermore, this was established
based on what each district spent on general education programs in 1972 (Ed-Data, 2010;
EdSource, 2009a). Originally, revenue limits were to create a more equal distribution of
monies for schools but it appeared to be flawed from the outset due to the variable and
complex historical spending patterns that existed within California (Loeb, Bryk, et al.,
2007). This concept of revenue limits helped fuel the political and legal fires regarding
educational equity, taxation limits, and later educational adequacy.
Serrano v. Priest. One of the early influences regarding educational equity was
the Serrano v. Priest (1971) case argued in California courts. In 1971, due to the reliance
on property tax values, expenditures among California districts varied widely due to tax
rates and property values (Kirst, 2006; Loeb, Grissom, & Strunk, 2007). Because of these
disparities, the plaintiffs in the case argued that low-income district areas were actually
required to pay a higher tax rate than that of wealthier districts in order to obtain an equal
education opportunity for their children. This cases decision in 1976 ultimately forced
California legislators to revisit their revenue limit spending formulas. According to Kirst
(2006), what resulted was a mandate to force equalization through adjusting LEA
20
revenue limits by increasing limits for low-spending districts faster than for high-
spending districts so that the equity gap between the two could close over time. However
before the state could equalize general purpose funding, voters passed Proposition 13.
Proposition 13. In June of 1978, voters revolted at property tax rates and passed
with a two to one margin to amend the California Constitution to limit property taxes and
require a two-thirds majority vote in both legislative houses for any future tax rate
increases (Lipson & Lavin, 1980). Proposition 13 limited the property tax rate to one
percent of the assessed value and capped any increases in assessed value to two
percentage points (EdSource, 2009b). In addition, the two-thirds majority vote
requirement to raise any tax rates limited the power of the legislature to seek new revenue
sources. The result of this provision wiped out more than half of the local property tax
revenues in California, as well as the legislature’s plan to equalize spending for education
(EdSource, 2009b; Kirst, 2006; Lipson & Lavin, 1980). According to Lipson and Lavin
(1980) a number of bailout measures and legal fights followed. In 1978 through state
legislation (SB 154), the state bailed out local school districts and replaced most of the
lost property tax dollars with money from the state budget. This marked a major turning
point in how California funds its schools and eliminated local control over most school
funding (California Coalition for Fair School Finance, 1979; EdSource, 2009b; Kirst,
2006; Lipson & Lavin, 1980; Rebell, 2007).
Proposition 98. After the passage of Proposition 13, the state legislature
possessed the majority of control as to how much money schools would get and how
those funds should be used (EdSource, 2009a, 2010f; Timar, 2004). In an attempt to
21
ensure that schools continued to receive the same proportion of funding as they had in the
past, California voters again went to the ballot box. In 1988 voters passed Proposition 98,
which assigned to K-12 and community colleges a constitutionally protected portion of
the state budget by guaranteeing a minimum level of funding (Timar, 2004, 2006b).
According to Timar (2004), the intent of Proposition 98 was to provide stability and
predictability to educational funding year to year because 40 percent of general state
revenues was to go to K-12 and community college education. However, what actually
occurred was a reshaping of the state budget by the legislature into a tool to drive
education policy in ways the legislators considered would benefit their own constituents
(Timar, 2004).
Williams, et al. v. California. Originally filed in 2000, the Williams v. California
(2000) lawsuit argued that the state of California had denied thousands of students the
basic tools necessary for their education (EdSource, 2010d). In 2004, the state settled the
case and agreed to provide accountability measures, extra financial support, and other
help for low-performing schools by enacting a series of five legislative bills to cover a
wide variety of issues including school facilities, teacher quality, and instructional
materials (EdSource, 2010c). This case raised questions about how the state could hold
schools accountable to high standards without providing adequate inputs to support
schools in reaching proficiency goals (Hatami, 2006). According to Hatami (2006), the
settlement was by no means a remedy to this issue; but it did frame the current context
for the debate of what is deemed an adequate education in California (Chambers &
Levin, 2006; Hatami, 2006; Timar, 2002).
22
Robles-Wong, et al. v. State of California. In May of 2010, California followed
the pattern of a number of other states regarding educational adequacy lawsuits
(Hanushek, 2006a; Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009) when plaintiffs filed suit contending that
California fails to align funding with its academic requirements and expectations
(National Access Network, 2011; Weston, 2010b). According to the Robles-Wong v.
California (2010) lawsuit, education has been defined as a fundamental right under the
California Constitution which delineates this right through the adoption of academic
content standards (California School Finance, 2010). The plaintiffs allege that due to the
inefficiencies and outdated education funding system in California, the ability of school
districts to provide an equal opportunity education program to all students has been
undermined and is inadequate (Legislative Analyst's Office, 2010b; Petersen, 2010). The
lawsuit seeks to declare that California’s school finance system is unconstitutional and
proposes an injunction requiring the legislature to develop and implement a constitutional
finance system that supports the prescribed education program and accounts for the
learning of all students (California School Finance, 2010). The current Robles-Wong v.
California (2010) lawsuit gives California the opportunity to take stock of its goals for
students and determine how much those goals will cost (Weston, 2010b).
Current funding system. As previously discussed, the level of funding the state
must provide in a given year is predetermined. However, how those funds are allocated
and ultimately used varies based on both categorical restrictions and individual districts
use (EdSource, 2009a; Loeb, Bryk, et al., 2007; Timar, 2006b). To understand the
relationship of today’s funding sources to the local school site distribution, it is helpful to
23
link that connection through a visual representation. Figure 2.1 demonstrates how federal,
state, parcel taxes, and other miscellaneous dollars are distributed to LEAs for categorical
and general purpose. As of January 2009, funding sources for education within California
were comprised of the following categories: 10 percent provided by the federal
government, 60 percent from state generated taxes, 23 percent from property taxes, 2
percent from the state lottery, and 5 percent from other miscellaneous sources such as
parcel taxes (EdSource, 2009a). The column on the right of Figure 2.1 exhibits that about
two-thirds of the money allocated is for general purposes and almost one-third is intended
for categorical funding including special education.
Figure 2.1: California’s School Finance System
Note: About a third of the state’s and all federal funding are reserved for categorical programs. Adapted
from The basics of California’s school finance system by EdSource (2009a), pp. 1. Copyright 2008 by
EdSource. Adapted with permission.
24
General purpose funding. Today, the general purpose funding for California is
constructed on the base revenue limits plus any revenue limit add-ons and excess local
property taxes (Timar, 2006b). The base revenue limit is the principal component of the
school funding model and is the general purpose funding based on average daily
attendance (ADA) that a district receives in state and local property taxes (Timar, 2006b).
Due to Proposition 98, this base revenue limit has shifted from being based on the real
cost of providing education services to one that is based on the availability of state
revenue (Timar, 2004). According to the Office of the Secretary of Education (2010), the
general fund makes up approximately 70 percent of the revenue districts receive and is
used for operating expenditures such as employee salaries, supplies, textbooks, and
maintenance. Although the general fund is the largest distribution, it accounts for only a
portion of all spending (Loeb, Grissom, et al., 2007).
Categorical funding. The remaining 30 percent of district revenues comes from
federal and state categorical programs (Office of the Secretary of Education, 2010). The
use of categorical programs is not new to California. Since the results of Serrano v. Priest
(1971) there has been a dramatic shift in funding between restricted and unrestricted
funds due to ideological divisions between proponents and opponents of compensatory
aid for low-income students (Timar, 2004). The ideological differences between
Democrats and Republicans regarding government involvement in education are well
documented (DeBray-Pelot & McGuinn, 2009; J. Scott, Lubienski, & DeBray-Pelot,
2009; Sunderman, 2010; Sunderman & Kim, 2007). However, one well known political
compromise between the two parties which led to further categorical expansion was K-3
25
Class Size Reduction (CSR) (Hanushek, 1999). With a surplus of revenues, policy
makers allocated almost $1.8 billion to CSR (EdSource, 2007). Although CSR was sold
publicly as improving instruction, the policy battle behind the scenes was based on how
to keep these surpluses of dollars from going directly into teacher salaries (Timar, 2004).
According to Timar (2004), it has been this desire to keep additional dollars from going
to teachers’ salaries that has been largely responsible for the legislative targeting of
school funding into protected categorical programs.
There are four primary types of categorical programs in California: (1)
entitlement programs that typically serve students who fall into certain classifications, (2)
incentive programs that are used to encourage districts to participate in a particular
program that the legislature deems important, (3) discretionary grants which are typically
applied for by individual districts to implement specific program, and (4) a mandated cost
reimbursement which is designed to reimburse the districts for providing a program that
has been mandated by state law or executive order (Timar, 2006b). One would think that
any additional funding would be welcomed by educators. However, because of the
structure of the categorical programs outlined above, researchers (Grubb, et al., 2004;
Timar, 2006b) suggest that these programs actually work to compartmentalize schools
rather than allow for a whole school-based effort to improve student learning.
Special education funding. In terms of resource allocations for special education,
California is unique and requires all LEAs to participate in what is called a special
education local plan area (SELPA). There are two types of SELPA governance structures
implemented within California, multi-district and single-district SELPAs. A multi-district
26
SELPA consists of a group of LEAs, typically located in the same geographic location
that pulls resources together to assure a quality educational program for students with
disabilities. Under the current California Education Code, a single-district SELPA
consists of a single LEA and the governance board is the current acting school board of
the LEA.
One of the primary roles of the SELPA is to ensure that students with disabilities
receive regionalized services and programs to meet the unique needs of the individuals. It
is the obligation of the SELPA to provide guidance on how LEAs cooperate to provide
these services, including staffing ratios of programs, service delivery models, non-public
schools, or non-public agencies. On average, within the state of California approximately
30 percent of the cost of special education is supplemented from other local sources or
budgets, also known as encroachment (EdSource, 2009e; El Dorado County Office of
Education, 2009). Although not the primary focus of this study, it is important to have
knowledge of the unique issues regarding special education within California so that
there is a greater understanding of how students with disabilities fit into a school-based
allocation model.
Using Educational Resources More Effectively
As cited above, California is under immense pressure to finance education at both
legally and politically adequate levels. Given the financial resource constraints outlined,
how does one go about reaching educational adequacy? In fact, the challenge is not
identifying how schools spend educational dollars to improve student performance, but
rather how those multiple factors influence the decision to put precious resource dollars
27
to use relative to school improvement (Adams, 1994). According to Karoly (2001),
educators need to invest in what has proven to demonstrate success. Therefore, it is
important to review effective evidence-based strategies that have led to improvements in
student performance. Due to the vastness of the research in this area, a framework by
Odden and Archibald (2009) on how to double student performance was adapted and
used to synthesize the literature.
According to Odden (2009), in order to implement any powerful education
improvement strategy, the system must utilize a set of core research-based strategies. A
review of the research literature by Odden and Archibald (2009) outlined ten core
elements that have constituted effective educational change. These strategies have been
drawn from a number of researchers and studies. As previously discussed, these strategies
are used as a framework to discuss the literature as it relates to effective resource
allocation in our elementary schools. In order to have any chance at achieving the goals
of educational reform, the educational system must become more productive through
resource reallocation (Odden & Archibald, 2000a). For this study, the following six
evidence-based strategies have been used to frame effective resource allocation in
elementary schools: (1) setting high expectations for student learning, (2) data-based
decision making, (3) professional development, (4) effective instruction, (5) extend
learning opportunities for struggling learners, and (6) collaborative and distributive
leadership.
Setting high expectations for student learning. The traditional education system
was founded and developed based on the premise that natural ability was the determining
28
factor for learning, not effort (Resnick, 1995). However as research in the field of
cognitive sciences further developed understanding of the human brain, psychologists
such as Horn and Cattell (1966) demonstrated that hundreds of sub-set quotients which
include both innate and experiential information combine together to make up the overall
intelligent quotient (IQ). Therefore, students’ intelligence and their ability to learn can be
affected by their experiential interactions with other students, their parents, teachers, and
ancillary staff. Due to these experiential factors, teacher and school expectations of
students have a tremendous effect on student achievement (Cotton, 1989; Resnick, 2005).
Therefore, the research as it pertains to educational organizations involvement in
encouraging high expectations for students must be considered.
Goal Setting. Setting high expectations for students to achieve begins with
establishing challenging goals and learning objectives for students (Marzano, 2003). Goal
setting has become a common practice for most business, charitable, and educational
organizations. Most school employees understand the concept of goal setting but very
few educational organizations actually implement the strategy effectively (Datnow, 2005;
DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006; Mac Iver & Farley, 2003; The Education Trust,
2005a, 2005b). Marzano’s review of research on learning (2003) suggests that setting
clear learning objectives with high expectations for students resulted in significantly
higher achievement scores. Marzano (2003) argues that to raise expectations of students,
schools need to establish challenging goals, have specific goals for individual students,
and provide timely feedback based on specific learning objectives. A practice supported
29
by the research to accomplish these effectively is using data as a foundation for
examining student performance and schoolwide reform (R. Johnson, 2002).
Data-based decision making. As defined by R. Johnson (2002), equity is about
shaping policies and practices that insist on high expectations for all students to achieve
at the same standard, regardless of race, income, language, or other factors. In order to
accomplish this task, organizational data must be constantly examined and questioned as
to what the data means as it relates to policies and practices for students. The research
indicates that this process is typically only effective if coupled with a systematic reform
strategy on how to utilize data (Datnow, Park, & Wholstetter, 2007; Feldman, Lucey,
Goodrich, & Frazee, 2003; Fullan, 2003, 2005a, 2007; R. Johnson, 2002; Mohrman,
1994). Several researchers have also concluded that school-level data can be instrumental
in establishing appropriate and adequate resource levels needed to educate students with
different needs to high standards (Busch & Odden, 1997). Further, districts that make
decisions based on data instead of instinct have typically demonstrated improvements in
instruction (D. L. Duke, 2006; Goertz & Duffy, 1999; Mac Iver & Farley, 2003).
Continuous improvement. Making a difference takes time and requires a
commitment from top-level leadership (Mac Iver & Farley, 2003). Gathering and
examining data is just a minor step in making data-driven decision making. Educators
who desire improvement in student outcomes through data-based decisions must take on
the challenge of a whole systems change as it relates to examining data (R. Johnson,
2002). As demonstrated by the literature (Datnow, et al., 2007; DuFour, et al., 2006;
Supovitz & Taylor, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003), high performing schools are
30
immersed in a culture of continuous improvement which utilize multiple strategies to
make decisions based on data rather than on instinct. Based on the research by Datnow et
al. (2007), R. Johnson (2002), Marzano (2003), and McIntire (2005), the following are
recommended best practices: (1) identify specified goals and learning objectives, (2)
identify an infrastructure and data mining the correct data, (3) motivate reform by
identifying and building dissatisfaction, (4) build capacity and data leadership teams, and
(5) examine and analyze both formative and summative assessment to make decisions.
Formative assessment. With the advent of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
of 2001, districts and schools are required to use summative assessments when making
decisions regarding student learning outcomes. However, the literature implies that best
practices should include multiple measures, including formative, interim, and summative
assessments so that teachers can look for patterns (R. Johnson, 2002; McIntire, 2005).
Formative assessment is considered one of the most efficient ways to improve
educational outcomes so long as the individual tests emulate those of the high-stake state
assessments (McIntire, 2005). Without this initial step, feedback based on the data has no
meaning in data-based decision making (Datnow, et al., 2007; Marzano, 2003). Marzano
(2003) indicates that in order for feedback to be effective it must be provided in a timely
manner, throughout the learning day, and be specific to the content being learned. The
end-of-the-year summative and the end-of-the chapter interim assessments that many
schools rely on lack these three important criteria. In fact, simply treating assessment as a
series of more frequent mini-assessment misses the point about its value to learning
(Heritage, 2010; Perie, Marion, & Gong, 2009). According to a review of the research by
31
Black and William (1998), effective formative assessment involves teachers making
adjustments to teaching and learning in response to assessment evidence, students
receiving feedback about their learning with advice on what they can do to improve, and
students actively participating in the process through self-assessment. In order for
teachers and principals to effectively implement these outlined strategies, educators
should account for time and training during the school year for on-going professional
development.
Professional development. According to Odden (2009), providing systematic,
intensive, and ongoing professional development is a key strategy to improving student
performance in schools. As discussed by Datnow (2005), any change is only considered
institutionalized after it becomes second nature to the staff and is no longer thought of as
a special project or an effort for improvement. Therefore, staff development programs
should be systematic and attempt to bring about change: change in the classroom, change
in beliefs and attitudes, and change in learning outcomes (Elmore & Burney, 1999;
Guskey, 1986; Little, 1993; Smylie, 1996; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). In addition,
educational change depends on what teachers do and think; educational leaders should
understand there are a lot of pressures on teachers, and they must balance an approach of
pressure and providing skills (Fullan, 2007). A review of the literature by Odden and
Archibald (2009) has led to the identification of six structural features required of all
professional development programs:
32
1. Professional development should be school-based, job embedded, and focused
on the curriculum over an ongoing period of time (Darling-Hammond &
McLaughlin, 1999; Elmore & Burney, 1999).
2. The duration of the professional development cannot be a one-time workshop
and should take place over at least 100 hours, with some researchers
recommending closer to 200 hours (Birman, et al., 2000; Corcoran, 1995;
Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002; Supovitz & Turner, 2000).
3. Research suggests (Birman, et al., 2000; Elmore, 2002) that effective
professional development should be organized to include collective
participation and should be organized to include the entire faculty.
4. Effective professional development should have a content focus which leads
to teachers expanding their own content knowledge as well as understanding
how students learn that particular content (Corcoran, 1995; Darling-Hammond
& McLaughlin, 1999; Elmore, 2002).
5. The professional development should provide teachers the opportunity to
actively engage in the meaningful analysis of teaching and learning (Birman,
et al., 2000; Corcoran, 1995).
6. The professional development should be clearly aligned with key parts of the
educational system such as student content, performance standards, school or
district goals, and the development of a professional community (Corcoran,
1995; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999; Desimone, Porter, Birman,
Garet, & Yoon, 2002).
33
Given these six best practice structural features regarding professional
development, the research must be examined to determine how effective professional
development can be implemented given limited resources. A review of the literature
(Odden, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008) suggests three effective strategies.
Pupil-free days. According to Odden (2009), student free days can be
accomplished in two ways: (1) hire substitute teachers and provide professional
development during the regular school year, or (2) provide pupil-free days by extending
the school year for teachers and provide training prior to school starting. Whatever the
decision, each has perceived potential benefits and drawbacks but the cost remains
relatively the same (Archibald & Gallagher, 2002; Gallagher, 2002; Miles, Odden,
Fermanich, Archibald, & Gallagher, 2004; Odden, 2009; Odden, Archibald, Fermanich,
& Gallagher, 2002).
Instructional coaches. According to Miles et al. (2004), some of the most
effective professional development activities are when they relate directly to the
instructional content materials teachers use and take place in their own schools and
classrooms with coaching and ongoing feedback. The concept of teachers as trainers is
not new and has been explored by several researchers prior to 1980 (Joyce & Showers,
2002). According to Joyce and Showers (2002), since 1980 the term coaching and
professional development have become inseparable, and they have outlined numerous
evidence-based studies which demonstrate coaches effectiveness. However prior to
putting coaches into the classroom, the constant cycle of attacking teachers and trying to
fix what is wrong should be abandoned (Knight, 2006). According to Knight (2006),
34
schools must (1) provide coaches sufficient time to work with teachers, (2) continue to
use proven research-based interventions, (3) allow coaches to build trust with teachers as
well as principles, and (4) provide on-going professional development to our coaches as
well.
Collaborative time during the regular school day. In comparing successful high
achieving schools, one common attribute to their professional development is that they
build time for professional learning into the teachers’ workday (Wei, Darling-Hammond,
Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). Professional development within the regular
school day can take on several different forms. As previously discussed, utilizing
instructional coaches for professional development is an effective strategy. However, if
time is not carved out of the regular school day to provide teachers time to review
formative and summative assessments with instructional coaches the strategy can be
somewhat ineffective (D. Smith, Wilson, & Corbett, 2009). Providing time during the
school day for teachers to meet and collaborate strengthens a shared responsibility in
providing effective instruction, emphasizes intervention with at-risk students, and
reinforces distributed leadership (DuFour, et al., 2006; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond,
2001).
Effective instruction. According to Elmore (2003), schools tend to search for
short-term solutions when responding to requests for accountability by policymakers.
This is because at its core accountability is a contractual relationship between two parties
that has rewards and punishments based on these short-term goals (Hentschke &
Wohlstetter, 2004). However, it is only through system-wide decisions and initiatives that
35
are based on long-term, curriculum-based solutions in which change can be effective
(Elmore, 2003; Marzano, 2003). The ideology behind the standards-based reform
movement is that the path to raising academic achievement for all students is through
effective instruction (Birman, et al., 2000; Odden & Archibald, 2000b). Curriculum and
instruction can be thought of as all possible learning opportunities provided by a school
or community (Marzano, 2003). Therefore, learning is influenced by the values and
experiences of both students and teachers (Langer, 1999). With such a large
encompassing net, how a school district addresses learning cannot be left to chance or to
be shouldered by a single individual.
According to Marzano (2003), many breakdowns in student learning can be
attributed to poor classroom curriculum design. A major cause of this breakdown is that
students lack the opportunity to learn the content that is expected of them in the
classroom setting (Marzano, 2003). The research suggests (Langer, 1999; Marzano, 2003;
Togneri & Anderson, 2003) that an effective system-wide approach to curriculum and
learning leads to an increase in student achievement. Combining the research by Marzano
(2003) and Langer (1999), best practices adopted by a district and implemented at the
school site level should include: (1) clearly stated learning objectives for each lesson or
course, (2) multiple exposure of skills and knowledge which are then repeatedly
introduced in a variety of lessons across a variety of curricular areas, and (3) structured
learning that leads to transfer of knowledge through strategies for thinking.
Gradual Release of Responsibility. One model that encompasses all three best
practices is the Gradual Release of Responsibility model outlined by Fisher and Frey
36
(2007, 2008). According to Fisher and Frey (2007), learners require a gradual increase of
responsibility. Too often, instructors rely on independent work when what is really
required is modeling and scaffolding (Fisher & Frey, 2007). By modeling and
scaffolding, the teacher moves from assuming all the responsibility in performing an
academic task to one in which the students assume the responsibility (N. K. Duke &
Pearson, 2002; Fisher & Frey, 2007, 2008; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). According to
Pearson and Gallagher (1983), (1) a teacher must model the task first while students
observe and listen; (2) the teacher should model the task again while the students join in
by asking questions or interacting; (3) the teacher then should have the students practice
the task while the teacher provides detailed feedback; and finally (4) the students should
do it while the teacher only evaluates and monitors.
Response to Intervention. An additional tool used to evaluate the effectiveness of
instruction is the Response to Intervention (RtI) model. Although most notably associated
with special education, the concept of RtI is not new to the education system. RtI is about
providing good teaching, evaluating how the instruction is working, and then making
adjustments based on these assessments (D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Gibbs, 2009; Sprague,
2006). Therefore, when educators speak about implementing an RtI program at their
school site, it should not be thought of as specific instructional program, curriculum, or
intervention (Tilly, 2006). According to Gibbs (2009) and Tilly (2006), RtI should be
thought of as a process in which instructional interventions are identified based on
research-based findings and used as a framework for school programs in the areas of
curriculum, instruction, and behavior. In summary, teachers and teaching strategies do
37
matter (Odden, Borman, & Fermanich, 2004; Ripley, 2010). However, there are times
when even the most effective teachers and strategies can fall short in educating certain
populations of students in a traditional manner (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009;
The Education Trust, 2005a). Therefore educators must account for additional evidence-
based strategies to ensure that all students are given the opportunity to learn at proficient
levels (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Extend learning opportunities for struggling students. Given the historical
concerns of educating individuals with disabilities, pupils who come from a low
socioeconomic background, and those who must acquire English as their second
language, there will always be a group of students that schools must account for that will
require additional supports to learn. The standards-based reform movement has also
reinforced the investigation of successful strategies to extend learning opportunities for
all struggling students (Supovitz & Taylor, 2003). As previously discussed, using time
efficiently and effectively to increase the quality of instruction is of particular benefit to
all students. One such strategy often discussed is extending learning time for struggling
learners. According to Silva (2007), the logic that more time should result in more
learning and better student performance (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999) seems
straightforward; however, how extended learning is implemented does make a difference
(Gabrieli, 2010). Because extending learning opportunities often means increasing the
length of the school day or providing costly afterschool programs, the politics and cost
make them a tough sell (Silva, 2007). Two extended learning opportunities that have
38
been proven successful through previous research studies are tutoring and extended-year
programs.
Tutoring. According to several researchers (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982;
Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 2000; L. S. Fuchs et al., 2005; Shanahan, 1998;
Shanahan & Barr, 1995; Wasik & Slavin, 1993), individual and small-group tutoring is
one of the most effective but also the most resource intensive extra-help strategies (D.
Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Odden & Picus, 2008). A review of the research by Odden and
Picus (2008) indicates that the impact of tutoring programs does depend on how they are
structured. According to Odden (2009), the strategy is to intervene quickly, intensively,
and embed the intervention within the program for students struggling over a concept.
Additional research indicates that not only should the program be embedded within the
school day, but there should also be alignment between what tutors do and the regular
instructional program (L. S. Fuchs, et al., 2005; Mantzicopoulos, Morrison, Stone, &
Setrakian, 1992; Paterson & Elliott, 2006; Wasik, 1998; Wheldall, Colmar, Wenban-
Smith, & Morgan, 1992). Further, it is recommended that tutors be trained in specific
tutoring strategies (Wasik, 1998; Wasik & Slavin, 1993), and it is suggested that
professional teachers be used as tutors (Cox & Hopkins, 2006; L. S. Fuchs, et al., 2005;
Gaustad, 1992; Iversen & Tunmer, 1993; Pinnell, 1989; Pinnell, Fried, & Estice, 1990;
Shanahan & Barr, 1995). Although an effective intervention, tutoring can be very
resource intensive and the amount of time recommended by many of the programs may
not be feasibly allocated within a traditional school day (Odden & Picus, 2008).
39
Therefore, educators may need to turn to strategies beyond the regular school day and
school year.
Extended-year programs. As early as 1994, researchers were urging school
districts to develop school calendars that acknowledged differences in student learning
which reflected a growing concern about the number of instructional days provided to
students, especially students at risk for academic failure (National Education Commission
on Time and Learning, 1994). In fact, summer breaks have a larger negative impact on at-
risk children’s reading and mathematics achievement (H. Cooper, Nye, Charlton,
Lindsay, & Greathouse, 1996; Krueger, 2003). So long as the program has a clear
academic focus, a strategy that research demonstrates to be effective at all levels is
summer school (H. Cooper, Charlton, Valentine, Muhlenbruck, & Borman, 2000; Odden
& Archibald, 2009). Based on the research, Borman and Dowling (2006), emphasize the
following effective components to summer school at the elementary level: (a) small
group or individualized instruction, (b) early intervention during the primary grades, (c)
parent involvement and participation, (d) monitoring to ensure that instruction is being
delivered as prescribed, and (e) monitoring student attendance. Summer programs that
include these elements hold the most promise for seeking to improve achievement of at-
risk students (Odden & Archibald, 2009). However, without effective leadership and
collaboration amongst educational staff to guide the implementation of these strategies,
one may not experience the positive effects of such an approach (Marzano, 2003;
Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
40
Collaborative and distributed leadership. Effective leadership as it relates to
change in the educational system has been defined in numerous ways (Bolman & Deal,
1994, 2003). According to Bolman and Deal (1994), leadership is not the same as
management, leadership does not have to be positional, and leadership involves
intangible human qualities that take into account the symbolic and political climate of the
organization. This framework of leadership should be considered at both the
administrative and collective staff level when implementing change or instructional
leadership.
Administrative leadership. A review of the literature indicates that principals
contribute a measurable indirect influence on school effectiveness and student
achievement (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). According to Hallinger and Heck (2003),
effective principals spend more time providing direct classroom supervision and support
to teachers, which includes working with teachers to coordinate the school’s instructional
program, solving problems, and helping secure additional resources. The principal of the
future must be attuned to the big picture; furthermore, they must also be a sophisticated
conceptual thinker who transforms the organization through their interactions with people
and teams (Fullan, 2001). Principals in most schools are typically thought of as the
instructional leaders of the organization; however, that term may be too narrow of a
definition for principals (Fullan, 2002). According to Fullan (2002), effective leaders that
implement systems change in an effective educational system should poses five key
traits: (1) moral purpose, (2) an understanding of the change process, (3) the ability to
improve relationships, (4) knowledge creation and sharing, and (5) coherence making. In
41
order to sustain change, principals must continue to develop the social environment,
emphasize the contextual learning, cultivate additional leaders, and enhance teaching.
Part of this process is building a collegial environment.
Collegiality and professionalism are two critical attributes of leadership identified
by Marzano (2003) that shape an organizational climate. The manner in which
administrative leadership facilitates openly sharing failures and mistakes in combination
with constructively analyzing practices and procedures leads to overall staff collegiality
(Marzano, 2003). When it comes to implementing suggested changes, this can be
considered a major hurdle for the organization to surmount. In order to be successful in
these processes, principals must remember that leadership must go beyond management.
It is recommended that effective leaders broaden their focus of learning and center on the
well-being of all students (Hancock & Lamendola, 2005).
Collective staff leadership. Leadership is not synonymous with assigned positions
(Bolman & Deal, 1994, 2003). Therefore, change does not have to be led by the principal
and should involve engaging teachers in the process of change through the design of
school governance and deciding on staff development activities (Marzano, 2003).
Marzano (2003) recommends that change should take place through small groups that
work as a cohesive force in order to take the pulse of the school climate and build a
vision for improving learning outcomes. Data should be shared with staff and consensus
building should be performed before implementing any of the suggested change
strategies. Hopefully through this process, individual leaders will rise up to help steer the
collective staff as a whole towards effective change. This restructuring in decision
42
making has provided teachers a resource and allowed them the authority to make critical
decisions for individual student progress (Darling-Hammond, 2002). Mohrman (1994)
supports the idea that large scale change is about increasing commitments of teachers and
giving them tools to improve performance. The approach of professional learning
communities is one such model that moves away from the bureaucratic model of an
organization to one that is based on school-based management (Lee & Smith, 2001;
Mohrman, 1994).
Professional Learning Communities. The term Professional Learning
Community (PLC) has become common place within most educational settings.
According to Fullan (2007), the research has found that the degree of change was often
related to the amount of interaction teachers had with one another through quality
exchanges discussing student performance. This supports a number of other researchers
regarding their extensive findings on professional learning communities (DuFour, 2003;
DuFour, et al., 2006; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Newmann & Associates, 1996; Newmann
& Wehlage, 1995).
Professional communities have demonstrated a positive relationship with the
organization of classrooms for learning and emphasize the academic performance of
students by empowering those with a vested interest in seeing individual students
succeed, teachers at the school site level (Louis & Marks, 1998; Louis, Marks, & Kruse,
1996). Although many recognize the term PLC, few understand the underlying concepts
behind an effective learning community. A PLC is composed of collaborative teams that
focus on common goals to enhance the learning of all students (DuFour, et al., 2006).
43
According to DuFour et al. (2006), a PLC makes decisions based on a shared knowledge;
no decisions are made without evidence of the learning outcomes based on systematic
approaches to learning. PLC best practices include: (1) bringing together people with a
mutual interest in improving student outcomes, (2) creating common mission, vision,
values, and goals centered on improving student outcomes, (3) protecting allocated time
to collaborate, (4) providing direction for collaboration, (5) using data to make decisions,
and (6) evaluating progress (DuFour, et al., 2006; Louis, Kruse, & Marks, 1996).
Evidence-Based Model
Continued pressure from both the federal and state level to improve student
performance has forced educators to search for appropriate and efficient ways to allocate
resources at the site level in order to provide an adequate education for all students to
meet curriculum content standards (Odden & Picus, 2008; Odden, et al., 2010; Rebell,
2007). As previously discussed, an evidence-based model approach strives to identify a
set of effective educational procedures based on proven research strategies in order to
deliver an adequate and comprehensive instructional program for all students at a school
site level (Odden, 2000, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008). Further, case studies have
supported the value of using an evidence-based model to determine school-level
expenditure structures (Brinson & Mellor, 2005). One such framework that can be used
to help identify effective educational strategies is the Evidence-Based Model outlined by
Odden and Picus (2008). According to Odden and Picus (2008), the Evidence-Based
Model is based on evidence from the following three sources: (1) research with
randomized assignment to the treatment, (2) research with other types of controls or
44
statistical procedures to break down the impact of the treatment, and (3) identified best
practices either as codified in a comprehensive school design or derived from studies of
impact at the local district or school level. This evidence is then compiled and used to
identify a set of adequate resources to create a model for the typical school (Odden &
Picus, 2008).
Several best practices and evidence-based approaches to improving student
performance have been previously outlined. To better understand how these evidence-
based strategies are related and used in the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008) for elementary schools it’s important to investigate the components of a
prototypical school by the following different resource allocation categories: (a) school
configuration, (b) class sizes, (c) number of instructional days, (d) kindergarten, (e)
administrative support, (f) general personnel resources, (g) extended support, (h) special
education personnel, and (e) other staffing resources. Table 2.1 summarizes the elements
included in the prototypical elementary school. If a school was actually smaller or larger
than the prototypical school, the model would be prorated up or down based on the actual
number for pupils and demographics (Odden & Picus, 2008).
45
Table 2.1: Adequate Resources for a Prototypical Elementary School
School Element Evidence-Based Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students
Class Size K-3 : 15; 4-5 : 25
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for intensive PD training
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal 1.0 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE
School Site Clerical 1.0 FTE
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 1.0 FTE for every 100 poverty students
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE teacher for every 100 EL students
Extended Day 1.8 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled students Additional 3.0 FTE 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
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133.
Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.
46
School size. According to Odden and Picus (2008), there are very few schools if
any that have a policy on actual school size. In California, there are equalization funds for
small districts, but this has little to do with research and much more to do with rural
communities and economies of scale. A review of the literature by Odden and Picus
(2008) indicates that elementary schools roughly between the size of 400 to 600 students
are most effective and efficient. Therefore, the prototypical elementary school is based on
a K-5 model with an average school size of 432 students.
Class size. Advocates of class size reduction often point to the Tennessee K-3
class size study to demonstrate that smaller class sizes have positive effects (Finn,
Gerber, Achilles, & Boyd-Zaharias, 2001). The Student-Teacher Achievement Ratio
(STAR) was a four-year longitudinal class-size study funded by the Tennessee State
Department of Education which utilized randomized assignment to measure the effects of
small class sizes for primary grades. According to Finn et al. (2001), class sizes of 15 to 1
at the primary grades demonstrated a positive impact on students’ academic achievement
in later grades. For upper elementary grades the research findings for class size are mixed
(Biddle & Berliner, 2002). Therefore, Odden and Picus (2008) have turned to evidence
based on typical schools and best practices to determine that class sizes of 25 to 1 is an
appropriate model in determining resource allocations for fourth grade and above.
Instructional days. One of the decisions districts can make regarding
instructional time is the length of the academic year (Barr & Dreeben, 2008; Monk,
Roellke, & Brent, 1996). Due to state mandates and lack of variation regarding the
number of instructional days, there are very few controlled studies regarding the
47
relationship between the school year length and student achievement (Prendergast,
Spradlin, & Palozzi, 2007). However, there have been a number of indirect comparisons
made regarding student achievement and unscheduled school closures due to inclement
weather (Marcotte, 2007; Marcotte & Hemelt, 2008) and how teacher absences effect
student achievement on state wide assessments (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2009; R. T.
Miller, Murnane, & Willett, 2008). The evidence supports that both of these have
negative effects on student performance regarding end-of-the-year state assessments
(Clotfelter, et al., 2009; Marcotte, 2007; Marcotte & Hemelt, 2008; R. T. Miller, et al.,
2008). According to Konstantopoulos (2006), there have also been a number of
correlation studies regarding the length of the school year and academic achievement. A
number of these studies have demonstrated that the length of the school year has positive
effects on learning as well as other encouraging returns to the education system (Card &
Krueger, 1992; D'Agostino, 2000).
As of 2007, 29 states required a minimum instructional calendar of 180 days, 10
states required less, 2 states required more, and 8 states mandated minutes not days
(Prendergast, et al., 2007). In comparison, the international average according to Shen
(2001) was 187 instructional days. California is a state that incentivizes districts to
provide 180 days of instruction, but state law only mandates 175 instructional days
(California Department of Education, 2010h). Currently several districts in California are
considering shortening the instructional calendar and placing furloughs on their teachers
in order to account for budget shortfalls. The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus,
48
2008) allocates resources to provide a 190 instructional calendar with 10 additional days
for professional development.
Kindergarten. There have been a number of studies conducted that demonstrate
the effectiveness of providing a full-day kindergarten to help develop basic skills
achievement especially for those students from low-income backgrounds (Cannon,
Jacknowitz, & Painter, 2006; H. Cooper, Allen, Patall, & Dent, 2010; Denton, West, &
Walston, 2003; Flanagan, West, & Walston, 2004; Fusaro, 1997; Gullo, 2000; Lee,
Burkam, Ready, Honigman, & Meisels, 2006; Villegas, 2005). Parents, teachers, and
child development experts cite several academic and social reasons as to why a longer
kindergarten day may benefit children (Cannon, et al., 2006). According to Clark and
Kirk (2000) more classroom time provides an opportunity for additional individual
instruction and decreases the amount of large-group or teacher-directed activities.
Furthermore, a longer day better prepares children for the transition to first grade and
literacy readiness (Clark & Kirk, 2000; Lee, et al., 2006). Recently there have been
several policy initiatives requiring schools to offer full-day kindergarten (Cannon, et al.,
2006). However promising the research, the cost is still significant and any policy
regarding kindergarten should be evaluated on the basis of multiple measures and not just
a single input-outcome model (Lee, et al., 2006; Levin, 2002) According to Odden and
Picus (2008), the effectiveness of full-day kindergarten on student achievement
outweighs the expenditures and is one of the most cost-effective early intervention
programs. Therefore, the model accounts for and provides a financial funding system that
allows each school to implement the program at their site.
49
Administrative support. It is typically assumed that every school needs a
principal; but according to the research, there is little and mixed evidence on the
performance of a school with or without a principal (Hallinger & Heck, 1996, 1998;
Odden & Picus, 2008). Nevertheless, there have been a number of studies that have
documented as to how educational leadership can lead to effective change and
comprehensive school reform (Marzano, et al., 2005). In order to help facilitate this
change, the model accounts for one principal at the elementary level, and instead of
assistant principals, provides resources for instructional coaches to help facilitate the
collaborative leadership at a school site. In addition to the principal, the Evidence-Based
Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) provides for additional organizational support by
accounting for a full-time equivalent (FTE) for both a clerical secretary and an
administrative assistant.
General personnel resources. In most schools, less than 50 percent of the
resources are directly allocated to core academic instructional areas (Odden, Monk,
Nakib, & Picus, 1995). For example, from 1950 to 1995 the proportion of regular
classroom teachers to all other professional staff fell from 70 percent to 52 percent
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Given the demands of NCLB and the requirement to educate all
students to proficient levels on the state standards, one would assume that a majority of
instructional dollars should be allocated to the core instruction of students.
Core teachers. The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) tries to
address the emphasis towards state standards and the demands of NCLB by intentionally
50
linking resource use to student achievement. For an elementary school, the model
recommends 24 core instructors based on the class size research previously outlined.
Specialist teachers. In addition, because teachers need time during the regular
school day to collaborate, the model accounts for an additional 20% allocation for
specialist teachers to either cover core instruction or provide specialized instruction in
science, art, music, etc. (Odden & Picus, 2008). This resource supports the core
instruction by providing teachers one period a day for collaborative planning and
professional development.
Instructional facilitators. Several authors (Adams, 1994; Archibald & Gallagher,
2002; Bhatt & Wraight, 2009; Fermanich, 2002; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Knight, 2006,
2008, 2009; Odden, et al., 2002; Odden, et al., 2005; Slavin, 2005) have outlined the
importance of school-based instructional facilitators or coaches. In addition, elementary
schools continue to enhance and add technology infrastructure. According to Glazer,
Hannafin, and Song (2005), teachers rarely transfer technology skills learned from
intensive seminars into the classroom. Therefore, effective technology integration
requires teachers to obtain learning experiences within the context of teaching through
the use of peer mentors or technology coordinators (Glazer, et al., 2005). The Evidence-
Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) accounts for both instructional facilitators and
technology coordinators by allotting 2.5 FTE for each school unit of 500 students. The
purpose of these individuals is to provide critical ongoing instructional coaching and
mentoring to improve the instructional practices at the school site (Birman, et al., 2000;
51
Desimone, Porter, Birman, et al., 2002; Desimone, Porter, Garet, et al., 2002; Garet,
Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001).
Extended support. According to Odden and Picus (2008), because not all
students will learn the performance standards within the core instructional program, a
school must also design additional effective strategies for struggling learners. As
previously discussed, there are several evidence-based strategies such as tutoring and
extended learning opportunities to help struggling learners. And because poverty levels
can affect the way in which school districts allocate resources (Firestone, Goertz, Nagle,
& Smelkinson, 1994; Hannaway, McKay, & Nakib, 2002; Kirst, 1977; Loeb, Grissom, et
al., 2007; Odden et al., 2008), the model accounts for these resources by providing 1 tutor
for every 100 low-socioeconomic students, 1 teacher for every 100 English language
learner (ELL) students, and 1.8 FTE for both extended-day and summer school learning
opportunities.
Special education personnel. Providing appropriate services while containing
costs for students with disabilities presents itself with unique challenges (Odden & Picus,
2008). According to McEwan and McEwan (2003), thoughtful consideration of cost is
essential to making good, research-based educational decisions. The purpose of any cost
analysis is to determine if the program or intervention is worthwhile, is it cost-feasible,
and is it cost-effective. Educators can control the set of inputs (students, funding,
supports, and materials) or the type of programs implemented to try and alter outcomes
and measure their cost-effectiveness and feasibility (Hentschke & Picus, 2009). Although
a traditional cost-effectiveness framework seems difficult to utilize in determining
52
resources for special education allocation, one can still use the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008) in helping to determine resources that would obtain positive
effects and outcome goals in serving students with disabilities enrolled in elementary
schools. In fact, the argument made by Odden and Picus (2008) for including special
education students in their model is based on the principle that all students should be
given the opportunity to achieve at proficient levels, and if students struggle, schools
must intervene early and intensively.
Several authors and studies (Barnett, 1995; Campbell & Ramey, 1994;
Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, 1983; LA Karoly et al., 1998; Odom & Wolery,
2003; Reynolds & Temple, 1998; Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 2001;
Shanahan & Barr, 1995; T. Smith, Groen, & Wynn, 2000) have outlined the effectiveness
of providing intensive early intervening services for students with mild, moderate, and
severe disabilities. In order to facilitate collaborative instruction for all learners, teachers
should not be working in individual silos and all staff should work closely together to
identify struggling learners and correct learning deficits as soon as possible (Miles, 1995;
Odden & Picus, 2008). As previously discussed, the RtI model is one such model that
many school districts are moving towards to implement this strategy. The Evidence-
Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) helps support this collaborative approach and
provides for additional certificated support for students with disabilities.
Other staffing resources. In addition to the core school elements already
outlined above, the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) also accounts for the
following additional resources: (a) substitute teachers, (b) pupil support staff, (c) non-
53
instructional aides, (d) librarians/media specialists, (e) resources for gifted students, (f)
instructional materials, (g) student activities, and (h) professional development. As Figure
2.2 illustrates, these resources are not considered core elements to the model but provide
an overall support to the core instructional program of the school.
Figure 2.2: The Evidence-Based Model
Note: Adapted from Did increased flexibility in the use of categorical grants help California schools and
community colleges improve student performance? A thematic dissertation proposal by Picus (2009).
Adapted with permission.
Administrative Support
Principal
Secretary & Clerical
Professional Development
Instructional Coaches
Extra Days for Professional Development
Specialized Education
Special Educaiton
Gifted & Talented Education
Extended Support
Tutors & Teachers for EL
Extended Day & Summer School
Specialists
20 Percent of Core Teachers
Core
Instruciton
K‐3: 15 to 1
4‐5: 25 to 1
54
Because the goal underpinning the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008)
is to provide resources necessary to attain state academic standards, the emphasis of the
model starts at the core and expands outward so that students attain the state adopted
academic standards in core subject areas such as language arts, mathematics, science, and
social studies (Picus, et al., 2008). Figure 2.2 visually illustrates these resources by
starting with core instruction and expanding outwards to support specialized instruction.
The model then expands to account for all learners, including struggling learners by
providing resources for extended learning, tutors, and summer school. Due to the legal
requirements outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004,
including federal restrictions on funding and maintenance of effort, the model does
account for special education students separately but constructs a base for supporting
pupils with mild to moderate disabilities within the general infrastructure of the school.
Since instructional improvement is embedded in the funding model, there is a significant
emphasis on professional development to support this goal (Picus, et al., 2008). As
demonstrated by Figure 2.2, professional development should encompass the whole
program, include all teachers at all levels of support, and focus on achievement of
proficiency of the state standards. Finally, no organization can function without
leadership and ancillary supports, without an effective leader the efficient use of
resources and instructional change will not take place (Fullan, 2005a).
Summary
The relationship between school resources and student achievement has been
controversial for many years because it calls into question a variety of traditional policy
55
approaches (Hanushek, 1997). The literature is lengthy and outlines a historical
perspective that spans from the civil rights movement of the 1960s to today’s standards-
based reform movement and NCLB. As outlined by the literature, despite the
development of challenging education standards in California and sustained attention to
school improvement over the past decade, California continues to find it difficult to
provide an education to all at adequate levels (Loeb, Bryk, et al., 2007). In order to
provide a level of funding that would allow California schools to provide a range of
instructional strategies and educational programs so that each student is afforded an equal
opportunity to achieve to the state’s education performance standards (Odden &
Archibald, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008), educators must implement effective evidence-
based strategies at their school sites.
This literature review has outlined the history of education funding in California,
provided the reader with several effective evidence-based strategies, and outlined a model
to help guide resource allocation effectively based on evidence-based strategies. Utilizing
the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008), this study seeks to provide educators
and policy makers a better understanding of how previously low-performing schools can
utilize their resources effectively to institute change. This research study will contribute
to the discussion of how an evidence-based approach can help identify effective
educational strategies for improving elementary schools.
56
CHAPTER 3 – METHODS
Utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework, the
purpose of this study is to examine school level resource allocation at schools in Program
Improvement (PI), yet demonstrated significant growth in their Academic Performance
Index (API). By providing analysis at the school level, this research study contributes to
the discussion of how an evidence-based approach can help identify effective educational
strategies for improving elementary schools. This chapter outlines the research study
design, sample and populations, data collection, case study procedure, ethical
considerations, data analysis, and limitations. The following research questions were used
to guide these methods:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district 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 Odden and Picus’ (2008)
Evidence-Based Model?
57
Design
The design methodology used for this study is a multiple methods, case study
design utilizing both data and methodological triangulation to strengthen the study and
form a comprehensive whole (Lincoln & Guba, 2002; Morse, 2003; Patton, 2002). Using
a purposeful sample approach based on both convenience and set criterion, quantitative
data was obtained from five elementary schools in order to demonstrate the effectiveness
of how funds and personnel are allocated, along with what resources and programs are
utilized for instructional improvement. Additionally, qualitative data was collected in
order to guide school administrators in finding cost effective ways to implement research-
based strategies that demonstrate evidence of helping students. The purpose for utilizing
a case study approach is to provide comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth information
regarding resource allocation based on the single unit of schools (Patton, 2002). The
framework used to collect the data for this study is based on the Evidence-Based Model
outlined by Odden and Picus (2008). This framework generates a comparison between
actual resources each site has and the level of resources the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008) would produce for each individual school.
Sample and Population
A purposeful sample was conducted in order to provide information rich cases for
more in-depth analysis. To select the high performing schools analyzed in this research,
information was obtained from DataQuest (California Department of Education, 2010d)
to first identify elementary schools in a suburban Southern California County that were in
at least Year Two of PI and met their targeted goals for their 2009 Adequate Yearly
58
Progress (AYP). Of the 397 elementary schools in the geographic region, 24 were
initially identified as meeting these criteria. As measured by API performance, a more in-
depth analysis of the performance growth in these 24 schools revealed that the growth
range varied greatly from negative 6 points to plus 86 points. In order to provide a
benchmark for API growth during the 2008-2009 year, the average growth and standard
deviation was calculated for the 397 elementary schools within the county (M = 18.5, SD
= 19.5). Based on these calculations, it was determined that sampling schools which
demonstrated 1.5 standard deviations of growth during the 2008-2009 would provide
enough qualitative rich data to help investigate the research questions outlined above.
Although an alpha of .05 would have been statistically attractive, this would have
narrowed the field too small to provide rich case studies for later qualitative analysis.
Based on this selection criterion, the following 13 schools delineated in Table 3.1 were
identified as possible candidates for this study (all indicated by their pseudonym; UP-IRB
IIR0000701). From this sample, six schools from five local educational agencies (LEAs)
agreed to participate in the study. Of those, five schools from four LEAs participated
fully and are noted in Table 3.1. The sixth school, which is not indicated in Table 3.1 to
maintain confidentiality, originally agreed to participate in the study and provided
information during the initial data collection phase of the study. However, the school
later revoked consent and did not participate in the semi-structured interview process
after learning of a five-point drop in API on their 2009-2010 Accountability Progress
Report (California Department of Education, 2010d).
59
Table 3.1: School Sample PI and API Status, 2009 AYP Report
School PI Status Year 2008 API Score 2009 API Score API Growth
Arches Elementary 5 719 790 71
Bryce Elementary
a
4 713 779 66
Crater Lake Elementary
a
5 637 722 85
Death Valley Elementary 2 723 796 73
Denali Elementary 2 712 767 55
Everglades Elementary 5 700 749 49
Grand Canyon Elementary 2 689 737 48
Grand Teton Elementary 5 673 759 86
Haleakala Elementary 5 681 728 47
Joshua Tree Elementary
a
5 665 721 56
Olympic Elementary 4 695 745 50
Redwood Elementary
a
3 707 754 47
Sequoia Elementary
a
5 692 739 47
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
a
School participated in the
study.
As illustrated in Table 3.2, a majority of the schools selected are large elementary
schools relative to the grade spans served, have high Hispanic populations when
compared to the county and state averages, contain significantly larger percentages of
English language learner (ELL) students, and could be considered high-poverty as
demonstrated by the percentages of students enrolled in the free and reduced meals
program.
60
Table 3.2: School Sample Demographics, 2008-2009
School Grades Enrollment
%
Hispanic
%
White
%
ELL
%
Free/Reduced
Arches Elementary K – 5 673 53.9 27.6 51.6 59.6
Bryce Elementary
a
K – 6 471 89.2 5.9 56.1 88.5
Crater Lake Elementary
a
K – 4 693 98.7 0.1 89.5 94.9
Death Valley Elementary 3 – 5 598 84.8 8.4 42.6 80.3
Denali Elementary K – 6 586 83.1 1.7 74.2 82.7
Everglades Elementary K – 5 616 93.0 0.2 84.4 91.2
Grand Canyon Elementary K – 3 851 96.9 1.5 77.6 89.2
Grand Teton Elementary 3 – 5 358 98.9 0 69.8 95.6
Haleakala Elementary K – 4 531 94.7 1.3 73.6 90.6
Joshua Tree Elementary
a
K – 6 525 92.0 2.3 69.3 75.4
Olympic Elementary K – 6 695 83.7 8.3 55.7 74.1
Redwood Elementary
a
K – 6 808 80.7 2.8 72.8 88.2
Sequoia Elementary
a
K – 6 505 84.6 5.1 58.4 72.3
County Average - - 44.7 32.8 27.9 43.1
State Average - - 49.0 27.9 24.2 53.7
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
a
School participated in the
study.
Data Collection
This research study builds upon two years’ worth of resource allocation studies
already conducted at the University of Southern California, and is 1 of 12 other thematic
studies that took place in the autumn of 2010. In order to standardize data collection
techniques, a full-day training was provided by Dr. Lawrence Picus during the month of
March 2010. The full-day training included training on requirements outlined by the
61
university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), appropriate school site contact methods,
informed consent protocols, quantitative and qualitative data collection protocols, data
collection coding, and case study analysis. Upon submitting to IRB for Not Human
Subjects Research (NHSR) status (UP-IRB IIR0000701), school site principals were
contacted via phone, email, and letters to obtain consent to participate in the study and if
willing, a two-hour interview was scheduled. Prior to the in-person interview, a series of
pre-visit documents were requested in order for the researcher to examine and prepare for
the semi-structured interviews. After all pre-interview documents were collected and
analyzed, a semi-structured interview was conducted with the school site principal to
allow for detailed discussions as to how resources were allocated at the school site level
in order to improve student performance. Upon completion of each school site visit and
interview, the resulting information was entered into a secured online database provided
by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. Finally, a case study write-up was developed and
analyzed for each school site studied.
Quantitative data collection. The quantitative data collected for this study is
based on school expenditure structure, resource indicators, and educational service
strategies developed by Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003). All information
items collected were identified and defined prior to the study and outlined in a data
collection code book (Appendix B). The classification or coding scheme topics developed
to guide the quantitative analysis of this study is as follows: (a) school profile data and
contacts, (b) district profile data and contacts, (c) school resource indicators, (d) core
academic teachers, (e) specialist and elective teachers, (f) library staff (g) extra-help staff,
62
(e) other instructional staff, (f) professional development staff and costs, (g) student
services staff, (e) administrative staff, and (f) elementary class size.
Qualitative data collection. Qualitative data in the form of open-ended semi-
structured interviews were used to generate descriptive understandings of the schools (a)
curriculum and instructional vision, (b) resource allocation, (c) instructional leadership,
and (d) accountability. The purpose of using a semi-structured interview is to allow for
flexibility of additional topics that the principals may deem as important to be discussed
but also provide for reliability in the information gathered. The use of principals as key
informants was important to the study because they were typically insightful and
knowledgeable about their schools and provided the researcher with insight into
understanding what and why something happened in terms of site level allocation and
student performance. The protocols (Appendix C) utilized for the qualitative data
collection was adapted from similar adequacy studies conducted by Lawrence O. Picus
and Associates (Odden, et al., 2007; Odden, et al., 2005; Picus, et al., 2008).
Case Studies
The purpose of utilizing a case study approach for this analysis is to provide an
in-depth comparison of schools that are using effective strategies to improve student
learning (Eisenhardt, 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 2002). The construction of these case
studies were based on a framework outlined by Patton (2002) in which (1) raw data was
assembled and organized, (2) a condensed case record was generated and classified, and
(3) the final case study was written in a descriptive manner to provide a story about each
school. Key elements of the case studies (Appendices D-H) include how the
63
improvement process was initiated at each school, common themes that led to successful
outcome measures, and what resources it took to achieve the schools’ goals.
Ethical Considerations
The overall risks associated with this study were considered minimal. An
application to the University Park Institutional Review Board (UP-IRB) was submitted to
ensure that a third independent party will monitor and protect the rights and welfare of
research subjects. Based on the low-risk associated with this study, the determination
from IRB was that this study qualified as Not Human Subjects Research (NHSR) status
(UP-IRB IIR0000701). Participants had the option to participate in the study and were
not compelled to do so if they declined. A consent form was provided prior to
participating in the study and all participants were assured that their input was strictly
confidential. No names or identifying information were included in the final case study
analysis and data is maintained on a secure database. Because this study relied on the
honesty of the participants to portray an accurate picture of resource allocation and
instructional strategies being implemented at the individual school level, any school sites
that fell within the researchers assigned employment jurisdiction were not included in this
study.
Data Analysis
In order to strengthen the validity of the study, the multiple method design
approach was carried forward through the analysis phase of the study (Maxwell, 2002).
The quantitative data was gathered, analyzed, and compared to the Evidence-Based
Model outlined by Odden and Picus (2008). The examination of data included descriptive
64
statistics such as averages, medians, and percent changes in addition to categorical
characteristics in the form of document analysis, simple charting, graphing of data to
compare trends, and calculations and comparison of personnel based on a standardized
rubric to support reliability and consistency within the study. This data is used to help
make a determination as to how resource allocations contribute to the effectiveness of
improving student performance in PI schools.
A qualitative analysis was conducted through the use of the data collected during
the semi-structured interviews with the intention that implementation of instructional
strategies could be analyzed for strengths or weaknesses to help future practitioners
implement such strategies at their school sites. The qualitative data was organized and
classified using a coding protocol (Appendix B), and then analyzed using inductive
reasoning to help identify converging themes amongst schools (Patton, 2002). Part of this
analysis included an unordered meta-matrix so that case studies (Appendices D-H) could
be assembled to analyze relevant data. An unordered meta-matrix is a data management
tool that provides a starting point to manage the qualitative information by creating
relevant headings and organizing the data for site-by-site comparison (Gay, Mills, &
Airasian, 2009). A computer analysis program (Atlas.ti Scientific Software Development
GmbH, 2010) was used to conduct these cross-classifications and cross-comparisons in
order to provide for a more multifaceted analysis across interviews (Patton, 2002).
According to Gay et al. (2009), the approach of using a multisite case study allows one to
make the claim that events in common are not idiosyncratic to that site and thus
contribute to the research questions.
65
Limitations
The primary concern regarding limitations of this study are the restrictions to
transferability that arise due to qualitative research (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002).
Because of the small sample of schools included in this study, it is difficult to generalize
the events from one school site to other sites even with similar characteristics. Therefore,
it is difficult to determine if success growth in API was due to the allocation models
being described by the school site principals or other factors beyond the schools’ control.
In addition, due to individual district restrictions regarding research access, not all of the
schools that met the original selection criteria within the suburban Southern California
County were examined. In fact, one school site that originally agreed to participate in the
study chose to be excluded after learning of a five-point drop on their 2009-2010
Accountability Progress Report (California Department of Education, 2010d). Finally, the
Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) framework utilized for this study assumes
site level control of resource allocation. However, due to the variation of district control
regarding funding resources, what may actually have been studied is a combination of
district and site level allocation of resources.
66
CHAPTER 4 – FINDINGS
Utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework, the
purpose of this study is to examine school level resource allocation at schools in Program
Improvement (PI), yet demonstrated significant growth in their Academic Performance
Index (API). By providing this analysis at the school level, this research study contributes
to the discussion of how an evidence-based approach can help identify effective
educational strategies for improving elementary schools. This chapter summarizes the
research study findings that were obtained by examining the case studies of five
elementary schools (Appendices D-H). The purpose for utilizing a case study approach is
to provide comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth information regarding resource
allocation based on the single unit of schools (Patton, 2002). The analysis of these
findings included both inductive analysis involving the discovery of patterns, themes, and
categories, accompanied by, deductive analysis in which the data were analyzed
according to existing frameworks (Patton, 2002). The frameworks used for this analysis
were Odden and Archibald’s strategies on how to double student performance (Odden,
2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009), and the Evidence-Based Model outlined by Odden and
Picus (2008) on how to identify the resources needed to implement effective educational
strategies.
The findings from five individual school case studies (Appendices D-H) are
summarized in this chapter and provide cross-case descriptive comparisons that enhance
the understanding of the demographics, student performance results, key elements and
themes of the school improvement process, and how the use of an evidence-based model
67
can guide effective resource allocation. The following research questions were used to
guide this analysis:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district 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 Odden and Picus’ (2008)
Evidence-Based Model?
School Demographics and Data
A purposeful sample was utilized to provide information rich cases for more in-
depth analysis (Patton, 2002). To select the high performing schools analyzed in this
research, information was obtained from DataQuest (California Department of Education,
2010d) to first identify elementary schools in a suburban Southern California County that
were in at least Year Two of PI and met their targeted goals for their 2009 Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP). As previously discussed in the methods section of this study, of
the 397 elementary schools in the geographic region, 24 were initially identified as
meeting these criteria and 13 demonstrated 1.5 standard deviations of growth between
2008 and 2009 in their API scores (California Department of Education, 2010d). Because
68
this study relied on the honesty of the participants to portray an accurate picture of
resource allocation and instructional strategies being implemented at the individual
school level, school sites that fell within the researchers assigned employment
jurisdiction were removed from the sample. Based on the remaining schools, six schools
from five local educational agencies (LEAs) agreed to participate in the study. Of those,
five schools from four LEAs participated fully and are indicated in Table 4.1 by their
assigned pseudonym (UP-IRB IIR0000701). As previously discussed in the methods
section of this study, the sixth school revoked consent and did not participate in the semi-
structured interview process after learning of a five-point drop in API on their 2009-2010
Accountability Progress Report (California Department of Education, 2010d).
Table 4.1: Summary of Case Studies Demographics, 2009-2010
School Grades Enrollment
%
Hispanic
%
White
%
ELL
%
Free/Reduced
Bryce Elementary K – 6 497 89.7 6.1 55.9 84.4
Crater Lake Elementary K – 4 684 99.1 0 91.2 95.9
Joshua Tree Elementary K – 6 589 91.1 2.9 63.8 76.0
Redwood Elementary K – 6 791 84.1 1.9 69.9 91.6
Sequoia Elementary K – 6 504 86.1 3.3 62.3 76.4
County Average — — 46.9 31.8 27.5 42.3
State Average — — 50.4 27.0 23.8 55.9
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
As illustrated in Table 4.1, a majority of the schools selected were large
elementary schools relative to the grade spans served, had high Hispanic populations
when compared to the county and state averages, contained significantly larger
69
percentages of English language learner (ELL) students, and were considered high-
poverty as demonstrated by the percentages of students enrolled in the free and reduced
meals program (California Department of Education, 2010d). Analysis of the
achievement gap was limited because Bryce and Joshua Tree Elementary were the only
two schools with significant White subgroups at the school site level. In addition, all
schools lacked significant Asian and Black or African American subgroups.
Assessment data. According to the California Department of Education (2009d),
the statewide performance target for all schools in California is an API score of 800
points. Those schools that do not meet this criterion are required to demonstrate annual
growth of at least five index points from year-to year based on results of statewide testing
(California Department of Education, 2009d). As illustrated in Table 4.2, none of the
schools met the 800 requirement but all exceeded 700 points at the initiation of the study.
During the focal year of the study, three schools demonstrated the required growth in
assessment scores to meet the accountability requirement established by California
(California Department of Education, 2009d, 2010d). However, when combining all five
elementary schools the overall average was a negative one-point decline and the median
was eight points growth in API scores from year-to-year.
70
Table 4.2: Summary of Case Studies PI and API Status, 2010 AYP Report
School
2009 PI
Status
Year
2010 PI
Status Year
2009 API
Score 2010 API
Score
API
Growth
Bryce Elementary 4 5 778 758 (20)
Crater Lake Elementary 5 5 716 731 15
Joshua Tree Elementary 5 —
a
721 751 30
Redwood Elementary 3 4 745 753 8
Sequoia Elementary 5 5 739 701 (38)
Case Study Average 4.4 3.8 740 739 (1)
Case Study Median 5 5 739 751 8
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
a
School exited PI status.
At the initiation of this study, each school was in at least Year Three of PI but had
met their 2009 AYP criterion as indicated by the 2010 Federal AYP Report (California
Department of Education, 2010d). A school can exit PI only after making all AYP criteria
for two consecutive years (California Department of Education, 2010i). Although Crater
Lake, Joshua Tree, and Redwood Elementary continued to make significant gains in their
API scores, all three were not able to keep pace with the growing annual measurable
objective (AMO) targets required under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001
for all significant subgroups in both language arts and mathematics. During the focal year
of this study, Joshua Tree Elementary was the only school that continued to make
significant gains in their API scores and met all AMO targets as demonstrated by the 30-
point API increase and removal from PI status in Table 4.2.
English-language arts (ELA). As indicated in Table 4.3, the five schools
averaged a 14.9 percentage point increase in the number of students scoring proficient
71
and above on statewide ELA assessments between 2006 and 2010. Due to the lack of
significant White subgroups for all schools examined, information regarding the
achievement gap could not be obtained across case studies. However, because the overall
finding of a comparative cross-case analysis depends on the quality of individual case
studies (Patton, 2002), an examination of the achievement gap at the district level was
conducted for each of the five schools in the study (Appendices D-H).
Table 4.3: Summary of Case Studies Language Arts – Proficient & Above Trend
School 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Change in Percent
Proficient and Above
a
Bryce Elementary 31.4 33.5 34.3 47.1 41.2 9.8
Crater Lake Elementary 12.8 17.4 17.9 31.6 33.3 20.5
Joshua Tree Elementary 23.4 20.2 25.2 35.5 41.4 18.0
Redwood Elementary 24.6 28.8 33.9 41.3 43.0 18.4
Sequoia Elementary 29.6 31.5 32.4 43.0 37.4 7.8
Case Study Average 24.4 26.3 28.7 39.7 39.3 14.9
Case Study Median 24.6 28.8 32.4 41.3 41.2 18.0
Note: The numbers indicated above are the percent of students at the school site for each assessment year
that scored proficient and advanced on statewide ELA assessments. Adapted from DataQuest by California
Department of Education (2010d).
a
Percent change calculated from 2006 to 2010.
Although each school did not demonstrate significant growth in their API score
during the focal year of the study, each school did continue to demonstrate growth in the
number of students scoring proficient and above as indicated by the three-year trend
demonstrated in Figure 4.1. An examination of the data indicated that Crater Lake,
Joshua Tree, and Redwood Elementary continued to build upon the previous year’s
success, and Joshua Tree continued to make the most significant gains in language arts
72
scores as demonstrated by the 5.9 percentage point increase year-to-year between the
2009 and 2010 school year.
Figure 4.1: Summary of Case Studies Language Arts – Proficient & Above Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
Mathematics. Examination of Table 4.4 demonstrates that between 2006 and
2010 the schools averaged a 13.5 percentage point increase in the number of students
scoring proficient and above on statewide assessments. Again, due to the lack of a
significant White subgroup across all case studies, information regarding the achievement
gap could not be obtained for a similar comparison. However, an additional examination
was conducted at the case study level in Appendices D-G. Further analysis indicated that
Bryce, Crater Lake, Joshua Tree, and Redwood Elementary demonstrated steady growth
in improving student proficiency levels in mathematics. However, Sequoia Elementary
made little progress and even decreased in overall proficiency in mathematics scores.
Bryce Crater Lake Joshua Tree Redwood Sequoia
2008 34.3 17.9 25.2 33.9 32.4
2009 47.1 31.6 35.5 41.3 43.0
2010 41.2 33.3 41.4 43.0 37.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Percentile
73
Table 4.4: Summary of Case Studies Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend
School 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Change in Percent
Proficient and Above
a
Bryce Elementary 46.3 42.1 35.6 59.2 52.5 6.2
Crater Lake Elementary 25.4 29.3 27.5 47.8 52.3 26.9
Joshua Tree Elementary 36.7 35.2 32.4 41.6 53.3 16.6
Redwood Elementary 35.8 40.8 37.7 52.4 54.1 18.3
Sequoia Elementary 35.8 32.1 31.0 39.5 35.2 (0.6)
Case Study Average 36.0 35.9 32.8 48.1 49.5 13.5
Case Study Median 35.8 35.2 32.4 47.8 52.5 16.6
Note: The numbers indicated above are the percent of students at the school site for each assessment year
that scored proficient and advanced on statewide math assessments. Adapted from DataQuest by California
Department of Education (2010d).
a
Percent change calculated from 2006 to 2010.
Although each school in the study did not demonstrate significant growth in their
API score during the focal year of the study, each school did continue to demonstrate
growth in the number of students scoring proficient and above as indicated by the three-
year trend demonstrated in Figure 4.2. All of the schools with the exception of Sequoia
Elementary were able to build upon the previous year’s scores, and Joshua Tree
Elementary continued to make the most significant gains in mathematics scores as
demonstrated by the 11.7 percentage point increase year-to-year between the 2009 and
2010 school year.
74
Figure 4.2: Summary of Case Studies Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
Improvement Process Themes
According to Odden (2009), in order to implement any powerful education
improvement strategy the system must utilize a set of core research-based strategies. A
review of the research literature by Odden and Archibald (2009) has outlined ten core
elements that have constituted effective educational change. As previously discussed in
the literature review, for this study these ten strategies were strategically consolidated
into six evidence-based strategies and used as a framework to discuss the literature as it
relates to effective resource allocation in elementary schools: (1) setting high
expectations for student learning, (2) data-based decision making, (3) professional
development, (4) effective instruction, (5) extend learning opportunities for struggling
learners, and (6) collaborative and distributive leadership. The following section is a
Bryce Crater Lake Joshua Tree Redwood Sequoia
2008 35.6 27.5 32.4 37.7 31.0
2009 59.2 47.8 41.6 52.4 39.5
2010 52.5 52.3 53.3 54.1 35.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Percentile
75
generalization of what occurred, along with how evidence-based strategies were utilized
among the schools examined in an attempt to institute educational reform and become
more productive through resource reallocation (Odden & Archibald, 2000a).
Without classification there is chaos and confusion; hence, the first step in any
qualitative analysis is the developing of some manageable classification or coding
scheme (Patton, 2002). Categories of analysis emerge through open-ended observations
and discussions as the inquirer comes to understand patterns that exist in the phenomenon
being investigated (Patton, 2002). For this study, the classification codes used were based
on Odden and Archibald (2009) ten core elements to implement effective resource
allocation in elementary schools and consolidated into six codes which aligned with the
consolidated framework.
Each case study interview was recorded, transcribed, and segments were coded
based on the six evidence-based strategy classifications outlined. A computer analysis
program (Atlas.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, 2010) was then used to
conduct cross-classifications and cross-comparisons of passages for more complex
analysis across interviews (Patton, 2002). Using Atlas.ti, the six classification codes were
then organized and tallied based on the number of times each principal discussed an
evidence-based strategy. Coding was used to identify patterns and themes in order to aid
the analysis of relationships between the evidence-based strategies (Patton, 2002). Table
4.5 is a summary of the patterns that emerged from discussions with principals regarding
their instructional vision and improvement strategies implemented at their school sites.
76
Table 4.5: Case Studies Cross-Comparison Analysis of Evidence-Based Strategies
Evidence-Based Strategy Bryce Crater Joshua Redwood Sequoia Totals
Setting High Expectations 5 10 25 6 12 58
Data-Based Decision Making 8 10 11 15 5 49
Professional Development 10 17 15 11 16 69
Effective Instruction 8 7 7 5 7 34
Extend Learning Opportunities 15 13 13 13 17 71
Collaborative and Distributed Leadership 4 16 20 6 5 51
Totals 50 73 91 56 62 332
Note: Based on the evidence-based strategies, tallies of each classification code are presented above to
provide insight for identifying and analyzing patterns and themes throughout the study. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
Cross-comparison analysis of the interviews indicated that principals who
participated in this study discussed a number of different professional development
activities and extended learning opportunities for struggling learners as indicated by
Table 4.5. The three next most common evidence-based strategies discussed by principals
were in the areas of setting high expectations for student learning, data-based decision
making, and collaborative and distributed leadership. Effective instruction was the least
evidence-based strategy explicitly discussed. However, as demonstrated in the individual
case studies (Appendices D-H) this theme was interwoven into a number of the other
strategies discussed. For example, a number of the principals indicated that they had
targeted effective instruction through data-based decision making and professional
development.
In addition to categorizing and summarizing the occurrence of each evidence-
based strategy, each elementary school that participated in the study was ranked
77
regarding their implementation of each evidence-based strategy on an ordinal scale
(Glass & Hopkins, 1996; Odden & Archibald, 2009). The summary of each case study
performance ranking is illustrated in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6: Summary of Case Studies Performance of Evidence-Based Strategies
Evidence-Based Strategy Weak
Below
Average
Above
Average Strong
Setting High Expectations for Student Learning Sequoia Redwood
Bryce
Joshua
Crater
Data-Based Decision Making
Bryce
Sequoia
Crater
Joshua
Redwood
Professional Development Sequoia
Bryce
Redwood
Crater
Joshua
Effective Instruction Bryce
Joshua
Redwood
Sequoia
Crater
Extend Learning Opportunities for Struggling Students Bryce
Crater
Sequoia
Joshua
Redwood
Collaborative and Distributed Leadership Sequoia
Bryce
Joshua
Crater
Redwood
Note: Case study rankings of evidence-based strategies implemented at the school site level. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
Although each school implemented all the evidence-based strategies, each varied
in the degree of their implementation as indicated by Table 4.6. Based on Table 4.6, there
appeared to be wide variability regarding setting high expectations for student learning
across schools studied. For example, in the case of Sequoia Elementary many of the
teachers openly discussed that their progress was hindered by student and community
demographics (S. Principal, personal communication, June 21, 2010). In contrast, Crater
Lake Elementary felt it was imperative to hold all students accountable (C. Principal,
78
personal communication, October 14, 2010); and Bryce Elementary fell somewhere in
the middle as they evolved in the use of this strategy during the focal year of the study
(B. Principal, personal communication, November 5, 2010).
Furthermore, the evidence displayed in Table 4.5 and Table 4.6 supports the
discussions by principals that schools were effectively implementing professional
development and extending learning opportunities for struggling students. However,
given the push for data-based decision making in NCLB, the number of schools that
implemented this strategy at an above average level appeared surprisingly low. Although
each principal articulated in their conversations the importance of data-based decision
making, only Crater Lake, Joshua Tree, and Redwood Elementary demonstrated the
understanding that best practices should include multiple measures, including formative,
interim, and summative assessments so that teachers can look for patterns (R. Johnson,
2002; McIntire, 2005). In ranking the schools implementation of data-based decision
making, those schools that ranked strong demonstrated the use of formative assessment
which is considered one of the most efficient ways to improve educational outcomes,
provided that the individual tests emulate those of the high-stake state assessments
(McIntire, 2005).
Although the ranking summaries in Table 4.6 provide interesting findings, a more
in depth analysis of each evidence-based strategy across the case studies (Appendices D-
H) provides for greater triangulation and supporting evidence regarding the quality and
implementation (Eisenhardt, 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 2002; Patton, 2002). To further
79
extrapolate these findings and evidence, an analysis of each evidence-based strategy and
a comparison of each schools ranking is outlined.
Setting high expectations for student learning. High expectations for students
to achieve begins with establishing challenging goals and learning objectives for students
(Marzano, 2003). Most school employees understand the concept of setting high
expectations and goal setting but very few educational organizations actually implement
the strategy effectively (Datnow, 2005; DuFour, et al., 2006; Mac Iver & Farley, 2003;
The Education Trust, 2005a, 2005b). In general, the schools studied demonstrated above
average implementation of this strategy as indicated in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: Implementation of Setting High Expectations for Student Learning
Note: Case study rankings of evidence-based strategies implemented at the school site level. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
Weak
Sequoia
Below Average
Redwood
Above Average
Bryce
Joshua
Strong
Crater
Above Average
&
Strong
80
Although there was above average implementation of setting high expectations
for learners, only one school demonstrated a strong understanding of the evidence-based
strategy and clearly implemented its use across numerous other strategies. As
demonstrated in the Crater Lake Elementary case study (Appendix E), the principal felt it
was imperative to hold all students accountable and emphasized building a relationship
between teachers, parents, and students in which leadership was distributed (C. Principal,
personal communication, October 14, 2010). Through these interactions and
relationships, the school demonstrated a culture that made it a standard practice to
encourage high expectations and hold all students responsible (Resnick, 2005). In
addition, Crater Lake had the highest English learner (EL) population and the lowest
socio-economic status of all five schools studied. The staff of Crater Lake Elementary
resisted the typical trend of making student ability and demographics the determining
factor for learning and academic performance (Resnick, 1995).
In contrast were the beliefs and implementation of this strategy by Sequoia
Elementary (Appendix H). Although, the principal sought to change teachers’ beliefs and
attitudes regarding student learning, the primary impetus for change was spurred outside
the school site level through NCLB sanctions and lacked the ongoing support and belief
by teachers to make it lasting. Most teachers perceive federal probation as mild pressure
and do not worry about the sanctions which may ensue (Mintrop, 2003). Therefore, it
appeared that the teachers at Sequoia Elementary believed they could make enough
change in their instructional implementation to avoid sanctions but lacked the internal
belief that all students could learn to high expectations.
81
Data-based decision making. Educators who desire improvement in student
outcomes through data-based decisions must take on the challenge of a whole systems
change as it relates to examining data (R. Johnson, 2002). As demonstrated by the
literature (Datnow, et al., 2007; DuFour, et al., 2006; Supovitz & Taylor, 2003; Togneri
& Anderson, 2003), high performing schools are immersed in a culture of continuous
improvement which utilize multiple strategies to make decisions based on data rather
than on instinct. A common theme among all the schools in the study was the use of data
in the form of summative and interim assessments to base decision-making. However,
those schools that exemplified this strategy were those that were able to bridge the gap
between the state standards and instruction through effective formative assessment and
feedback (Heritage, 2010; Ramirez, 2010; Sadler, 1989). As demonstrated by Figure 4.4,
Crater Lake, Joshua Tree, and Redwood Elementary strongly implemented the use of this
strategy by demonstrating an understanding that formative assessment went beyond
another test or quiz, and that it was a process fundamental to the practice of teaching and
learning (Heritage, 2010; Perie, et al., 2009).
82
Figure 4.4: Implementation of Data-Based Decision Making
Note: Case study rankings of evidence-based strategies implemented at the school site level. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
The strong use of data-based decision making by Crater Lake, Joshua Tree, and
Redwood Elementary also demonstrated that the inducement for its implementation was
not dependent on a single source. In the case of Redwood Elementary, the centralized
district in combination with a third party vendor helped drive the use of this strategy (R.
Principal, personal communication, August 19, 2010). On the other hand, Crater Lake
and Joshua Tree Elementary demonstrated that school sites could alter district led
programs to strengthen effective formative assessment at the school site level and involve
teachers in making adjustments to teaching and learning (Datnow, et al., 2007).
In addition to formative evaluation, the principals of Crater Lake, Joshua Tree,
and Redwood Elementary expected teachers to post the California content standards
Weak
None
Below Average
Bryce
Sequoia
Above Average
None
Strong
Crater
Joshua
Redwood
Above Average
&
Strong
83
blueprint for their grade level in the classroom. Each student was also required to have a
copy of content standards at their desk as well as graphs of their progress towards the
core standards (Karns & Parker, 2007; Parker, 2006). As a standard was addressed in
class, the teacher and students each tallied the use of that standard so that the class could
monitor their progress. This process allows students to participate in their learning
through goal setting, self-assessment, and provides instant feedback regarding their
learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Ramirez, 2010). Although
Bryce Elementary did not implement this strategy during the focal year of the study, the
principal had knowledge of this specific data-based strategy and discussed its
implementation during the upcoming year (B. Principal, personal communication,
November 5, 2010).
Professional development. In comparing successful high achieving schools, one
common attribute to their professional development is that they build time for
professional learning into the teachers’ workday (Wei, et al., 2009). Professional
development within the regular school day can take on several different forms. All five
schools that participated in the study had preserved time during the work week for
professional development activities but implemented it in different forms. This variability
accounts for some of the distribution demonstrated in Figure 4.5.
84
Figure 4.5: Implementation of Professional Development
Note: Case study rankings of evidence-based strategies implemented at the school site level. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
According to Miles et al. (2004), some of the most effective professional
development activities are when they relate directly to the instructional content materials
teachers use and take place in their own schools and classrooms with coaching and
ongoing feedback. Four of the five schools had school-based instructional coaches
allocated as a resource at their school in order to provide on-going feedback. Although
Crater Lake Elementary did not have a school-based instructional coach, their EL
instructor worked in this capacity, and the school had access to district instructional
coaches (C. Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). As previously
discussed in the literature review, utilizing instructional coaches for professional
development is an effective strategy (Archibald & Gallagher, 2002; Fermanich, 2002;
Weak
None
Below Average
Sequoia
Above Average
Bryce
Redwood
Strong
Crater
Joshua
Above Average
&
Strong
85
Joyce & Showers, 2002; Knight, 2006). However if time is not carved out of the regular
school day to provide teachers time to review formative and summative assessments with
instructional coaches, the strategy can be somewhat ineffective (D. Smith, et al., 2009).
Joshua Tree and Redwood Elementary exemplified the ability to set aside time for
instructional coaches to collaborate with core teachers and empowered the instructional
coaches to facilitate meetings, review data, teach sample lessons, and design and
implement intervention strategies for students with teachers.
According to Odden (2009), providing systematic, intensive, and ongoing
professional development is a key strategy to improving student performance in
elementary schools. Staff development programs should be systematic and attempt to
bring about change; that is, change in the classroom, change in beliefs and attitudes, and
change in learning outcomes (Elmore & Burney, 1999; Guskey, 1986; Little, 1993;
Smylie, 1996; Supovitz & Turner, 2000). One unique professional development strategy
observed that aligned with the research by Odden (2009) was the use of additional
resource dollars by Crater Lake Elementary to provide pupil-free days prior to the start of
the school year for focused intense professional development. By providing this training
prior to the start of the school year, the principal provided clear direction to the entire
staff as to what the instructional priorities were for the upcoming year and was then able
to reinforce those strategies during the school year (C. Principal, personal
communication, October 14, 2010).
Effective instruction. The philosophy behind the standards-based reform
movement is that the path to raising academic achievement for all students is through
86
effective instruction (Birman, et al., 2000; Odden & Archibald, 2000b). This belief is
based on research that suggests an effective system-wide approach to curriculum and
learning leads to an increase in student achievement (Langer, 1999; Marzano, 2003;
Togneri & Anderson, 2003). According to a review of the data included in the Best
Evidence Encyclopedia (Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education, 2010) which was
then matched with the practices discussed through school site interviews, there were a
number of research-based strategies implemented across all the elementary schools
studied. Subsequently, the above average implementation ranking of effective
instructional strategies demonstrated in Figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6: Implementation of Effective Instruction
Note: Case study rankings of evidence-based strategies implemented at the school site level. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
Weak
None
Below Average
Bryce
Above Average
Joshua
Redwood
Sequoia
Strong
Crater
Above Average
&
Strong
87
Although effective instruction was consistently one of the above average
implemented strategies, further analysis through a detailed review of the case studies
(Appendices D-H) revealed that it was most effective when implementation occurred
through collaborative work between administrators and teachers framed around
improving student performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009). For example, as discussed in
the Sequoia case study (Appendix H) regarding effective instruction, there was impetus
for change in the instructional delivery, but the motivation to initiate change was spurred
outside the school site level and lacked the ongoing support to make it lasting. Most
teachers perceive federal probation as mild pressure and did not worry about the
sanctions which may ensue (Bitter & O'Day, 2006; Mintrop, 2003). Therefore it appeared
that the teachers made just enough change to avoid sanctions at the school site level, but
not enough to implement change at the classroom and school level (McDonnell &
Elmore, 1987). Further analysis of the remaining case studies (Appendices D-H)
illustrated that effective instruction appeared to be powerful only when combined and
interwoven with other evidence-based strategies, such as data-based decision making,
professional development, and collaborative and distributed leadership (Odden, 2009).
Extend learning opportunities for struggling students. As previously discussed
in the literature review, using time efficiently and effectively to increase the quality of
instruction is of particular benefit to all students (Odden & Picus, 2008; Silva, 2007; Wei,
et al., 2009). However, no matter how effective the instructional strategies, there are
times when even the most successful teachers and strategies can fall short in educating
certain populations of students in a traditional manner (Odden, 2009; Odden &
88
Archibald, 2009; The Education Trust, 2005a). One of the most intensive extra-help
strategies that can be provided during the regular school day is tutoring (Odden, 2009).
Because all the schools that participated in the study were Title I schools designated in PI
for more than one year, they were all required to provide supplemental educational
services in the form of tutoring to students of low-income families (U.S. Department of
Education, 2009b). Therefore, when compared to the typical elementary school in
California, the elementary schools utilized in this study demonstrated above average to
strong implementation of extending learning opportunities for struggling learners as
demonstrated in Figure 4.7. However, the impact of these tutoring programs varied
depending on how they were structured and implemented (Gabrieli, 2010; Odden, 2009;
Odden & Picus, 2008; Wasik & Slavin, 1993).
89
Figure 4.7: Implementation of Extending Learning Opportunities
Note: Case study rankings of evidence-based strategies implemented at the school site level. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
As discussed in Appendix F, Joshua Tree Elementary provided supplemental
educational services in the form of tutoring through private companies, a district based
tutoring program, and through the school itself with the use of Title I funds. Although
some tutoring was provided by outside vendors, Joshua Tree Elementary prioritized the
monitoring of student progress through the school resource specialist and principal (J.
Principal, personal communication, May 4, 2010). Because the alignment between what
the tutor does and the regular instructional program was important (Mantzicopoulos, et
al., 1992; Wheldall, et al., 1992), the principal encouraged a number of the school’s
teachers to enroll as tutors in the district program so that there could be a coordinated
Weak
Bryce
Below Average
None
Above Average
Crater
Sequoia
Strong
Joshua
Redwood
Above Average
&
Strong
90
effort between what occurs in the classroom on a daily basis and the outside tutoring
program (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4, 2010).
Another example that went beyond the typical supplemental educational services
was the investment in human capital made by Redwood Elementary (personal
communication, August 19, 2010). As discussed in the case study (Appendix G), the
school hired a number of certificated long-term substitute teachers to provide a
collaborative intervention model. Each long-term substitute was assigned classes and
brought in to supplant instruction for the average student so that the assigned teacher
could be released to implement differentiated instructional strategies and tutoring for the
struggling learner (R. Principal, personal communication, August 19, 2010). The
structured implementation of this strategy by Redwood Elementary mirrored findings by
both Odden (2009) and Odden and Picus (2008) that effective strategies should be
implemented similar to a Response to Intervention (RtI) model and be embedded into the
standards-based instructional time for all students.
Collaborative and distributed leadership. Effective leadership as it relates to
change in the educational system has been defined in numerous ways (Bolman & Deal,
1994, 2003). According to Fullan (2002), effective leaders in the educational system
poses a moral purpose, the ability to improve relationships, and the ability to create and
share knowledge. In fact, school leadership can be best understood as a practice that is
stretched over the school’s social and situational contexts and goes beyond shared
leadership roles and responsibilities (Spillane, 2006; Spillane, et al., 2001). Part of shared
leadership is creating a collegial environment in which principals, teachers, and parents
91
focus on common goals to enhance the learning of all students (DuFour, et al., 2006). In
general, the schools studied demonstrated above average implementation of collaborative
and distributed leadership as indicated in Figure 4.8.
Figure 4.8: Implementation of Collaborative and Distributed Leadership
Note: Case study rankings of evidence-based strategies implemented at the school site level. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
However, due to biases embedded within the interview process (Patton, 2002),
one should note that the above average ratings were based on the collective school as a
whole and not just that of the individual principal whom was interviewed. For example,
unique to Crater Lake Elementary was the idea that the change process was not only
facilitated by the principal but distributed across multiple teachers and staff through
numerous reciprocal interactions (Spillane, 2006). The emphasis of the interactions
among staff and parents was grounded in creating a positive winning culture in which
Weak
Sequoia
Below Average
None
Above Average
Bryce
Joshua
Strong
Crater
Redwood
Above Average
&
Strong
92
everyone knew the common goals to reach, but each had a unique job of attaining those
goals by putting forth their best individual performance to support the team and school
(C. Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). This leadership style
exemplified that of a collective distribution, in which the teachers worked separately but
interdependently to reach the common goal of having all students achieve to the highest
level possible (Spillane, 2006).
Whereas Crater Lake Elementary exemplified leadership distributed through the
school level, Redwood Elementary exemplified collaborative leadership from the central
office level. Criticism regarding the role of the central office as it relates to educational
reform has become very popular in recent years (Mac Iver & Farley, 2003). Offsetting
this anti-district and anti-central office criticism, there have been a number of researchers
(Bodilly & Berends, 1999; Corcoran, Fuhrman, & Belcher, 2001; Datnow & Stringfield,
2000; M Honig, 2009; MI Honig & Copland, 2008; P. Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010;
Marzano & Waters, 2009; Murnane, City, & Singelton, 2008; Vaughan & Kelly, 2008)
that cite the importance of the central office in school reform efforts. It was apparent that
Redwood Elementary central office played a role in improving instruction and
achievement by supporting decision-making about curriculum and instruction, supporting
good instructional practice through professional development, and helping the school
evaluate data results and support the feedback loop to refine instructional practice
(Corcoran, et al., 2001; Mac Iver & Farley, 2003).
93
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
As previously discussed in the review of the literature, an evidence-based model
approach strives to identify a set of effective educational procedures based on proven
research strategies in order to deliver an adequate and comprehensive instructional
program for all students at the school site level (Odden, 2000, 2003; Odden & Picus,
2008). Further, case studies have supported the value of using an evidence-based model
to determine school-level expenditure structures (Brinson & Mellor, 2005). One such
framework that can be used to help identify effective educational strategies is the
Evidence-Based Model outlined by Odden and Picus (2008). According to Odden and
Picus (2008), the Evidence-Based Model is based on evidence from the following three
sources: (1) research with randomized assignment to the treatment, (2) research with
other types of controls or statistical procedures to break down the impact of the treatment,
and (3) identified best practices either as codified in a comprehensive school design or
derived from studies of impact at the local district or school level. This evidence is then
compiled and used to identify a set of adequate resources to create a model for the typical
school (Odden & Picus, 2008). Table 4.7 summarizes the average findings of the
individual case studies (Appendices D-H) and compares it to that of the core resources
allocated to a prototypical elementary school using the Evidence-Base Model (Odden &
Picus, 2008). As demonstrated in Table 4.7, on average the schools utilized for this study
were larger than the prototypical school, and with the exception of tutoring, the schools
allocated less resources for core, specialized, and extended instruction.
94
Table 4.7: Average Case Study – Comparison to Evidence-Based Model
School Element Evidence-Based Model Average Allocation
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 613 Students
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-5: 25 K-3: 23; 4-6: 28.1
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for PD 184, includes days for PD
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Half-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal 1.0 FTE 1.2 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE
School Site Clerical 1.0 FTE 0.7 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24 FTE 23.3 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 1% of core teachers
Instructional Facilitators/Mentors 2.2 FTE 0.6 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students 1.0 FTE : 100 low SES 8.8 FTE
Teachers for EL students 1.0 FTE : 100 ELs 0.5 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.4 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled students Additional 3.0 FTE —
a
Severely disabled students 100% reimbursement —
a
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel resources 5.5% of personnel resources
Pupil support staff 1.0 FTE : 100 low SES —
b
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE —
b
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 0.7 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student —
c
Technology $250 per pupil —
c
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil —
c
Student Activities $200 per pupil —
c
Professional Development $100 per pupil —
c
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133.
Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.
a
Not calculated do to California SELPA
model.
b
Funds embedded in special education funding.
c
Response rates were not accurate enough to report.
95
As previously discussed in the review of the literature, California is unique in
terms of resource allocations for special education and requires all LEAs to participate in
a special education local plan area (SELPA). One of the primary roles of the SELPA is to
ensure that students with disabilities receive regionalized services and programs to meet
the unique needs of the individuals; therefore, the SELPA provided guidance to the
individual LEAs and schools that participated in the study on how services should be
provided, including the calculation of staffing ratios for programs and service delivery
models. Due to the variability of students with disabilities and programs offered across
the four different SELPAs and five school sites, special education resources were not
included in the analysis of the findings or individual case studies (Appendices D-H).
Because pupil support staff and non-instructional aide support was typically embedded
into the special education funding allocation at each site, these calculations were also not
included due to a lack of reporting accuracy. Finally, not all school site principals could
accurately account for funding dedicated to gifted students, technology, instructional
materials, student activities, and professional development; therefore, these calculations
were also not included. What remained was the central elements of the Evidence-Based
Model (Odden & Picus, 2008), which at its core emphasizes that all students receive
effective instruction in the primary subject areas such as language arts, mathematics,
science, and social studies (Picus, et al., 2008).
Basic school configuration. A review of the literature by Odden and Picus
(2008) indicated that elementary schools roughly between the size of 400 to 600 students
are most effective and efficient. As indicated in Table 4.8, Crater Lake and Redwood
96
Elementary were larger than the prototypical school and all schools that participated in
the study were K-6 configurations except for Crater Lake Elementary. Research evidence
and a review of best practices also indicate that class sizes of 15 to 1 at the primary
grades and 25 to 1 in the upper elementary grades demonstrate a positive impact on
students’ academic achievement (Finn, et al., 2001; Odden & Picus, 2008). As illustrated
in Table 4.8, all schools exceeded these averages in the primary grades, and all but Crater
Lake and Joshua Tree Elementary exceeded these numbers in the upper elementary
grades. Although not a focal area of this study, it is notable that these two schools were
also recipients of a Quality Education Investment Act (QEIA) grant.
Table 4.8: Basic School Configuration – Comparison to Evidence-Based Model
School
School
Size K-3 4-6
a
Instructional
Days
Full Day
K QEIA
Bryce Elementary 497 27.1 30.2 182 No No
Crater Lake Elementary 684 23.1 25.5 183 No Yes
Joshua Tree Elementary 589 20.3 24.4 185 No Yes
Redwood Elementary 791 22.9 31.1 186 Yes No
Sequoia Elementary 504 21.8 29.1 185 No No
Prototypical EBM School 432 15 25 200 Yes –
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133.
Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.
a
Crater Lake Elementary included only grades
4-5.
The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) allocates resources to provide
190 instructional days with 10 additional days for professional development. As indicated
in the Table 4.8, all five schools provided less instructional days, including days for
professional development. As previously discussed in this chapter regarding professional
97
development, Crater Lake Elementary was the only school that allocated three full days
prior to the start of the school year for intensive professional development. Finally,
although here have been a number of studies conducted that demonstrate the
effectiveness of providing a full-day kindergarten (Cannon, et al., 2006; H. Cooper, et al.,
2010; Denton, et al., 2003; Flanagan, et al., 2004; Fusaro, 1997; Gullo, 2000; Lee, et al.,
2006), only Redwood Elementary allocated the resources to implement this evidence-
based strategy.
Administrative support resources. The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008) accounts for one principal at the elementary level, and instead of assistant
principals, provides resources for instructional coaches to help facilitate the collaborative
leadership at a school site. As demonstrated in Table 4.9, all the schools had at least one
full-time principal dedicated to the school site. Redwood Elementary was the one
exception and allocated a full-time assistant principal due to the school size and
demographics (R. Principal, personal communication, August 19, 2010). In addition to
the principal, the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) provides for additional
organizational support by accounting for a full-time equivalent (FTE) for both a secretary
and clerical assistant. As demonstrated in Table 4.9, each school site allocated at least
one full-time school site secretary and part-time clerical support.
In order to compare the results of the case studies (Appendices D-H) with other
schools, the average relative percent change was calculated. The percent change was used
to compare the experimental case studies, E, with the theoretical, T, Evidence-Based
98
Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). The percent change is the absolute value of the difference
divided by the theoretical value times 100:
100
As demonstrated in Table 4.9, the average prototypical school would have allocated 16.3
percent more administrative resources, 27.2 percent more secretarial support, and 46.6
percent more clerical support.
Table 4.9: Administrative Support – Comparison to Evidence-Based Model
School Principal EBM
School Site
Secretary EBM
School Site
Clerical EBM
Bryce 1.0 1.15 1.0 1.15 0.49 1.15
Crater Lake 1.0 1.58 1.0 1.58 0.75 1.58
Joshua Tree 1.0 1.36 1.0 1.36 0.5 1.36
Redwood 2.0 1.83 1.0 1.83 1.0 1.83
Sequoia 1.0 1.17 1.0 1.17 1.0 1.17
Average Relative
Percent Change
— 16.3 — 27.2 — 46.6
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133.
Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.
General personnel resources. The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008) attempts to address the emphasis towards state standards and the demands of
NCLB by intentionally linking resource use to student achievement. For an elementary
school, the model allocates 24 core instructors based on class size research (Odden &
Picus, 2008). In addition, because teachers also need time during the regular school day
to collaborate, the model accounts for an additional 20 percent allocation for specialist
teachers to either cover core instruction or provide specialized instruction in science, art,
99
music, etc. (Odden & Picus, 2008). As demonstrated in Table 4.10, all five schools
allocated far less core teachers and significantly less specialist teachers than what the
Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) required. As demonstrated in Table 4.10,
the average prototypical school would have allocated 31.9 percent more core teachers,
95.0 percent more specialist teachers, and 79.9 percent more instructional facilitators.
Table 4.10: General Personnel – Comparison to Evidence-Based Model
School
Core
Teachers EBM
Specialist
Teachers EBM
Instructional
Facilitators EBM
Bryce 16.5 27.6 0% of core 20% of core 1.0 2.53
Crater Lake 28.0 37.92 0% of core 20% of core 0 3.48
Joshua Tree 25.0 32.64 0% of core 20% of core 0.5 3.0
Redwood 29 43.92 1% of core 20% of core 1.0 4.03
Sequoia 18 28.08 4% of core 20% of core 0.5 2.57
Average Relative
Percent Change
— 31.9 — 95.0 — 79.9
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133.
Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.
The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) accounts for instructional
facilitators by allotting 2.5 FTE for each school unit of 500 students. Instructional
facilitator should be used to provide critical ongoing instructional coaching and
mentoring to improve the instructional practices at the school site (Birman, et al., 2000;
Desimone, Porter, Birman, et al., 2002; Desimone, Porter, Garet, et al., 2002; Garet, et
al., 2001). As indicated in Table 4.10, each school allocated less instructional coaching
support than required by the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). And
although it appeared that Crater Lake Elementary did not utilize this effective evidence-
100
based strategy, the implementation and allocation of coaching as a resource was
accounted for within the school site’s extended support resources through its EL teacher
(C. Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010).
Extended support resources. According to Odden and Picus (2008), because not
all students will learn the performance standards within the core instructional program, a
school must also design additional effective strategies for struggling learners. And
because poverty levels can affect the way in which school districts allocate resources
(Firestone, et al., 1994; Hannaway, et al., 2002; Kirst, 1977; Loeb, Grissom, et al., 2007;
Odden, et al., 2008), the model accounts for extended support resources by providing 1
tutor for every 100 low-socioeconomic students, 1 teacher for every 100 ELL students,
and 1.8 FTE for both extended-day and summer school learning opportunities. As
indicated in Table 4.11, with the exception of tutors, all schools allocated far less
resources required by the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). In fact due to
budget constraints, all summer school programs other than mandated special education
services were eliminated for the 2010 summer session for all five elementary schools. In
addition, only Crater Lake and Sequoia Elementary allocated resources for an extended
day program after school. As demonstrated in Table 4.11, the average prototypical school
would have allocated 91.8 percent more teachers for EL students, 91.8 percent more
extended day instructors, and the equivalent of 100.0 percent more FTE for the
implementation of summer school programs.
101
Table 4.11: Extended Support – Comparison to Evidence-Based Model
School Tutors EBM
Teacher
for ELs EBM
Extended
Day EBM
Summer
School EBM
Bryce 5.5 4.4 0 2.79 0 2.07 0 2.07
Crater Lake 12.68 6.49 1.0 6.12 0.06 2.84 0 2.84
Joshua Tree 7.98 4.44 0.3 4.08 0 2.45 0 2.45
Redwood 11.35 6.97 1.0 5.75 0 3.29 0 3.29
Sequoia 6.55 3.64 0 2.94 1.69 2.11 0 2.11
Average Relative
Percent Change
— (68.6) — 91.8 — 83.6 — 100.0
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133.
Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.
As demonstrated in Table 4.11, an area that evidently diverged from the typical
pattern was tutoring resources provided through supplemental educational services.
According to the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008), the average
prototypical school would have allocated 68.6 percent less tutors. Although the influx of
additional categorical funding through Title I was significant when compared to other
schools in the county and the prototypical school, as further discussed in the case studies
(Appendices D-H) and lessons learned, the impact of the tutoring programs depended on
how they were allocated and structured (Odden & Picus, 2008). For example, Redwood
Elementary made a major investment in human capital that went beyond the typical
supplemental educational services coordinated by the district (R. Principal, personal
communication, August 19, 2010). Through the use of certificated teachers, Redwood
Elementary implemented small group and individualized instruction by hiring certificated
long-term substitute teachers to provide a collaborative intervention model (R. Principal,
102
personal communication, August 19, 2010). According to R. Principal, each long-term
substitute was assigned classes and used to supplant instruction for the average student so
that the assigned teacher could be released to implement differentiated instructional
strategies and tutoring for the struggling learner (personal communication, August 19,
2010).
Other staffing resources. In addition to the school elements already outlined
above, the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) also accounts for substitute
teachers and librarians/media specialists. As illustrated in Table 4.12, all of the schools
with the exception of Joshua Tree Elementary allocated resources towards
librarians/media support. However, the average prototypical school would have allocated
86.4 percent more resources towards these school-based elements.
Table 4.12: Other Staffing Resources – Comparison to Evidence-Based Model
School Substitutes EBM
Librarians /
Media Specialist EBM
Bryce 5.6% of personnel 5% of personnel 0.38 1.15
Crater Lake 5.5% of personnel 5% of personnel 0.88 1.58
Joshua Tree 5.4% of personnel 5% of personnel 0 1.36
Redwood 5.4% of personnel 5% of personnel 1.0 1.83
Sequoia 5.4% of personnel 5% of personnel 1.0 1.17
Average Relative
Percent Change
— (8.8) — 86.4
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133.
Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.
As Table 4.12 illustrates, the schools that participated in the study exceeded what
the model would typically call for in terms of substitute teachers. However, this analysis
103
should be interpreted with caution. According to Odden and Picus (2008), the model
would allocate substitute dollars for when teachers are out due to illness or personal leave
of absences, and not for release time for professional development. The numbers outlined
in Table 4.12 and in the case studies (Appendices D-H) for substitute teachers included
allocations for professional development resources.
Summary
Utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework, this
chapter examined and summarized the findings of individual case studies (Appendices D-
H) in order to provide cross-case descriptive comparisons and analysis so that one may
enhance their understanding of the demographics and data results of successful schools.
Themes of the improvement process were discussed and how the use of an evidence-
based model can guide effective resource allocation was examined. The purpose of this
study is to examine school level resource allocation at schools in Program Improvement
(PI), yet demonstrated significant growth in their Academic Performance Index (API).
Based on this selection criteria, the schools that participated in the study were large
elementary schools relative to the grade spans served, had high Hispanic populations
when compared to the county and state averages, contained significantly larger
percentages of ELL students, and were considered high-poverty as demonstrated by the
percentages of students enrolled in the free and reduced meals program (California
Department of Education, 2010d).
A cross-comparison analysis of the interviews indicated that schools that
participated in this study implemented a number of different professional development
104
activities and extended learning opportunities for struggling learners. The three most
common evidence-based strategies discussed were in the areas of setting high
expectations for student learning, data-based decision making, and collaborative and
distributed leadership. In addition to categorizing and summarizing the occurrence of
each evidence-based strategy, each elementary school that participated in the study was
ranked regarding their implementation of each evidence-based strategy on an ordinal
scale (Glass & Hopkins, 1996; Odden & Archibald, 2009). Although each school
implemented all the evidence-based strategies, the degree of their implementation of each
evidence-based strategy varied. There appeared to be wide variability regarding setting
high expectations for student learning across schools studied. Further evidence also
revealed that successful schools were effectively using data to make decisions, imbedding
focused and deliberate professional development activities, and maximizing the learning
opportunities for struggling students.
As previously discussed in the review of the literature, an evidence-based model
approach strives to identify a set of effective educational procedures based on proven
research strategies in order to deliver an adequate and comprehensive instructional
program for all students at the school site level (Odden, 2000, 2003; Odden & Picus,
2008). According to Odden and Picus (2008), the Evidence-Based Model is based on
research and best practices which are then compiled and used to identify a set of adequate
resources to create a model for the typical school (Odden & Picus, 2008). Based on the
average findings of the individual case studies (Appendices D-H), the schools utilized for
this study were larger than the prototypical school, and with the exception of tutoring,
105
allocated fewer resources for core, specialized, and extended instruction. Although this
summary and analysis provides interesting findings, a more in depth analysis of each case
study (Appendices D-H) provides for greater triangulation and supporting evidence
regarding the quality and implementation (Eisenhardt, 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 2002;
Patton, 2002).
106
CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION
California is currently being asked to do more with less and design schools that
will enable students to meet the state standards within tighter fiscal constraints (Picus,
2006). Given the budgetary woes outlined almost daily within our newspapers regarding
educational funding (Blume, 2010; Dillon, 2010; EdBrief, 2010; EdSource, 2010e;
Hanushek, 2010; Mazzei & McGrory, 2010; McCarthy, 2010; McNeil, 2010; Meyer &
Hubbard, 2010; Sanders, 2010; Yamamura, 2011), it has become critical to further
examine the efficiency and efficacy of our school resource allocations. In fact, even with
the enhanced scrutiny and incentive based structures such as Title I and other categorical
grants, schools continue to exhibit inefficiency in their operations and arguably lack a
strong relationship between school resources and student performance (Hanushek, 1997).
According to Rebel (2007), judicial scrutiny as to what constitutes an adequate
education along with a public drive to raise educational standards has resulted in a sudden
increase in the number of studies aimed at determining appropriate cost model
approaches in determining an adequate education. Given the current Robles-Wong v.
California (2010) adequacy lawsuit, educators need to examine the state’s goals for
students and determine how to design schools that enable students to meet the state
standards within the fiscal constraints outlined by the legislature (Picus, 2006; Weston,
2010b). As previously discussed in the literature review, one such cost model that may be
used to determine how much constitutes an adequate education is the evidence-based
model approach (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Odden & Picus, 2008).
107
The evidence-based model’s foundation is centered upon empirical-based
evidence and best practices research which in turn leads to proven education strategies to
guide schools and districts in using their resources more effectively and efficiently
(Odden, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008; Picus, et al., 2008; Rebell, 2007). One such
approach that has been outlined as a framework throughout this study is the Evidence-
Based Model by Odden and Picus (2008). By using the Evidence-Based Model (Odden &
Picus, 2008), this study seeks to provide educators and policy makers a better
understanding of how low-performing schools can utilize their resources effectively to
institute change. This chapter summarizes the research study findings that were obtained
by examining the case studies of five elementary schools (Appendices D-H), outlines
additional limitations discovered through the inquiry process, discusses lessons learned
through the triangulation of multiple sources of data, recommends resource allocations
for practitioners, and suggests implications for future research considerations based on
these findings.
Summary of Findings
The purpose of this study is to examine school level resource allocation at schools
in Program Improvement (PI), yet demonstrated significant growth in their Academic
Performance Index (API). Based on these conditions, results of the original criterion led
to a sample of schools with very similar demographics. The schools that participated in
the study were large elementary schools relative to the grade spans served, had high
Hispanic populations when compared to the county and state averages, contained
significantly larger percentages of English language learner (ELL) students, and were
108
considered high-poverty as demonstrated by the percentages of students enrolled in the
free and reduced meals program. Although this study is not intended to make specific
claims about these demographics, it is important to note regarding the similarity of
schools considered in at least Year Two of PI within a suburban area.
The framework by Odden and Archibald (2009) on how to double student
performance was utilized to examine common effective educational strategies used
among the schools attempting to institute educational reform. A cross-comparison
analysis of the interviews indicated the schools that participated in this study
implemented a number of different professional development activities and extended
learning opportunities for struggling learners. The three most common evidence-based
strategies discussed were in the areas of setting high expectations for student learning,
data-based decision making, and collaborative and distributed leadership. In addition to
categorizing and summarizing the occurrence of each evidence-based strategy, each
elementary school that participated in the study was ranked regarding their
implementation of each evidence-based strategy on an ordinal scale (Glass & Hopkins,
1996; Odden & Archibald, 2009). Although each school implemented all of the evidence-
based strategies, the degree of their implementation varied (Appendices D-H). For
example, in the case of Sequoia Elementary, many of the teachers openly discussed that
their progress was hindered by student and community demographics (S. Principal,
personal communication, June 21, 2010). In contrast, Crater Lake Elementary felt it was
imperative to hold all students accountable (C. Principal, personal communication,
October 14, 2010), and Bryce Elementary fell somewhere in the middle as they evolved
109
in the use of setting high expectations for all learners during the focal year of the study
(B. Principal, personal communication, November 5, 2010).
In addition to investigating common strategies, the Evidence-Based Model
outlined by Odden and Picus (2008) was used as a framework to compare resource
allocations. Designed to deliver an adequate and comprehensive instructional program for
all students, the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) generates resources for a
prototypical elementary school which was then used to compare resources allocated by
the elementary schools analyzed in this study. Based on the average findings of the
individual case studies (Appendices D-H), the schools utilized for this study were larger
than the prototypical school and, with the exception of tutoring, allocated fewer resources
for core, specialized, and extended instruction. Although not an area of this study, it was
notable that the two highest performing schools were recipients of a Quality Education
Investment Act (QEIA) grant (California Department of Education, 2010j). Although the
summary of these findings provides interesting information regarding the results of the
study, a more in depth analysis of each case study (Appendices D-H) affords for greater
triangulation and supporting evidence regarding the quality and implementation of the
strategies at each school (Eisenhardt, 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 2002; Patton, 2002).
Limitations
By their nature, qualitative findings are highly contextual and case dependent;
therefore, demonstrate sampling limitations (Patton, 2002). Based on the selection criteria
outlined within the methods chapter, results of the original criterion led to a sample of
schools with very similar but unique demographics, and the findings cannot be over
110
generalized to many other schools or student populations. Furthermore, the study relied
on selection criteria and events that occurred several months prior to the implementation
of data collection resulting in constraints of temporal sampling (Patton, 2002). Therefore,
it is difficult to determine if success growth in API was due to the allocation models
being described by the school site principals or other factors beyond the schools’ control.
Due to individual district restrictions regarding research access and principal
availability, not all of the schools that met the original selection criteria within the
suburban Southern California County were examined. In addition, the release of API
scores during the data collection phase of the study may have influenced some of the
findings. In fact, one school site that originally agreed to participate in the study chose to
be excluded after learning of a five-point drop on their 2009-2010 Accountability
Progress Report (California Department of Education, 2010d). Finally, the Evidence-
Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) framework utilized for this study assumed site level
control of resource allocation. Because district managed and allocated resources such as
program costs and support staff are not always reported in the school site budget, this
study does not account for all sources of spending variation (L. J. Miller, Roza, & Swartz,
2004).
Lessons Learned
One method for building knowledge comparatively is through cross-case analysis
and the identifying of the lessons learned through multiple case studies (Brinson &
Mellor, 2005; Patton, 2002). The purpose of the lessons learned outlined below is to
identify principles of practice that can be recommended to be adapted and applied to
111
other similar settings so that future practitioners may implement more effective programs
(Patton, 2002). By utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a
framework, the purpose of this study is to examine school level resource allocation at
schools currently in Program Improvement (PI), yet who demonstrate significant growth
in their Academic Performance Index (API). By providing this analysis at the school
level, this research study contributes to the discussion of how an evidence-based
approach can help identify effective educational strategies for improving elementary
schools and provides the practitioner a number of high quality lessons learned supported
through the triangulation of multiple sources and methods (Patton, 2002). The following
research questions were used to guide these lessons learned:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources at the school and district 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 Odden and Picus’ (2008)
Evidence-Based Model?
According to Odden (2009), in order to implement any powerful education
improvement strategy, the system must utilize a set of core research-based strategies. A
112
review of the research literature by Odden and Archibald (2009) outlined ten core
elements that constituted effective educational change. As previously discussed in the
literature review, for this study these ten strategies were strategically consolidated into
six evidence-based strategies and used as a framework as it relates to effective resource
allocation in elementary schools: (1) setting high expectations for student learning, (2)
data-based decision making, (3) professional development, (4) effective instruction, (5)
extend learning opportunities for struggling learners, and (6) collaborative and
distributive leadership. Based on this framework in combination with the research
questions, it was discovered that the implementation of a number of the evidence-based
strategies even in isolation can be effective. However, schools that clearly set high
expectations for all students, shared that responsibility amongst staff, and targeted
resource dollars towards extending learning opportunities for struggling learners
demonstrated the most significant and lasting gains.
Set high expectations and share the responsibility. Improvement does not come
from simply replicating or refining existing practices with more intensity or efficiency
(Koret Task Force, 2006; Odden, 1998). Instead, one should be prepared to shed
ineffective practices and restructure into an organization based on the philosophy that all
students can perform to high standards (Odden, 1998). As demonstrated in the case
studies (Appendices D-H) each school implemented all the evidence-based strategies
outlined within the literature review. However, each varied in the degree of their
implementation. For example, a number of the schools implemented the use of coaching
as an evidence-based strategy. However, Joshua Tree and Redwood Elementary exhibited
113
a level of trust and leadership not demonstrated in a number of the other schools and
empowered the coaches to facilitate meetings, review data, teach sample lessons, and
implement intervention strategies for students with teachers (J. Principal, personal
communication, May 4, 2010; R. Principal, personal communication, August 19, 2010).
The common theme interwoven among the most successful schools was that all
students could learn regardless of their demographics, and the responsibility to ensure
that this occurred was distributed throughout the entire school and community (EdSource,
2006). By engaging in these two activities, the successful schools set out to achieve these
goals and ensured that there was always consistent alignment between the school’s vision
and educational strategies, such as data-based decision making, professional
development, effective instruction, and extended learning opportunities for struggling
learners (Blankstein, 2004; Hallinger & Heck, 2002; Knapp, Copland, & Talbert, 2003).
This shared responsibility exemplified that a collective distribution of teachers and
administrators could work separately but interdependently to reach the common goal of
having students achieve to the highest level possible (EdSource, 2006; Spillane, 2006).
Resource allocations matter if targeted. Although the relationship between
school expenditures and student achievement has been challenged over the years (Evers
& Clopton, 2006; Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Hanushek, Rivkin, & Taylor, 1996; Roza
& Hill, 2006), systematic studies have demonstrated that money does matter (Archibald,
2006; Laine, et al., 1996). Specifically, evidence-based studies have been used to identify
individual, school-based programs and educational strategies that research has shown to
improve student learning (Odden & Archibald, 2009). One such targeted resource
114
strategy that appears to have demonstrated significant impact was the use of tutoring.
Because all the schools that participated in the study were Title I schools designated in PI
for more than one year, they were all required to provide supplemental educational
services in the form of tutoring to students of low-income families (U.S. Department of
Education, 2009b).
Therefore, when compared to the typical elementary school in California, the
elementary schools utilized in this study demonstrated above average to strong
implementation of extending learning opportunities for struggling learners through the
use of tutors. However, the impact of these tutoring programs varied depending on how
they were structured and implemented (Gabrieli, 2010; Odden, 2009; Odden & Picus,
2008; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). One example is how Joshua Tree Elementary organized
and monitored the tutoring provided through the supplemental educational services.
Although some tutoring was provided by outside vendors, the principal allocated
resources internally so that students were monitored by the school resource specialist and
in order to supervise individual growth. The principal also encouraged a number of the
schools’ teachers to enroll as tutors in the district program so that there could be a more
coordinated effort between what occurs in the classroom on a daily basis and the outside
tutoring program (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4, 2010).
This study further reinforced the findings by Odden and Picus (2008) that
resources can be powerful if linked with evidence-based strategies such as instructional
facilitators, effective data-based decision making, and targeted professional development.
During the focal year of this study, Crater Lake Elementary was provided additional one-
115
time professional development dollars and made a conscious decision to extend the
school year for teachers by utilizing those dollars to bring teachers in for organized and
coordinated professional development activities prior to the start of the school year (C.
Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). By targeting these funds and
providing targeted pupil-free training prior to the start of the school year, there was clear
direction provided to the staff regarding the school’s priorities for the upcoming year. In
addition, it allowed the principal and the instructional coach an opportunity to support
and reinforce those strategies through classroom walkthroughs and curriculum
discussions (C. Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). Although there
are a number of adequacy models (Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009), the Evidence-Based
Model (Odden & Picus, 2008), which is founded upon empirical-based and best practices
research, can best help guide schools and districts in linking resources effectively and
efficiently (Odden, 2003; Odden & Picus, 2008; Picus, et al., 2008; Rebell, 2007).
Allocating Resources in Practice
A number of studies have established that California’s funding model is
inequitable, inadequate, and complex (Chambers & Levin, 2006; Chambers, et al., 2007;
Gandara & Rumberger, 2007; Grubb, et al., 2004; Imazeki, 2008; Kirst, 2006; Loeb,
Bryk, et al., 2007; Odden, et al., 2010; Sonstelie, 2007; Timar, 2004; Williams, et al.,
2005). In fact, California appears to be severely under allocating financial resources for
education compared to the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008; Odden, et al.,
2010). This study further reinforced this finding as confirmed in each of the case studies
(Appendices D-H). Nevertheless, additional funds for education are not expected (School
116
Services of California, 2010; Weston, 2010b). Therefore, how should funds be allocated
once they are sent to the district and school site level (Odden, et al., 2010)? Based on the
findings of this study and utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as
a framework, it is recommended that schools allocate their resources dollars towards
reducing class sizes at the upper elementary levels, assigning instructional facilitators,
and providing tutoring services for struggling learners.
Upper elementary class size reduction. Although the research findings for upper
elementary class size reduction (CSR) is mixed (Biddle & Berliner, 2002), there appears
to have been a modest impact for the two schools (Crater Lake and Joshua Tree
Elementary) in this study that were able to reduce class size at the upper elementary
grade levels. Although further analysis would be required to make any significant
statements regarding this relationship, it does appear that CSR allowed the opportunity
for more targeted instructional supports and quality interactions among staff to provide
effective instructional pedagogy (Graue, Rauscher, & Sherfinski, 2009). For example, the
principal of Crater Lake Elementary discussed how the impact of smaller classes was
significant in allowing the staff to monitor student progress much more effectively (C.
Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). Furthermore, the instructional
coach at Joshua Tree Elementary reported that the smaller class sizes at the upper
elementary level allowed more time for in-depth collaboration with teachers when
compared to another school she was assigned to that did not implement reduced class
sizes (J. Anonymous, personal communication, September 14, 2010). This suggestion of
implementing resources to reduce class size at the upper elementary grade levels is
117
consistent with the literature that smaller classrooms have an impact on teachers’
attitudes and implementation of pedagogy (Bedard & Kuhn, 2008; Blatchford, Russell,
Bassett, Brown, & Martin, 2006; Graue, et al., 2009; Odden, 1990).
Instructional facilitators. According to Miles et al. (2004), some of the most
effective professional development activities are when they relate directly to the
instructional content materials teachers use and take place in their own schools and
classrooms with coaching and ongoing feedback. All of the schools examined in this
study demonstrated the use of instructional facilitators and coaches at their school site
(Appendices D-H). However, the schools (Bryce, Joshua Tree, and Redwood
Elementary) that demonstrated the most effective use of instructional coaches provided
coaches sufficient time to work with teachers, continue to use proven research-based
interventions, and allowed coaches to build trust with teachers (Knight, 2006). For
example, the principal at Bryce Elementary indicated that there was tremendous trust in
the coach by the teachers (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5, 2010). In
addition to the coach’s role of observing lessons, providing demonstration lessons, and
scaffolding differentiate instruction for teachers, teachers frequently demonstrated a
willingness to be videotaped and critiqued in small group meetings by the instructional
coach (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5, 2010). Joshua Tree and
Redwood Elementary also exhibited a level of trust and leadership with their coaches not
demonstrated in a number of the other schools and empowered the coaches to facilitate
meetings, review data, teach sample lessons, and implement intervention strategies for
students with teachers (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4, 2010; R. Principal,
118
personal communication, August 19, 2010). The findings in this study further reinforces
the use of instructional coaches to improve data-based decision making, implement
effective instruction, intervene with struggling learner, and facilitate a collaborative
instructional atmosphere in the school (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Knight, 2006, 2008,
2009; Marsh, McCombs, & Martorell, 2009; Slavin, 2005)
Tutoring services. As cited by several researchers (Cohen, et al., 1982; Elbaum,
et al., 2000; L. S. Fuchs, et al., 2005; Shanahan, 1998; Shanahan & Barr, 1995; Wasik &
Slavin, 1993), individual and small-group tutoring is one of the most effective, but it also
the most resource intensive extra-help strategies (D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Odden &
Picus, 2008). This study confirmed the findings by Odden and Picus (2008) that the
impact of tutoring programs does depend on how they are structured. Therefore it is
recommended that tutoring resources be allocated at the school site level. However, the
most effective implementation of tutoring as an intervention strategy evidenced by Crater
Lake, Joshua Tree, and Redwood Elementary is when the intervention takes place quickly
and intensively for students struggling over a concept and the tutoring is embedded
within the program (Odden, 2009). This recommendation is reinforced by the research
that indicates that not only should the program be embedded within the school day, but
there should also be alignment between what tutors do and the regular instructional
program (L. S. Fuchs, et al., 2005; Mantzicopoulos, et al., 1992; Paterson & Elliott, 2006;
Wasik, 1998; Wheldall, et al., 1992).
119
Implications for Future Research
Employing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework,
this was an exploratory study that focused on examining school level resource allocation
at schools currently in Program Improvement (PI), yet demonstrated significant growth in
their Academic Performance Index (API). By providing this analysis at the school level,
this research study contributed to the discussion of how an evidence-based approach can
help identify effective educational strategies for improving elementary schools. Although
the source of resource dollars was not the focal point of this study, it appears that QEIA
dollars may have been part of the catalyst for impacting how Crater Lake and Joshua
Tree Elementary allocated resources.
The influx of funding, for Crater Lake and Joshua Tree Elementary schools
through a QEIA grant was significant when compared to what other schools in the study
received. In addition, these two schools demonstrated large percentage API gains
compared to other schools in the study and county (California Department of Education,
2010d). Although a direct relationship cannot be established through this study, further
research investigating how resources are allocated within QEIA schools is needed. For
example, are the funds associated with QEIA grants the catalyst for impacting a school’s
performance? Is it the inducement of QEIA funds or mandates under the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 that brings about change in low performing schools? Can
the use of an evidence-based model further enhance the impact of QEIA funds?
These future research questions are intended to enhance the body of literature
regarding the importance of using school-level data and analysis to identify effective
120
educational strategies for improving schools (Busch & Odden, 1997; Odden, et al., 2003).
Answering these questions would further enrich the analysis of identifying high
performing programs based on student outcome measures and their underlying
relationships with resource allocations through the use of evidence-based strategies
(Hartman, Bolton, & Monk, 2001 2001; Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden
& Picus, 2008; Picus, Tetreault, & Murphy, 1996; Sonstelie, 2007).
121
REFERENCES
Adams, J. E. (1994). Spending school reform dollars in Kentucky: Familiar patterns and
new programs, but is this reform? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
16(4), 375-390.
Anfara, V. A., Jr., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on
stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7),
28-38.
Archibald, S. J. (2006). Narrowing in on educational resources that do affect student
achievement. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(4), 23-42.
Archibald, S. J., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A case study of professional development
expenditures at a restructured high school. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
10(29), 1-24.
Atlas.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. (2010). Atlas.ti (Version 6.2)
[Software]. Berlin, Germany: Author.
Augenblick, J. G., Myers, J. L., & Anderson, A. B. (1997). Equity and adequacy in
school funding. The Future of Children, 7(3), 63-78.
Augenblick, J. G., Palaich, R. M., & Associates. (2003a). Calculation of the cost of an
adequate education in North Dakota in 2002-2003 using the professional
judgment approach. Denver, CO: Author.
Augenblick, J. G., Palaich, R. M., & Associates. (2003b). Calculation of the cost of an
adequate education in Tennessee in 2001-2002 using the professional judgment
approach and the successful school district approach. Denver, CO: Author.
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., 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.
Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and
school outcomes. The Future of Children, 5(3), 25-50.
Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (2008). How schools work. In J. H. Ballantine & J. Z. Spade
(Eds.), Schools and society: A sociological approach to education (3rd ed., pp.
73-79). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
122
Bedard, K., & Kuhn, P. (2008). Where class size really matters: Class size and student
ratings of instructor effectiveness. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 253-
265.
Bhatt, M. P., & Wraight, S. E. (2009). A summary of research and resources related to
state school funding formulas. Naperville, IL: Regional Educational Laboratory
Midwest at Learning Point Associates.
Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). What research says about small classes and their
effects. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State
University.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Bitter, C., & O'Day, J. (2006). California's accountability system. In PACE (Ed.), Crucial
issues in California education 2006: Rekindling reform (pp. 51-74). Berkeley,
CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student
achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blatchford, P., Russell, A., Bassett, P., Brown, P., & Martin, C. (2006). The effect of class
size on the teaching of pupils aged 7-11 years: implications for classroom
management and pedagogy. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Blume, H. (2010). L.A. Unified to seek $100 parcel tax hike: The four-year increase
would alleviate the school district's projected budget deficit but probably not
prevent class size increases, teacher layoffs or a shorter school year. Los Angeles
Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com
Bodilly, S. J., & Berends, M. (1999). Necessary district support for comprehensive
school reform. In G. Orfield & E. H. Debray (Eds.), Hard work for good schools:
Facts, not fads, in Title I reform. (pp. 111-119). Cambridge, MA: The Civil
Rights Project, Harvard University.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party’s report.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77-96.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
123
Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2006). The longitudinal achievement effects of multi-
year summer school: Evidence from the Teach Baltimore randomized field trial.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 25-48.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brinson, V. R., & 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.
Brooks, N. J., Solloway, S. G., & Allen, L. A. (2007). Instructional supervision and
curriculum monitoring: Reinterpreting the principal’s role through the arts of
inquiry. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 20(1), 7-16.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 483 (U.S. 1954).
Brown, W. (2010). Without quality public education, there is no future for democracy.
California Journal of Politics and Policy, 2(1), 1-3.
Busch, C., & Odden, A. R. (1997). Special issue: Collection of school-level finance data.
Journal of Education Finance, 22(3), 225-245.
California Coalition for Fair School Finance. (1979). Fact sheet: The impact of
Proposition 13 on public schools in California. Menlo Park, CA: Author.
California Constitution, art. 13, § 1-2.
California Constitution, art. 9, § 1.
California Department of Education. (2002). California's reading first plan as approved
by the United States Department of Education. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/rf/index.asp.
California Department of Education. (2009a). 2009 Adequate Yearly Progress report:
Information guide - December 2009 revision. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/index.asp.
California Department of Education. (2009b). Academic Program Survey introduction.
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/stateassesspi.asp.
California Department of Education. (2009c). Communicating with parents and
guardians about 2009 STAR program tests: Resources for use by school district
and school staff. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/resources.asp.
124
California Department of Education. (2009d). 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.
California Department of Education. (2010a, August 31). 2009-10 APR glossary - AYP
report. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/glossary10k.asp#gk13
California Department of Education. (2010b, August 31). 2010 AYP alternative methods.
Retrieved November 11, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/altmethod10.asp#SH
California Department of Education. (2010c, July 7). After school education and safety
program. Retrieved November 6, 2010, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ba/as/
California Department of Education. (2010d). DataQuest (Data file). Available from
California Department of Education DataQuest, from Author
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2010e, June 17). Economic impact aid. Retrieved
November 6, 2010, 2010, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/sw/t1/eia.asp
California Department of Education. (2010f, August 31). Education budget - CalEdFacts.
Retrieved November 14, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fr/eb/cefbudget2009-2010.asp
California Department of Education. (2010g). Homepage. Retrieved December 7, 2010,
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/index.asp
California Department of Education. (2010h, October 27). Hot topics. Retrieved May 16,
2010, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/wr/hottopics.asp#InstructionalTimeFlex
California Department of Education. (2010i, September 15). Program Improvement.
Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/programimprov.asp
California Department of Education. (2010j, August 18). Quality Education Investment
Act (QEIA) of 2006. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/lp/qe/
California Department of Education. (2010k, March 2). Supplemental educational
services. Retrieved August 10, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/supplemental.asp
125
California School Finance. (2010). California school finance litigation: Robles-Wong v.
California case summary. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The
case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373.
Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and
academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families.
Child Development, 65(2), 684-698.
Cannon, J. S., Jacknowitz, A., & Painter, G. (2006). Is full better than half? Examining
the longitudinal effects of full-day kindergarten attendance. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 25(2), 299-321.
Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1992). Does school quality matter? Returns to education and
the characteristics of public schools in the United States. Journal of Political
Economy, 100(1), 1-40.
Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education. (2010). The best evidence encyclopedia:
Empowering educators with evidence on proven programs. Retrieved November
1, 2010, from http://www.bestevidence.org/
Cervone, L., & Martinez-Miller, P. (2007). Classroom walkthroughs as a catalyst for
school improvement. Leadership Compass, 4(4), 1-4.
Chambers, J., & Levin, J. (2006). Funding California's schools, Part II: Resource
adequacy and efficiency. In PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California education
2006: Rekindling reform (pp. 27-50). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for
California Education.
Chambers, J., Levin, J., & Delancey, D. (2007). Efficiency and adequacy in California
school finance: A professional judgment approach. Stanford, CA: Institute for
Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Chambers, J., Taylor, L. L., Robinson, J., Esra, P., & Shuldt, M. (2003). Alaska school
district cost study: Volume I–summary of results. Washington, DC: American
Institutes for Research.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).
Clark, P., & Kirk, E. (2000). All-day kindergarten. Childhood Education, 76(4), 228-231.
126
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2009). Are teacher absences worth
worrying about in the United States? Education Finance and Policy, 4(2), 115-
149.
Clune, W. H. (1994). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance. Educational
Policy, 8(4), 376-394.
Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A
meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 237-
248.
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld,
F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. (1983). As the twig is bent: Lasting effects of
preschool programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Coons, J. E., Clune, W. H., & Sugarman, S. D. (1970). Private wealth and public
education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cooper, B. (1993). School-site cost allocations: Testing a micro-financial model in 23
districts in ten states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Education Finance Association, Albuquerque, NM.
Cooper, H., Allen, A. B., Patall, E. A., & Dent, A. L. (2010). Effects of full-day
kindergarten on academic achievement and social development. Review of
Educational Research, 80(1), 34-70.
Cooper, H., Charlton, K., Valentine, J., Muhlenbruck, L., & Borman, G. (2000). Making
the most of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 65(1), 1-127.
Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of
summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic
review. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 227-268.
Corcoran, T. (1995). Helping teachers teach well: Transforming professional
development (RB-16). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, University of Pennsylvania.
Corcoran, T., Fuhrman, S. H., & Belcher, C. (2001). The district role in instructional
improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 78-84.
127
Cotton, K. (1989). Close-up #7: Expectations and student outcomes School Improvement
Research Series. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Cox, B. E., & Hopkins, C. J. (2006). Building on theoretical principles gleaned from
Reading Recovery to inform classroom practice. Reading Research Quarterly,
41(2), 254-267.
D'Agostino, J. V. (2000). Instructional and school effects on students' longitudinal
reading and mathematics achievements. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 11(2), 197-235.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that
work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (1999). Investing in teaching as a
learning profession: Policy problems and prospects. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L., Meyerson, D., LaPointe, M., & Orr, M. T. (2009). Preparing
principals for a changing world: Lessons from effective school leadership
programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform in changing
district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121-153.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wholstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-
performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary
students. Los Angeles, CA: Center on Educational Governance, University of
Southern California.
Datnow, A., & Stringfield, S. (2000). Working together for reliable school reform.
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(1), 183-204.
DeBray-Pelot, E., & McGuinn, P. (2009). The new politics of education. Educational
Policy, 23(1), 15-42.
Denton, K. D., West, J., & Walston, J. (2003). Reading--young children's achievement
and classroom experiences: Findings from the condition of education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Birman, B. F., Garet, M. S., & Yoon, K. S. (2002). How
do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the
professional development that districts provide to teachers? Teachers College
Record, 104(7), 1265-1312.
128
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002).
Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-
year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-
112.
Dillon, S. (2010). With federal stimulus money gone, many schools face budget gaps.
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
DuFour, R. (2003). Building a professional learning community. School Administrator,
60(5), 13-18.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don't know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 728-734.
Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to
say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205-242). Newark: DE: International
Reading Association.
Ed-Data. (2010). Glossary terms. Retrieved April 17, 2010, from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/glossary.asp
EdBrief. (2010). Budget crisis leads to dramatic rise in school districts on fiscal early
warning list. Retrieved from
http://www.educationmediagroup.com/budFin100325_warningList.php
EdSource. (2006). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do better?
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2007). Trends and comparisons in California school finance. Mountain View,
CA: Author.
EdSource. (2008). How California compares: Demographics, resources, and student
achievement. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009a). The basics of California's school finance system. Mountain View,
CA: Author.
129
EdSource. (2009b). Local revenues for schools: Limits and options in California.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009c). The new federal education policies: California's challenge. Mountain
View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009d). Resource cards on California schools. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009e). School finance 2008-2009: Fiscal crisis meets political gridlock.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010a). Dollars to districts. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_dollarstodistricts.html
EdSource. (2010b). Glossary terms. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from
http://www.edsource.org/glossary.html
EdSource. (2010c). History. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_history.html
EdSource. (2010d). Resource cards on California schools. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010e). School finance 2009-10: Budget cataclysm and its aftermath.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010f). School finance basics. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_basics.html
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Building theories from case study research. In A. M.
Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 5-
36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
El Dorado County Office of Education. (2009). El Dorado Charter SELPA Allocation
Plan 2009. Retrieved November, 17, 2009, from
http://www.edcoecharterselpa.org
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-
to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading
failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92(4), 605-619.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 6-10.
130
Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and
instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching
as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263-291). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Evers, W. M., & Clopton, P. (2006). High-spending, low-performing school districts. In
E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges'
good intentions and harm our children (pp. 103-194). Stanford, CA: Hoover
Press.
Feldman, J., Lucey, G., Goodrich, S., & Frazee, D. (2003). Developing an inquiry-
minded district. Educational Leadership, 60(5).
Fermanich, M. L. (2002). School spending for professional development: A cross-case
analysis of seven schools in one urban district. The Elementary School Journal,
103(1), 27-50.
Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1990). Answers and questions about class size: A
statewide experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 557-577.
Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee's class size study: Findings,
implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2),
97.
Finn, J. D., Gerber, S. B., Achilles, C. M., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2001). The enduring
effects of small classes. Teachers College Record, 103(2), 145-183.
Firestone, W. A., Goertz, M. E., Nagle, B., & Smelkinson, M. F. (1994). Where did the
$800 million go? The first year of New Jersey's Quality Education Act.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 359-374.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Implementing a schoolwide literacy framework: Improving
achievement in an urban elementary school. Reading Teacher, 61(1), 32-43.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework
for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Flanagan, K. D., West, J., & Walston, J. (2004). National study shows variations in early
learning environments as they relate to children. ERS Spectrum, 22(4).
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why,
and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.
131
Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Bryant, J. D., Hamlett, C. L., & Paulsen, K.
(2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math
difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 493-513.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 16-20.
Fullan, M. (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2005a). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2005b). Turnaround leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 174-181.
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Fusaro, J. A. (1997). The effect of full-day kindergarten on student achievement: A meta-
analysis. Child Study Journal, 27(4), 269-277.
Gabrieli, C. (2010). More time, more learning. Educational Leadership, 67(7), 38-47.
Gallagher, H. A. (2002). Elm Street School: A Case Study of Professional Development
Expenditures. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(28), 1-31.
Gamoran, A., & Long, D. A. (2006). Equality of educational opportunity: A 40-year
retrospective. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research,
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Gandara, P., & Rumberger, R. W. (2007). Resource needs for California English
learners. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice,
Stanford University.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Gaustad, J. (1992). Tutoring for at-risk students. Eugene, OR: Oregon School Study
Council, University of Oregon.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for
analysis and interpretation (9th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
132
Gibbs, D. (2009). RTI in middle and high school: Strategies and structures for literacy
success. Horsham, PA: LRP Publications.
Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology
(3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Glass, G. V., & Smith, M. L. (1979). Meta-analysis of research on class size and
achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(1), 2-16.
Glazer, E., Hannafin, M. J., & Song, L. (2005). Promoting technology integration through
collaborative apprenticeship. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 53(4), 57-67.
Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. C. (1999). Resource allocation in reforming schools and
school districts. In M. E. Goertz & A. Odden (Eds.), School-based Financing (pp.
215-244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Goertz, M. E., Oláh, L. N., & Riggan, M. (2009). Can interim assessments be used for
instructional change. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education, University of Pennsylvania.
Graue, E., Rauscher, E., & Sherfinski, M. (2009). The synergy of class size reduction and
classroom quality. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), 178-201.
Grubb, W., Goe, L., & Huerta, L. (2004). The unending search for equity: California
policy, the" Improved School Finance," and the Williams Case. The Teachers
College Record, 106(11), 2057-2245.
Gullo, D. F. (2000). The long term educational effects of half-day vs full-day
kindergarten. Early Child Development and Care, 160(1), 17-24.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational
Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.
Guthrie, J. W. (2001). Constructing new finance models that balance equity, adequacy
and efficiency with responsiveness ECS Issue Paper: Education finance in the
states: Its past, present and future (pp. 12). Denver, CO: Education Commission
of the States.
Guthrie, J. W., Calvo, N., & Smith, J. R. (2001). A professional judgment approach to
determining adequate education funding in Maryland. Davis, CA: Management
Analysis and Planning.
133
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-45.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal's contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2),
157-191.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2002). What do you call people with visions? The role of
vision, mission, and goals in school leadership and improvement. In K.
Leithwood, P. Hallinger & Colleagues (Eds.), The handbook of educational
leadership and administration (2nd ed., pp. 9-40). Dordrecht, South Africa:
Kluwer.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace & L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Hancock, M., & Lamendola, B. (2005). Learning from urban schools: A leadership
journey. Educational Leadership, 62(6), 74-78.
Hannaway, J., McKay, S., & Nakib, Y. (2002). Reform and resource allocation: National
trends and state policies. In W. J. Fowler (Ed.), Developments in school finance,
1999-2000. Fiscal proceedings form the annual State Data Conference, July 1999
and July 2000 (pp. 59-75). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Hanushek, E. A. (1996). The quest for equalized mediocrity: School finance reform
without consideration of school performance. In L. Picus & J. Wattenbarger
(Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource allocation in elementary and
secondary schools (pp. 20-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student
performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-
164.
Hanushek, E. A. (1999). The evidence on class size. In S. E. Mayer & P. Peterson (Eds.),
Earning and learning: How schools matter (pp. 131-168). Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Hanushek, E. A. (2006a). Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges’
good intentions and harm our children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.
134
Hanushek, E. A. (2006b). Science violated: Spending projections and the "costing out" of
an adequate education. In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting failure: How school
finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions and harm our children (pp. 257-
312). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.
Hanushek, E. A. (2010). Cry wolf! This budget crunch is for real. Education Week,
29(32). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
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., Rivkin, S. G., & Taylor, L. L. (1996). Aggregation and the Estimated
Effects of School Resources. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(4), 611-
627.
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass.
Management in Education, 22(1), 31-34.
Hartman, W. T., Bolton, D., & Monk, D. H. (2001). A synthesis of two approaches to
school-level financial data: The accounting and resource cost model approaches.
(NCES 2001–378). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Hatami, H. (2006). Rules and resources: The evolving context for school reform. In
PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California education 2006: Rekindling reform (pp.
1-14). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
Hentschke, G. C., & Picus, L. O. (2009). EDUC 717: Schooling as an economic
enterprise. Class lecture. University of Southern California. Los Angeles, CA.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. USC
UrbanEd, Spring-Summer, 17-19.
Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are
we losing an opportunity? Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School
Officers.
Hill, P. T., Roza, M., & Harvey, J. (2008). Facing the future: Financing productive
schools. Bothell, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of
Washington.
Honig, M. (2009). Urban school district central offices and the implementation of new
small autonomous schools initiatives. Voices in Urban Education, 22, 13-23.
135
Honig, M., & Copland, M. (2008). Reinventing district central offices to expand student
learning. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and
Improvement.
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and
crystallized general intelligences. Journal of educational psychology, 57(5), 253-
270.
Imazeki, J. (2008). Assessing the costs of adequacy in California public schools: A cost
function approach. Education Finance and Policy, 3(1), 90-108.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, 20 U. S. C. § 1400 et seq (2004).
Ing, M. (2010). Using informal classroom observations to improve instruction. Journal of
Educational Administration, 48(3), 337-358.
Iversen, S., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading
Recovery Program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 112-126.
Johnson, P., & Chrispeels, J. (2010). Linking the central office and Its schools for reform.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 738-775.
Johnson, R. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure equity in
our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Joyce, B., & Calhoun, E. (1996). Learning experiences in school renewal: An exploration
of five successful programs. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational
Management.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Kachur, D. S., Stout, J. A., & Edwards, C. L. (2010). Classroom walkthroughs to improve
teaching and learning. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Karns, M. S., & Parker, D. R. (2007). Fair play: Accepting responsibility for student
results. Leadership, 36(3). Retrieved from http://www.acsa.org/
Karoly, L. (2001). Investing in the future: Reducing poverty through human capital
investments. In S. H. Danziger & R. H. Haveman (Eds.), Understanding Poverty
(pp. 314-356). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Karoly, L., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, M. R., Rydell, P., .
. . Chiesa, J. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and don’t know
about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND.
136
Kirst, M. (1977). What happens at the local level after school finance reform? Policy
Analysis, 3(3), 301-324.
Kirst, M. (2006). Evolution of California state school finance with implications from
other states. Palo Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy and
Practice, Stanford University.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective
tools for school and district leaders. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Knight, J. (2006). Instructional coaching: Eight factors for realizing better classroom
teaching through support, feedback, and intensive, individual professional
learning. The School Administrator, 63(4), 36-40.
Knight, J. (2008). Instructional coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and
Perspectives (pp. 29-55). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Knight, J. (2009). Coaches as Leaders of Change. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The Challenge of
Change: Start School Improvement Now! (2nd ed., pp. 105-133). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Konstantopoulos, S. (2006). Trends of school effects on student achievement: Evidence
from NLS: 72, HSB: 82, and NELS: 92. The Teachers College Record, 108(12),
2550-2581.
Koret Task Force. (2006). Funding for performance. In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting
failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions and harm our
children (pp. 329-356). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.
Krueger, A. B. (2003). Inequality: Too much of a good thing. In A. B. Krueger & J.
Heckman (Eds.), Inequality in America: What role for human capital policies?
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Laine, R., Greenwald, R., & Hedges, L. V. (1996). Money does matter: A research
synthesis of a new universe of education production function studies. In L. Picus
& J. Wattenbarger (Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource allocation in
elementary and secondary schools (pp. 44-70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Langer, J. (1999). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read
and write well. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and
Achievement.
137
Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Ready, D. D., Honigman, J., & Meisels, S. J. (2006). Full-day
versus half-day kindergarten: In which program do children learn more?
American Journal of Education, 112(2), 163-208.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (2001). Restructuring high schools for equity and excellence:
What works. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Legislative Analyst's Office. (2010a). California's fiscal outlook: Proposition 98 briefing.
Sacramento, CA: Author.
Legislative Analyst's Office. (2010b). Year-one survey: Update on school district finance
and flexibility. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Levin, H. M. (2002). The cost effectiveness of whole school reforms. New York, NY: Eric
Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2002). Judging the quality of case study reports. In A. M.
Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp.
205-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lindseth, A. A. (2006). The legal backdrop to adequacy. In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting
failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions and harm our
children (pp. 33-78). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.
Lipson, A. J., & Lavin, M. (1980). Political and legal responses to Proposition 13 in
California. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
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.
Loeb, S., Grissom, J., & Strunk, K. (2007). District dollars: Painting a picture of
revenues and expenditures in California’s school districts. Stanford, CA: Institute
for Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. D., & Marks, H. M. (1996). Schoolwide professional community.
In F. Newmann & Associates (Eds.), Authentic achievement: Restructuring
schools for intellectual quality (pp. 179-203). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom?
Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American
Journal of Education, 106(4), 532-575.
138
Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers' professional community in
restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798.
Mac Iver, M., & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central
office in improving instruction and student achievement. Baltimore, MD: Center
for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, John Hopkins
University.
Mantzicopoulos, P., Morrison, D., Stone, E., & Setrakian, W. (1992). Use of the
SEARCH/TEACH tutoring approach with middle-class students at risk for
reading failure. The Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 573-586.
Marcotte, D. E. (2007). Schooling and test scores: A mother-natural experiment.
Economics of Education Review, 26(5), 629-640.
Marcotte, D. E., & Hemelt, S. W. (2008). Unscheduled school closings and student
performance. Education Finance and Policy, 3(3), 316-338.
Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., & Martorell, F. (2009). How instructional coaches support
data-driven decision making: Policy implementation and effects in Florida middle
schools. Educational Policy, 24(6), 872-907.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right
balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2002). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. In A. M.
Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researcher's companion (pp. 37-
64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mazzei, P., & McGrory. (2010). South Florida schools face mid-year budget crisis. The
Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com
McCarthy, J. (2010). Facing $5.5 million deficit, Oswego schools plan to cut 87 jobs:
Dismissals to affect teaching assistants, but not teachers. Chicago Tribune.
Retrieved from www.chicagotribune.com
McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy
instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.
139
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.
McIntire, T. (2005). Data: Maximize your mining - sustained student achievement is the
ultimate goal of data mining, but efficient analysis is key to getting there.
Technology & Learning, 25(9). Retrieved from
http://www.techlearning.com/section/MagazineArchive
McMillan, J. H. (2000). Essential assessment concepts for teachers and administrators.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McNeil, M. (2010). Concerns raised about impact of stimulus of equity. Education Week,
29(22). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
Meyer, J. P., & Hubbard, B. (2010). Extracurricular spending adds up at budget-cutting
Colorado school districts. The Denver Post. Retrieved from
http://www.denverpost.com
Miles, K. H. (1995). Freeing resources for improving schools: A case study of teacher
allocation in Boston Public Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
17(4), 476-493.
Miles, K. H., Odden, A., Fermanich, M., Archibald, S., & Gallagher, A. (2004). Inside
the black box of school district spending on professional development: Lessons
from comparing five urban districts. Journal of Education Finance, 30(1), 1-26.
Miller, L. J., Roza, M., & Swartz, C. (2004). A cost allocation model for shared district
resources: A means for comparing spending across schools. Seattle, WA: Center
on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.
Miller, R. T., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2008). Do teacher absences impact student
achievement? Longitudinal evidence from one urban school district. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 181-200.
Mintrop, H. (2003). The Limits of Sanctions in Low-Performing Schools: A Study of
Maryland and Kentucky Schools on Probation. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 11(3), 1-30.
Mintrop, H. (2004). Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn't work).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Mohrman, S. (1994). Making the transition to high-performance management. In S.
Mohrman & P. Wohlstetter (Eds.), School-based management: Organizing for
high performance (pp. 187-214). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
140
Monk, D. H., Roellke, C. F., & Brent, B. O. (1996). What education dollars buy: An
examination of resource allocation patterns in New York State public school
systems. Washington, DC: Consortium for Policy Research in Education,
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In
A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social &
behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murnane, R. J., City, E. A., & Singelton, K. (2008). Using data to inform decision
making in urban school districts: Progress and new challenges. Voices in Urban
Education, 18, 5-13.
National Access Network. (2011, March 1). School funding litigation overview. Retrieved
March 1, 2010, from http://www.schoolfunding.info/litigation/overview.php3
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010a). The condition of education: Glossary.
Retrieved March 6, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010b, August 16). NAEP overview. Retrieved
March 1, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: United States Government
Printing Office.
National Education Commission on Time and Learning. (1994). Prisoners of time:
Research. What we know and what we need to know. Washington, DC: Author.
New York Constitution, art. XI, § 1.
Newmann, F., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for
intellectual quality. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring (pp. 30-32).
Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Odden, A. R. (1990). Class size and student achievement: Research-based policy
alternatives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(2), 213-227.
Odden, A. R. (1998). How to rethink school budgets to support school transformation.
Arlington, VA: New American Schools.
141
Odden, A. R. (2000). The costs of sustaining educational change through comprehensive
school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 433-438.
Odden, A. R. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.
Odden, A. R. (2009). 10 strategies for doubling student performance. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. J. (2000a). Investing in learning: How schools can
reallocate resources to support student achievement. School Spending. Retrieved
from http://www.asbj.com/
Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. J. (2000b). Reallocating resources: How to boost student
achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
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., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A cost
framework for professional development. Journal of Education Finance, 28(1),
51-74.
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., Borman, G., & Fermanich, M. (2004). Assessing teacher, classroom, and
school effects, including fiscal effects. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 4-
32.
Odden, A. R., Goertz, M., Goetz, M., Archibald, S., Gross, B., Weiss, M., & Mangan, M.
T. (2008). The cost of instructional improvement: Resource allocation in schools
using comprehensive strategies to change classroom practice. Journal of
Education Finance, 33(4), 381-405.
Odden, A. R., Monk, D., Nakib, Y., & Picus, L. (1995). The story of the education dollar:
No academy awards and no fiscal smoking guns. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2), 161-
168.
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance : A policy perspective (4th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
142
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., & Nelli, R.
(2005). An evidence-based approach to recalibrating Wyoming's block grant
school funding formula Prepared for the Wyoming Legislative Select Committee
on Recalibration. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., & Goetz, M. E. (2010). A 50-state strategy to achieve school
finance adequacy. Educational Policy, 24(4), 628-654.
Odom, S. L., & Wolery, M. (2003). A unified theory of practice in early
intervention/early childhood special education: Evidence-based practices. The
Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 164-173.
Office of Special Education Program. (2010). OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions & Supports: Effective schoolwide interventions. Retrieved
December 3, 2010, from http://www.pbis.org/
Office of the Secretary of Education. (2010). 2009-2010 Budget highlights: K-12.
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ose.ca.gov/budget/.
Parker, D. R. (2006). Strategic Schooling: Theoretical underpinnings. Presentation
materials. Sacramento, CA.
Paterson, P. O., & Elliott, L. N. (2006). Struggling reader to struggling reader: High
school students' responses to a cross-age tutoring program. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 49(5), 378-389.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344.
Perie, M., Marion, S., & Gong, B. (2009). Moving toward a comprehensive assessment
system: A framework for considering interim assessments. Educational
Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 5-13.
Petersen, M. A. (2010). Lawsuit filed claiming state has failed to adequately fund public
schools in accordance with California Constitution. Los Angeles, CA: Fagen
Friedman & Fulfrost LLP.
143
Picus, L. O. (2006). Funding California's schools, Part I: Past, present, and future? In
PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California education 2006: Rekindling reform (pp.
15-26). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
Picus, L. O. (2009). Did increased flexibility in the use of categorical grants help
California schools and community colleges improve student performance? A
thematic dissertation proposal. PowerPoint slides. University of Southern
California. Los Angeles, CA.
Picus, L. O., Odden, A. R., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008).
Implementing school finance adequacy: School level resource use in Wyoming
following adequacy-oriented finance reform. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O.
Picus and Associates.
Picus, L. O., Tetreault, D. R., & Murphy, J. (1996). What money buys: Understanding the
allocation and use of educational resources in California. Madison, WI:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Pinnell, G. S. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. The
Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 161-183.
Pinnell, G. S., Fried, M. D., & Estice, R. M. (1990). Reading Recovery: Learning how to
make a difference. The Reading Teacher, 43(4), 282-295.
Prendergast, K. A., Spradlin, T. E., & Palozzi, V. J. (2007). Is it time to change Indiana’s
school-year calendar. Education Policy Briefs, 5(1), 1-8.
Ramirez, S. (2010). Feedback model makes changes in education. Journal of Business
Studies Quarterly, 1(2), 10-31.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). The Brown legacy and the O'Connor challenge: Transforming
schools in the images of children's potential. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 169-
180.
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.
Rebell, M., Wolff, J. R., & Yaverbaum, D. A. (2010). Stimulating equity? A preliminary
analysis of the impact of the federal stimulus act on educational opportunity. New
York, NY: The Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia
University.
Red Schoolhouse Software. (2010). Online Assessment Reporting System. Retrieved
December 7, 2010, from http://www.redschoolhouse.com/
144
Resnick, L. B. (1995). From aptitude to effort: A new foundation for our schools. Journal
of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 124(4), 55-62.
Resnick, L. B. (2005). Principles of learning for effort-based education. Pittsburgh, PA:
Institute for Learning, University of Pittsburgh.
Reynolds, A. J., & Temple, J. A. (1998). Extended early childhood intervention and
school achievement: Age thirteen findings from the Chicago Longitudinal Study.
Child Development, 69(1), 231-246.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term
effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and
juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools.
Jama, 285(18), 2339-2347.
Ripley, A. (2010). What makes a great teacher. The Atlantic Online. Retrieved from
http://www.theatlantic.com//doc/201001/good-teaching
Ritter, G. W., & Lucas, C. J. (2006). Devil in the details: Making sensible modifications
to No Child Left Behind. Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), 266-277.
Robles-Wong, et al. v. State of California, No. RG10515768 (Super. Ct. Alameda County
2010).
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 1 (U.S. 1973).
Roza, M., & Hill, P. T. (2006). How can anyone say what's adequate if nobody knows
how money is spent now? In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting failure: How school
finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions and harm our children (pp. 235-
256). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.
Sacramento County Office of Education. (2010a). California reading first: Assessments.
Retrieved November, 14, 2010, from http://readingfirst.scoe.net/
Sacramento County Office of Education. (2010b). California reading first: California
reading first initiative. Retrieved November, 14, 2010, from
http://readingfirst.scoe.net/
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems.
Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.
Sanders, J. (2010). Schwarzenegger's education claim disputed. The Sacramento Bee.
Retrieved from www.thesacbee.com
Sawchuk, S. (2009). Testing faces ups and downs amid recession. Education Week,
28(31). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
145
Scholastic. (2010). Primary sources: America's teachers on America's schools. New
York, NY: Scholastic and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
School Services of California. (2010). Outlook for the May revision. The Fiscal Report,
30(7). Retrieved from http://www.sscal.com
School Services of California. (2011). Governor proposes balanced solutions to close the
budget gap. The Fiscal Report, 31(2). Retrieved from http://www.sscal.com
Scott, C. (2006). Wrestling the devil in the details: An early look at restructuring in
California (pp. 20). Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Scott, J., Lubienski, C., & DeBray-Pelot, E. (2009). The politics of advocacy in
education. Educational Policy, 23(1), 3-14.
Serrano v. Priest, 5 584 (Calif. 1971).
Shanahan, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. Review
of research in education, 23(1), 217-234.
Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading recovery: An independent evaluation of the
effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30(4), 958-996.
Shen, C. (2001). Social values associated with cross-national differences in mathematics
and science achievement: A cross-national analysis. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice, 8(2), 193-223.
Silva, E. (2007). On the clock: Rethinking the way schools use time. Washington, DC:
Education Sector.
Silva, E. (2010). Rebuild it and they will come. Educational Leadership, 67(8), 60-65.
Slavin, R. E. (2005). Evidence-based reform: Advancing the education of students at risk.
Washington, DC: Center for American Progress and the Institute for America's
Future.
Smith, D., Wilson, B., & Corbett, R. (2009). Moving beyond talk. Educational
Leadership, 66(5), 20–27.
Smith, T., Groen, A. D., & Wynn, J. W. (2000). Randomized trial of intensive early
intervention for children with pervasive developmental disorder. Journal
Information, 105(4), 269-285.
Smylie, M. (1996). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance
of teacher learning in education reform. Educational Researcher, 25(9), 9-11.
146
Sonstelie, J. (2007). Aligning school finance with academic standards: A weighted
student formula based on a survey of practitioners. Stanford, CA: Institute for
Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Sparks, S. D. (2010). Class sizes show signs of growing. Education Week, 30(13).
Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org
Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
Sprague, J. (2006). RtI and positive behavior supports. The Special Edge, 19(2), 11-13.
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind: Practical insights for school leaders. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Sunderman, G. (2010). Evidence of the impact of school reform on systems governance
and educational bureaucracies in the United States. Review of research in
education, 34(1), 226-253.
Sunderman, G., & Kim, J. (2007). The expansion of federal power and the politics of
implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. The Teachers College Record,
109(5), 1057-1085.
Supovitz, J. A., & Taylor, B. S. (2003). The impact of standards-based reform in Duval
County, Florida, 1999-2002. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on
science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.
Swanson, C. B., & Stevenson, D. L. (2002). Standards-based reform in practice:
Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state
assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 1-27.
The Education Trust. (2005a). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some high schools
accelerate learning for struggling students Education Trust. Washington, DC:
Author.
The Education Trust. (2005b). The power to change: High schools that help all students
achieve Education Trust. Washington, DC: Author.
THINK Together. (2010). THINK Together. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from
http://www.thinktogether.org
147
Tilly, D. (2006). Response to Intervention: An overview—What is it? Why do it? Is it
worth it? The Special Edge, 19(2), 1-5.
Timar, T. B. (1994). Politics, policy, and categorical aid: New inequities in California
school finance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(2), 143-160.
Timar, T. B. (1996). The allocation of educational resources and school finance equity in
Ohio. In L. Picus & J. Wattenbarger (Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource
allocation in elementary and secondary schools (pp. 178-196). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Timar, T. B. (2002). You can't always get what you want: School governance in
California. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education, and
Access.
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. (2006a). Evaluating state intervention: The high priority schools grant
program. In PACE (Ed.), Crucial issues in California education 2006: Rekindling
reform (pp. 75-91). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
Timar, T. B. (2006b). How California Funds K-12 Education (pp. 3-07). Davis, CA:
Institute for Research on education Policy and Practice, University of California-
Davis.
Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The
Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Toppo, G. (2008). 'Nation at Risk': The best thing or the worst thing for education? USA
Today. Retrieved from www.usatoday.com
U.S. Constitution, amend. X.
U.S. Constitution, amend. XIV.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004, December 2). Comprehensive school reform
project. Retrieved April 30, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/compreform/2pager.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2008, June 12). Reading first: Frequently asked
questions. Retrieved November 14, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/faq.html
148
U.S. Department of Education. (2009a, November 16). Reading first. Retrieved
November 14, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2009b, January 5). Supplemental educational services.
Retrieved October 17, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/choice/help/ses/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2010a, January 27). Improving basic programs operated
by local educational agencies (Title I, Part A). Retrieved March 6, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2010b, September 2). Race to the top fund. Retrieved
March 19, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html
Vaughan, D., & Kelly, K. (2008). Building a data culture: A district-foundation
partnership. Voices in Urban Education, 18, 14-20.
Villegas, M. (2005). Full-day kindergarten: Expanding learning opportunities Policy
Brief. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Wasik, B. A. (1998). Using volunteers as reading tutors: Guidelines for successful
practices. The Reading Teacher, 51(7), 562-570.
Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one
tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 179-
200.
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession. Stanford, CA: School Redesign
Network, Stanford University.
Weston, M. (2010a). Funding California schools: The revenue limit system. San
Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
Weston, M. (2010b). School finance reform. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute
of California.
Wheldall, K., Colmar, S., Wenban-Smith, J., & Morgan, A. (1992). Teacher-child oral
reading interactions: How do teachers typically tutor? Educational Psychology,
12(3-4), 177-194.
Williams, et al. v. State of California, et al., No. S.F. 24343 (Super. Ct. San Francisco
2000).
149
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., Woody, E., Levin, J., Studier, C., . . . Henne, M.
(2005). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do better? A
large scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income students.
Initial report of findings. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Wyoming Constitution, art. 7, § 9.
Yamamura, K. (2011). Brown budget will spare schools if voters extend tax hikes. The
Sacramento Bee. Retrieved from www.thesacbee.com
150
APPENDIX A – IRB APPROVAL
151
APPENDIX B – QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION
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
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
152
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 being 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.
B. 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)
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 being 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.
153
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
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.
154
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
FTEs weighted by students per each grade. Enter each teacher’s name that
corresponds to the FTEs entered in the corresponding notes fields. Indicate in
parentheses if the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
Example:
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courtney Cox (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
155
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.
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.
156
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 second language (ESL)
classes who work with non-English speaking students to teach them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students in
the gifted program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the
gifted program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program for
the 2008-09 school year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s
curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra help
staff do.
N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff that
provides 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 does.
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.
157
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in self-
contained special education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled
students for most or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental
disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally have “less
severe” disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education aides
who provide small groups of students in special education with extra help in
specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate in
the extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per week
that the extended day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week in
the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who provides 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 that
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
158
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.)
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
159
who provide coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE amount
depending on how much time they spend at the school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from the
district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific
school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or other
costs for facilities used for professional development.
H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the “Other” professional developments are,
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
160
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching aides. (E.g. Lunchroom
aides, Aides who help students board buses; DO NOT include cooks – the
defining difference is whether the staff member is supervising students or
not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use this
category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student services staff member
does.
XIII. Administration
This expenditure element consists of all staffing resources pertaining to the
administration of a school. Administrators should be entered as full-time
equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name
that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses
if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
A. Principal: Number of FTE licensed principals.
B. Assistant Principal: Number of FTE assistant principals.
C. Other Administrators: Number of FTE other administrators. (Use this category
sparingly.)
D. Other Description: Indicate what the “Other” administrators’ duties are.
E. Secretary: Number of FTE Secretaries.
F. Clerical Staff: Number of FTE clerical staff members.
G. Technology Coordinator: Number of FTE technology coordinators and IT
staff.
H. Security: Number of FTE security staff.
I. Custodians: Number of FTE staff who provide custodial services
XIV. Elementary Class Sizes (We are NOT collecting this data for middle and high
schools.)
Sometimes it is easiest to get this information when you get the staff list, but other
times the secretary can just copy the sheet that tells them how many students are
in each classroom (we don’t want student names). You want a (preferably
electronic) copy 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.
161
APPENDIX C – QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION
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?
B. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the resources
been in place?
162
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?
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?
G. How has the recent budget effected your future decisions regarding your
instructional vision plan?
H. Any additional things you would like to share that I haven’t asked?
163
APPENDIX D – BRYCE ELEMENTARY
Utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework, the
purpose of this case study is to examine site level resource allocation at a school in
Program Improvement (PI), yet demonstrated significant growth in their Academic
Performance Index (API). The purpose for utilizing a case study approach was to provide
comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth information regarding resource allocation based
on the single unit of schools (Patton, 2002). Previous case studies have supported the
value of using an evidence-based model to determine school-level expenditure structures
(Brinson & Mellor, 2005). By providing an analysis at the school level, this case study
contributes to the discussion of how an evidence-based approach can help identify
effective educational strategies for improving elementary schools so that others may link
future recommendations based on school finance adequacy models to achieve gains in
student performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Key elements of the case study include
how the improvement process was initiated at each school, common themes that led to
successful outcome measures, and what resources it took to achieve the school’s goals.
School Background
Bryce Elementary (a pseudonym; UP-IRB IIR0000701) is a K-6 school located in
a large suburban unified school district within Southern California. During the 2009-2010
academic year, Bryce Elementary reported an enrollment of 497 students and was 1 of 22
elementary schools in the district (California Department of Education, 2010g). The
district serves approximately 26,000 students in grades kindergarten through 12
th
grade
and encompasses two cities. During the 2009-2010 school year, the district was not in PI
164
and Bryce was the only elementary school within the district in Year Two or above PI
status as indicated by the 2009 Federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report
(California Department of Education, 2010d). Table D.1 provides a description of the
school and district demographics as compared to the county and state averages.
Table D.1: Bryce Elementary Demographic Comparison, 2009-2010
%
Hispanic
%
White
%
EL
%
Free/Reduced
Bryce Elementary 89.7 6.1 55.9 84.4
District Average 35.5 48.6 13.0 30.5
County Average 46.9 31.8 27.5 42.3
State Average 50.4 27.0 23.8 55.9
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
As illustrated in Table D.1, Bryce Elementary served a disproportionately large
Hispanic community with 89.7 percent of the total population reporting their ethnicity as
Hispanic or Latino. Bryce Elementary was located in one of the lower socioeconomic
areas in which the district served. Of the total population, 55.9 percent were reported as
English learners (ELs) and 84.4 percent were enrolled in the free and reduced meals
program (California Department of Education, 2010d).
Assessment and data. At the initiation of this study, Bryce Elementary was in
Year Four of PI as indicated by the 2009 Federal AYP Report (California Department of
Education, 2010d). According to the California Department of Education (2010d),
Bryce’s first year of PI status was during the 2005-2006 school year. As further
illustrated in Figure D.1, the school’s state API score oscillated in a slight trend upwards
from the 2005-2006 through the 2007-2008 school year. However during the 2008-2009
165
school year, there was a significant shift in academic performance at Bryce Elementary as
demonstrated by their 65-point API increase.
Figure D.1: Bryce Elementary API Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
During the 2009-2010 academic year, the school remained in PI status but met the
2009 AYP criterion. This status signified that the school had met 2009 AYP measures for
participation and proficiency in each content area assessed on the statewide assessments
as well as met the API indicator criterion. A school can exit PI only after making all AYP
criteria for two consecutive years (California Department of Education, 2010i). Although
the overall trend towards schoolwide improvement continued to remain positive during
the focal year of this study, Bryce Elementary did not continue to make significant gains
in their API scores and regressed to some extent back towards previous API scores as
demonstrated by the 20-point decrease in Figure D.1. Consequently, the school did not
meet 2010 AYP criterion, and for the 2010-2011 school year Bryce Elementary moved
forward into Year Five of PI status.
704
733
713
778
758
600
650
700
750
800
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
166
English-language arts (ELA). As indicated in Figure D.2, during the 2009-2010
school year, Bryce Elementary demonstrated a significant achievement gap between
Hispanic and White students on statewide ELA assessments. Between 2008 and 2009, the
school demonstrated a 12.2 percentage point increase in the number of Hispanic students
scoring proficient and above on statewide ELA assessments. However, for the 2009-2010
academic year the ELA scores regressed by 4 percentage points. A cursory analysis
revealed that the achievement gap was closed between the White subgroup and the
Hispanic subgroup at the school level during the 2009-2010 school year, with the
Hispanic subgroup outscoring the White subgroup by 2 percentage points. However, this
was due to a 25.1 percentage point regression in ELA scores for the White subgroup.
After a more comprehensive examination comparing the school to the district, there
continued to be a large achievement gap between the school’s Hispanic students and the
district’s White students. According to the California Department of Education (2010d),
the school’s Hispanic population continued to lag behind the district’s White subgroup
average score (79.0 percent scored proficient or above) as indicated by the 38.9
percentage point gap between subgroups.
167
Figure D.2: Bryce Elementary Language Arts – Proficient & Above
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
Mathematics. Examination of Figure D.3 demonstrates that there was also a
significant achievement gap between Hispanic and White subgroups on statewide math
assessments during the 2008-2009 school year. Between 2008 and 2009, the school
demonstrated a 25.3 percentage point increase in the number of Hispanic students scoring
proficient and above on statewide math assessments. However, for the 2009-2010
academic year, the math scores regressed by 8.1 percentage points. A comparison made
at the school level continued to demonstrate an 11.6 percentage point achievement gap
between the school’s Hispanic and White students. According to the California
Department of Education (2010d), the school’s Hispanic population also continued to lag
behind the district’s White subgroup average (78.9 percent scored proficient or above) as
indicated by the 28.6 percentage point gap between the subgroups.
31.4
33.5
34.3
47.1
41.2
27.1
30.5
31.9
44.1
40.1
41.8
40.5
51.9
63.2
38.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide Hispanic White
168
Figure D.3: Bryce Elementary Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
Improvement Process Themes
The data in the previous figures indicates for Bryce Elementary that an
improvement process initially occurred followed by a leveling off and weakening of
overall assessment scores. However telling these numbers may appear, the numerical data
lacks the narrative information as to what transpired. According to Odden (2009), in
order to implement any powerful education improvement strategy the system must utilize
a set of core research-based strategies. A review of the research literature by Odden and
Archibald (2009) has outlined ten core elements that have constituted effective
educational change. As previously discussed in the literature review, for this study these
strategies were strategically consolidated into six evidence-based strategies and used as a
framework to discuss the literature as it relates to effective resource allocation in
elementary schools. The following section is a description of what occurred, together
46.3
42.1
35.6
59.2
52.5
42.3
38.4
33.1
58.4
50.3
54.5 54.1
48.1
52.6
61.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide Hispanic White
169
with how six evidence-based strategies were utilized at Bryce Elementary in an attempt
to institute educational reform and become more productive through resource reallocation
(Odden & Archibald, 2000a).
Setting high expectations for student learning. Holding students responsible
and encouraging high expectations for all students should be a standard practice for
educational organizations (Resnick, 2005). Upon her arrival in late November of 2009, B.
Principal (a pseudonym; UP-IRB IIR0000701) made an effort to establish a philosophy
that the staff should be providing effective instruction to all learners and not trying to
game the accountability system (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5,
2010). The staff had a different vision and expectation for struggling learners and a shift
in overall philosophy was needed to institute lasting change (B. Principal, personal
communication, November 5, 2010). An example of setting high expectations for student
learning crystallizing with the staff occurred during the summer of 2010 after API scores
were released publicly and staff became aware of the 20-point decrease in their school’s
score. According to B. Principal, she received a number of phone calls that evening from
teachers who were previously passive participants in the educational planning and
instructional process (personal communication, November 5, 2010). These previously
passive teachers volunteered to move grade levels so that their strengths could be better
matched with grade levels that required additional support and where instructional
expertise was lacking. In addition, many teachers volunteered to come in early and
review the data so that they could plan as a collective group to improve their instruction
for the upcoming year. Most notable during this process of change was the language from
170
the teachers indicating the realization that they had to broaden the scope of their effective
instruction and to not just reserve intensive strategies for the known struggling learners or
students in the lower socioeconomic bands (B. Principal, personal communication,
November 5, 2010). These statements reinforced the principal’s belief that the school was
made up of a number of effective and dedicated teachers; however, the problem was that
staff was in the habit of being directed as opposed to using their own training in good
pedagogy with classroom data to problem solve and intervene in a timely manner for all
students (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5, 2010).
Data-based decision making. As defined by Johnson (2002), equity is about
shaping policies and practices that insist on high expectations for all students to achieve
at the same standard, regardless of race, income, language, or other factors. In order to
accomplish this task, organizational data must be constantly examined and questioned as
it relates to policies and practices for students. The process of data-based decision making
was initiated at the school site level through formative curriculum-based assessments and
supported at the district level through a number of district benchmark assessments in
math and writing. The initial step implemented by Bryce Elementary was data-based
discussions regarding the previous CST assessment. Formative assessments were then
developed and implemented by the individual teachers at each grade level. Upon
completion of the grade level assessment, teachers requested substitutes from the
principal so they could meet as a team with the literacy coach to review the data and
create another pre-assessment before teaching the next unit (B. Principal, personal
communication, November 5, 2010). This practice of using formative, interim, and
171
summative assessments to drive instruction reinforces best practices approaches that
emphasize including multiple measures of assessment so that teachers can look for
patterns in student learning (R. Johnson, 2002; McIntire, 2005). These assessments were
not being used just in terms of measurement but were an integral part of the process of
instructional improvement and school-based reform (Heritage, 2010).
The principal also discussed the upcoming implementation of a district initiated
online system called the Online Assessment Reporting System (OARS) which was
expected to help track student progress and help refine interventions and instruction (Red
Schoolhouse Software, 2010). According to B. Principal, she felt the teachers were
effective in using the local data to drive their decision-making and instruction (personal
communication, November 5, 2010). However, she was eager for the planned
implementation and was planning on taking data-based discussions one step further in the
upcoming year since the new system would allow for better cross-communication
between teachers and provide more timely feedback in the areas of CST sample
questions. According to B. Principal, this would allow the teachers to more effectively
modify their instruction for all learners and provide an opportunity to gather more
information as how to plan upcoming professional development activities based on
school site level data (personal communication, November 5, 2010).
Professional development. Providing systematic, intensive, and ongoing
professional development is a key strategy to improving student performance in
elementary schools (Odden, 2009). Due to her late arrival and the fact that the school was
in Year Four of PI, B. Principal felt there was a sense of urgency for establishing
172
direction and laying out a professional development plan for the school (personal
communication, November 5, 2010). However, the principal avoided the urge to respond
impulsively. Since any change is only considered institutionalized after it becomes
second nature to the staff and is no longer thought of as a special project or an effort for
improvement (Datnow, 2005), the principal indicated she had to be strategic and
systematic to bring about change (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5,
2010). The principal brought in an outside consultant to help guide the process of having
teachers understand where they felt they were and where they needed to go in terms of
their instructional practice and school-based reform (B. Principal, personal
communication, November 5, 2010). This systematic instructional change strategy was
initiated by using a consultant to facilitate the school through an Academic Program
Survey (APS).
Consultants. The APS was developed by the California Department of Education
and was designed to help a school analyze the extent to which it is providing a clear and
cohesive instructional program to support improved student achievement (California
Department of Education, 2009b). The consultant organized and surveyed all staff
members including the principal, parents, and other district stakeholders. After
aggregating the data, the consultant then facilitated meetings with all stakeholders to help
develop a plan for improving student achievement based on nine Essential Program
Components (EPCs) associated with student learning (California Department of
Education, 2009b). The philosophy behind these activities was that all students should be
provided a rigorous academic program and that this rigor comes through high quality
173
instruction, based on teacher knowledge of the standards and an ability to engage student
in effective learning (California Department of Education, 2009b). By having an outsider
come in and help facilitate this process, B Principal indicated that it relieved some of the
pressure off of her as a new principal to the school and district (personal communication,
November 5, 2010). However, she was also careful to not give the perception that this
educational reform was coming from an outside consultant. After identifying the areas
the school was weak in regarding instruction, the teachers with the help of the consultant
came back and reviewed what direct instruction and best practices should look like for all
learners. In addition, the consultant provided a number of trainings and demonstration
lessons for teachers outside the regularly planned staff development periods throughout
the school year (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5, 2010).
Coaching. Professional development should provide teachers the opportunity to
actively engage in the meaningful analysis of teaching and learning (Birman, et al., 2000;
Corcoran, 1995). In fact, some of the most effective professional development activities
are when they relate directly to the instructional content materials teachers must use and
take place in their own schools and classrooms with coaching and ongoing feedback
(Miles, et al., 2004). The Bryce Elementary staff incorporated this effective strategy
through the use of a full-time literacy coach dedicated to their campus. According to B.
Principal, she relied upon her literacy coach and empowered her to make many day-to-
day decisions (personal communication, November 5, 2010). The literacy coach’s role
was to observe lessons, provide demonstration lessons, as well as help scaffold and
differentiate instruction for teachers. There was also tremendous trust in the coach by the
174
teachers as exhibited by their willingness to be videotaped and critiqued in small group
meetings. According to the principal, it was significant to note that her coach was a non-
evaluative member of her team (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5,
2010). Because she was a non-evaluative member, teachers actively sought the coach’s
feedback and were more open with the principal when she did participate in team level
learning community meetings (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5,
2010).
Effective instruction. Providing time during the school day for teachers to meet
and collaborate strengthens a shared responsibility in providing effective instruction,
emphasizes intervention with at-risk students, and reinforces distributed leadership
(DuFour, et al., 2006; Spillane, et al., 2001). However the research suggests (Langer,
1999; Marzano, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003) in order to achieve an increase in
student achievement, the discussion must go beyond small groups and take on a system-
wide approach to curriculum and instruction. As previously discussed, Bryce Elementary
entered into a process of evaluating their instruction through the APS. Through the APS,
the teachers realized that they were not providing effective instruction for all learners and
it motivated a shift in practices (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5,
2010). According to B. Principal, she allowed this process to take shape at the teacher
level (personal communication, November 5, 2010); nevertheless, she did have to
reinforce effective and standards-based instruction through walkthroughs (Brooks,
Solloway, & Allen, 2007).
175
An additional hurdle that needed to be cleared with the teachers was the fact that
they were previously allowed many freedoms in their instructional planning and use of
curriculum materials (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5, 2010). Upon
her arrival, the principal discovered that there were a number of instructional resources
not being used; furthermore, teachers were having difficulty scaffolding and
differentiating instruction. As previously outlined in the area of professional development
of this case study, through the use of her literacy coach the principal tried to reinforce
effective instruction but noted this was a major change for the staff during the 2009-2010
school year (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5, 2010). However, even
the most effective teachers and strategies can fall short in educating certain populations
of students in a traditional manner (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009; The
Education Trust, 2005a). Therefore educators must account for additional evidence-based
strategies to ensure that all students are given the opportunity to learn at proficient levels
(Odden & Picus, 2008).
Extend learning opportunities for struggling students. According to Odden
(2009), an effective strategy is to intervene quickly and intensively for students
struggling over a concept; in addition, the intervention should be embedded within the
school day. As a Title I school designated in PI for more than one year, Bryce Elementary
was required to provide supplemental educational services to students of low-income
families (U.S. Department of Education, 2009b). Because Bryce Elementary was the only
elementary school within the district in Year Two or above PI status in 2009-2010,
supplemental educational services were coordinated by the district in the form of tutoring
176
provided through private companies. Tutoring was provided before, after school, and
sometimes on the weekends by private vendors under contract with the central office. The
principal reported that there was little coordination between the school site and the
outside vendors with the exception of individual progress reports provided to the school
and the school releasing special education student goals upon consent from parents (B.
Principal, personal communication, November 5, 2010).
Due to budget constraints, all summer school programs other than mandated
special education services were eliminated for the 2009 and 2010 summer. Although an
after school program was not directly sponsored by the school during the 2009-2010
school year, a number of nonprofit community partners paired up with the school to
advertise and provide resources through the CASA Program. According to the school
website, the CASA Program was a partnership between several community groups in
which the goal was to provide a wide array of activities for students of the community.
The goal of the program was to expand learning opportunities for children by providing
daily afterschool enrichment activities in the areas of technology usage, self-esteem
activities, nutrition, and parent education.
In addition to the traditional tutoring and community based after school program,
the school had initiated the implementation of a schoolwide Response to Intervention
(RtI) model during the 2009-2010 academic year. According to Gibbs (2009) and Tilly
(2006), RtI should be thought of as a process in which instructional interventions are
identified based on research-based findings and used as a framework for school programs
in the areas of curriculum, instruction, and behavior. Under the direction of the literacy
177
coach, four instructional assistants who had been trained in a reading intervention
program were assigned to the school to provide pull-out reading instruction for
approximately three hours a day (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5,
2010). In addition to reading interventions, the school utilized two substitute teachers to
help implement an RtI model for EL students. For approximately a half an hour every
day, the intervention substitute would come into the classroom and provide language
instruction to the average learner so that the struggling learners could be pulled out by the
credentialed classroom teachers to help build a stronger foundation in decoding and other
skills they required to be successful (B. Principal, personal communication, November 5,
2010). Though a number of these interventions may be valuable, without effective
leadership and collaboration amongst educational staff to guide the implementation of
such useful strategies, one may not experience the positive effects of such an approach
(Fullan, 2002; Hallinger & Heck, 2003; Marzano, et al., 2005).
Collaborative and distributed leadership. A major hurdle for most
organizations to surmount is the implementation of effective change (Fullan, 2005a,
2007). In order to be successful in this process, principals must remember that leadership
goes beyond management and effective leaders are those that broaden their focus of
learning and center on the well-being of all students (Hancock & Lamendola, 2005). B.
Principal exemplified this image of being a leader who tried to expand the learning of all
students. In fact, this leadership role may attribute to the schools 20-point decrease in
their API score. In discussing this statement with the principal, B. Principal
communicated that she knew she was going to get immediate gains from focusing on a
178
particular instructional strategy or intervention, but she was only going to get sustained
growth if the culture and vision of instruction changed at the school (personal
communication, November 5, 2010). Therefore, she attributed much of the decrease to
the teachers having to deal with change. As exemplified earlier regarding the discussion
of setting high expectations for all students, the principal believed she was turning the
corner and felt the upcoming year would be successful because they had established a
sense of distributed leadership through learning communities.
Professional learning communities (PLCs) have demonstrated a positive
relationship with the organization of classrooms for learning through an emphasis on the
academic performance of students by empowering teachers at the school site level (Louis
& Marks, 1998; Louis, Marks, et al., 1996). Upon her arrival in November of 2009, B.
Principal reported that she put an emphasis on creating a sense of a learning community
and implemented this strategy for the first time at Bryce Elementary school during the
2009-2010 school year (personal communication, November 5, 2010). During these
weekly PLC meetings, professional development activities were routinely carried out
with the support of the instructional coach and the principal. According to B. Principal,
this established time became significant for discussing instructional strategies and
effective instruction due to the recent budget reductions (personal communication,
November 5, 2010). The local educational agency (LEA) in which Bryce Elementary
resided was one of the first in the county to implement furlough days during the 2009-
2010 school year and eliminated a number of district led professional development
activities midyear. Noteworthy was the fact that teachers were meeting and beginning to
179
take ownership of the problem through small cohesive groups, which in turn was
changing the vision for learning at the school site (Marzano, 2003).
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
As previously discussed in the review of the literature, an evidence-based model
approach strives to identify a set of effective educational procedures based on proven
research strategies in order to deliver an adequate and comprehensive instructional
program for all students at the school site level (Odden, 2000, 2003; Odden & Picus,
2008). Further, case studies have supported the value of using an evidence-based model
to determine school-level expenditure structures (Brinson & Mellor, 2005). One such
framework that can be used to help identify effective educational strategies is the
Evidence-Based Model outlined by Odden and Picus (2008). The following Table D.2 is
a comparison of Bryce Elementary to that of the core resources allocated to a prototypical
elementary school using the Evidence-Base Model (Odden & Picus, 2008).
180
Table D.2: Bryce Elementary Evidence-Based Model Comparison
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model
Current Allocation
Resources
Resources Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 497 Students 15 % larger
Class Size
K-3 : 15
4-5 : 25
K-3 : 27.1
4-6 : 30.2
K-3: 81 % larger
4-5: 21 % larger
Instructional Days 200; includes PD 182; includes PD 18 less days
Kindergarten Full-day K Part-day K Full-day K
Administrative Support
Principal 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.15 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.15 FTE
School Site Clerical 1.0 FTE 0.49 FTE 1.15 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24 FTE 16.5 FTE 27.6 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 0% of core teachers 20% of core teachers
Instructional Facilitators 2.2 FTE 1.0 FTE 2.53 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors 1.0 FTE : 100 SES 5.50 FTE 4.40 FTE
Teacher for ELs 1.0 FTE : 100 ELs 0 FTE 2.79 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0 FTE 2.07 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0 FTE 2.07 FTE
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel 5.6% of personnel 5% of personnel
Librarians/Media Specialist 1.0 FTE 0.38 FTE 1.15 FTE
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133.
Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.
As demonstrated in Table D.2, on average Bryce Elementary executed their
improvement strategies employing less resources as compared to the prototypical school
using the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). An area that diverged from the
typical pattern was tutoring resources provided through supplemental educational
services. As a Title I school designated in PI for more than one year, Bryce Elementary
was required to provide supplemental educational services to students of low-income
181
families (U.S. Department of Education, 2009b). Although slightly greater than what the
typical model would call for, it should be noted that compared to other schools in this
study this was a rather low allocation. An additional area of interest was the use of
substitute dollars for professional development activities when compared to other schools
examined in this study. Although the influx of additional categorical funding is above
average when compared to what other schools in the district and county received, it is
how those extra resources were allocated at the site level that appears to have brought
about differences as compared to other schools (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Impact of the reallocation of resources. Regardless of the funding source, there
appeared to be indirect alignment between educational strategies and resources allocated
for the prototypical school within the Evidence-Based Model and instructional strategies
implemented by Bryce Elementary. An obvious strategy for reducing inequality is to
provide extra schooling to those children who need it more (Krueger, 2003). Bryce
Elementary was mandated to allocate a number of its categorical resources towards
tutoring. Although all schools in this study were required to provide supplemental
educational services due to their PI status (U.S. Department of Education, 2009b), each
school site in this study took different ownership regarding these services. Based on the
discussion with B. Principal, there was little site based control or ownership regarding the
tutoring program (person communication, November 5, 2010). This was reinforced in a
discussion outside of the semi-structured interview process with an administrator at the
central office level (B. Anonymous, personal communication, November 18, 2010).
According to B. Anonymous (personal communication, November 18, 2010), because of
182
the socioeconomic makeup of the overall district, there has been little drive from the
community and local school board to coordinate and advertise these services. Based on
these discussions, it was apparent that a majority of the resources and previous
interventions were based on mandates at the federal and state level (McDonnell &
Elmore, 1987). However, the principal appeared to be hard at work in developing
capacity for a systems change at the school site level by implementing a number of
evidence-based strategies and reallocating resources (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987).
Lessons Learned
Bryce Elementary appeared to be in a transitional-phase regarding resource
reallocation. Based on the information provided, the school demonstrated that they were
moving towards improving the efficiency of resource use through the reallocation of the
resources currently in the system (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Although the school
demonstrated the use of all six evidence-based strategies in implementing educational
reform, Bryce demonstrated above average use of setting high expectations for student
learning, professional development, and collaborative and distributed leadership.
183
Table D.3: Bryce Elementary Performance of Evidence-Based Strategies
Evidence-Based Strategy Weak
Below
Average
Above
Average Strong
Setting High Expectations for Student Learning √
Data-Based Decision Making √
Professional Development √
Effective Instruction √
Extend Learning Opportunities for Struggling Students √
Collaborative and Distributed Leadership √
Note: Case study ranking of evidence-based strategies implemented at the school site level. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
One must remember that setting high expectations for students to achieve begins
with establishing challenging goals and learning objectives for students (Marzano, 2003).
As previously noted the principal at Bryce Elementary held a strong belief that the staff
should be setting high expectations and providing effective instruction to all learners and
not trying to game the accountability system (B. Principal, personal communication,
November 5, 2010). The principal also acknowledged many of the prior successes
implemented by the school staff. However, several of the previous interventions were
unsustainable without ongoing financial commitments by the district and state;
consequently, the interventions were disjointed from the entire school plan towards
providing effective instruction. Therefore, to maintain sustainability, the principal turned
her attention towards changing the overall system and developed a social environment
that was centered on improving the learning of all students through targeted professional
development and distributing leadership (Corcoran, 1995; Fullan, 2002; Odden, 2009).
184
APPENDIX E – CRATER LAKE ELEMENTARY
Utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework, the
purpose of this case study is to examine site level resource allocation at a school in
Program Improvement (PI), yet demonstrated significant growth in their Academic
Performance Index (API). The purpose for utilizing a case study approach was to provide
comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth information regarding resource allocation based
on the single unit of schools (Patton, 2002). Previous case studies have supported the
value of using an evidence-based model to determine school-level expenditure structures
(Brinson & Mellor, 2005). By providing an analysis at the school level, this case study
contributes to the discussion of how an evidence-based approach can help identify
effective educational strategies for improving elementary schools so that others may link
future recommendations based on school finance adequacy models to achieve gains in
student performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Key elements of the case study include
how the improvement process was initiated at each school, common themes that led to
successful outcome measures, and what resources it took to achieve the school’s goals.
School Background
Crater Lake Elementary (a pseudonym; UP-IRB IIR0000701) is a K-5 school
located in a large suburban unified school district within Southern California. During the
2009-2010 academic year, Crater Lake Elementary reported an enrollment of 684
students and was 1 of 36 elementary schools in the district (California Department of
Education, 2010g). The district serves approximately 58,000 students in grades
kindergarten through 12
th
grade and is the largest school district in the suburban Southern
185
California County and the 6
th
largest in California. During the 2009-2010 school year, the
district was in Year Three of PI as indicated by the 2009 Federal Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) Report; in addition, Crater Lake was 1 of 20 elementary schools within
the district in Year Two or above PI status in 2009-2010 (California Department of
Education, 2010d). Table E.1 provides a description of the school and district
demographics as compared to the county and state averages.
Table E.1: Crater Lake Elementary Demographic Comparison, 2009-2010
%
Hispanic
%
White
%
EL
%
Free/Reduced
Crater Lake Elementary 99.1 0 91.2 95.9
District Average 93.2 3.0 56.1 85.6
County Average 46.9 31.8 27.5 42.3
State Average 50.4 27.0 23.8 55.9
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
As illustrated in Table E.1, Crater Lake Elementary served a disproportionately
large Hispanic community with 99.1 percent of the total population reporting their
ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino. Of the total population, 91.2 percent were reported as
English learners (ELs) and 95.9 percent were enrolled in the free and reduced meals
program (California Department of Education, 2010d).
Assessment and data. At the initiation of this study, Crater Lake Elementary was
in Year Five of PI as indicated by the 2009 Federal AYP Report (California Department
of Education, 2010d). According to the California Department of Education (2010d),
Crater Lake’s first year of PI implementation was during the 2004-2005 school year. As
further illustrated in Figure E.1, the school’s API score was trending upward but for the
186
most part remained relatively flat during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years.
However during the 2008-2009 school year, there was a significant shift in academic
performance at Crater Lake Elementary as demonstrated by their 85-point API increase.
Figure E.1: Crater Lake Elementary API Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
During the 2009-2010 academic year, the school remained in PI status but met the
2009 AYP criterion. This signified that the local educational agency (LEA) had met 2009
AYP measures for participation and proficiency in each content area assessed on the
statewide assessments as well as met the API indicator criterion. A school can exit PI
only after making all AYP criteria for two consecutive years (California Department of
Education, 2010i). During the focal year of this study, Crater Lake Elementary continued
to make significant gains in their API scores as demonstrated by the 15-point increase in
Figure E.2. Although Crater Lake continued to make progress, they were not able to keep
pace with the growing annual measurable objective (AMO) target required under the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 in the area of English-language arts. The school
609
627 631
716
731
600
650
700
750
800
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
187
did meet its AMO in the area of mathematics using the alternative method criteria
(California Department of Education, 2010d). NCLB contains a “safe harbor” provision
for meeting AMOs in circumstances when the percentage of students in the school or
subgroup performing below the proficient level is decreased by at least 10 percent of that
percentage from the preceding school year (California Department of Education, 2009a,
2010b). However, because the school did not meet 2010 AYP criterion in both areas for
the 2010-2011 school year, the school continued in Year Five of PI status.
English-language arts (ELA). As indicated in Figure E.2, between 2008 and
2010, the school demonstrated a 15.3 percentage point increase in the number of
Hispanic students scoring proficient and above on statewide ELA assessments. Due to the
lack of a significant White subgroup, information regarding the achievement gap could
not be obtained. However, an examination at the district level revealed that there was a
large achievement gap between the school’s Hispanic students and the district’s White
students (69.1 percent scored proficient or above) as indicated by the 36.1 percentage
point gap between subgroups (California Department of Education, 2010d).
188
Figure E.2: Crater Lake Elementary Language Arts – Proficient & Above Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
Mathematics. Examination of Figure E.3 illustrates that between the 2008 and
2010, the school demonstrated a 24.3 percentage point increase in the number of
Hispanic students scoring proficient and above on statewide math assessments. Again,
due to the lack of a significant White subgroup, information regarding the achievement
gap could not be obtained at the school site level. However, a comparison made at the
district level demonstrated a large achievement gap between the school Hispanic and the
district’s White students. According to the California Department of Education (2010d),
the school’s Hispanic population lagged behind the district’s White subgroup average
(67.4 percent scored proficient or above) as indicated by the 15.3 percentage point gap
between subgroups.
12.8
17.4
17.9
31.6
33.3
12.7
17.3
17.8
31.4
33.0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide Hispanic White
189
Figure E.3: Crater Lake Elementary Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
Improvement Process Themes
A comprehensive improvement process seeks to have schools create, adopt, and
adapt an educational approach that integrates all students and programs into a schoolwide
educational strategy (Odden, 2000). The data in the previous figures indicates that such
an educational improvement process occurred at Crater Lake Elementary. However, the
numerical data lacks the narrative information as to how and why a transformation
occurred. According to Odden (2009), in order to implement any powerful education
improvement strategy, the system must utilize a set of core research-based strategies. A
review of the research literature by Odden and Archibald (2009) has outlined ten core
elements that have constituted effective educational change. As previously discussed in
the literature review, for this study these strategies were strategically consolidated into
six evidence-based strategies and used as a framework to discuss the literature as it
25.4
29.3
27.5
47.8
52.3
25.1
29.6
27.8
47.7
52.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide Hispanic White
190
relates to effective resource allocation in elementary schools. The following is a
description of what occurred, together with how these six evidence-based strategies
guided Crater Lake Elementary in achieving educational reform and becoming more
productive through resource reallocation (Odden & Archibald, 2000a).
Setting high expectations for student learning. One must remember that setting
high expectations for students to achieve begins with establishing challenging goals and
learning objectives for students (Marzano, 2003). Upon his arrival in the fall of 2008, C.
Principal (a pseudonym; UP-IRB IIR0000701) noted that there was a lot of energy being
spent on a number of non-instructional issues that teachers had no control over (personal
communication, October 14, 2010). Therefore, one of his primary tasks in shaping the
climate was to restructure the conversations of the whole school and parental community
around effective instruction and setting clear goals. The principal felt it was imperative to
hold all students accountable and emphasized building a relationship between teachers,
parents, and students in which leadership was distributed (C. Principal, personal
communication, October 14, 2010). In fact, this philosophy of setting high expectations
for all students and distributing the leadership through multiple interaction and
relationships to obtain this goal was a strategy that Crater Lake Elementary exemplified
throughout all the evidence-based strategies.
The principal of Crater Lake Elementary knew that he needed to implement a
change in how staff, parents, and students perceived the school; however, C. Principal
felt that if he alone initiated this process the momentum would be short-lived (personal
communication, October 14, 2010). Therefore, the principal initially led by example and
191
let the staff come to him in regards to setting new goals for the school. Early upon his
arrival to Crater Lake Elementary, staff learned that the principal was previously the
assistant principal at an elementary school that had recently obtained one of the highest
API point gains in the state (California Department of Education, 2010d); subsequently,
they began to query as to how the school made such a dramatic turn-around (C. Principal,
personal communication, October 14, 2010). According to C. Principal, he was initially
very modest about the gains of the school and made the staff coax more and more out of
him until he felt they were ready to not only hear the strategies but also implement those
strategies (personal communication, October 14, 2010).
According to C. Principal, the core method utilized to implement such a
successful change was based on the Strategic Schooling Model (personal communication,
October 14, 2010). The Strategic Schooling Model was developed by Dennis Parker in
2000 and encompasses a number of skill sets that contribute to systemic and instructional
accountability (Karns & Parker, 2007; Ramirez, 2010). The Strategic Schooling Model is
designed to improve academic skills and increase student achievement within the
environment of the school by setting goals, evaluating feedback, and applying
pedagogical expertise (Ramirez, 2010). Although there was a set of procedures and a
model outlined under the Strategic Schooling Model, the principal perceived that the
teachers were more interested in the strategies being implemented as opposed to
implementing another out-of-the box program. Therefore, the C. Principal decided to
focus implementation around the initial phase of the program and chose not to formally
participate with the County Office of Education’s program or directly with the consultant
192
Dennis Parker in implementing the program (personal communication, October 14,
2010). The initial phase of implementation primarily emphasizes activities related to
improving teachers, students, and the organization’s ability to set and focus on clear,
ambitious targets; and then receive, analyze, and give feedback effectively in a variety of
ways (Parker, 2006).
Holding students responsible and encouraging high expectations for all students
should be a standard practice for educational organizations (Resnick, 2005). By choosing
to focus on all students and not just the struggling learner, Crater Lake exemplified this
strategy of setting high expectations. According to C. Principal, staff was initially
disappointed that the school did not achieve as large of an API gain during the focal year
of the study because they felt they experienced a greater growth from all the students
based on interim assessments (personal communication, October 14, 2010). This
disappointment remained until actual scores were released and the teachers realized that
they had increased from 2 perfect scores the prior year, to a total of 14 during the year of
the study. For the principal, this demonstrated that teachers were focused on setting high
expectation for all learners and since so many students just missed perfect scores, the
school had adopted a goal to increase the number of perfect scores for the upcoming
2010-2011 school year (personal communication, October 14, 2010).
This achievement in conjunction with a number of others were regularly
celebrated and communicated to parents and other community members. Compared to
other schools examined in this study, community involvement was clearly encouraged
and visible as demonstrated by the multiple signs posted regarding monthly parent
193
meetings throughout the community. The principal indicated that the monthly meetings
were an opportunity to give parents additional feedback regarding their children’s
instruction, as well as an opportunity to communicate community goals regarding
education and allow parents to become partners in setting goals for their students (C.
Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). It was this level of transparency
and collaboration that allowed teachers, parents, and students to feed off one another and
provide momentum to become a more effective school (Fullan, 2005b, 2007). However
the principal, teachers, and community not only set high expectation for students
learning, but also set high goals for instructional implementation through the use of
numerous strategies such as data-based decision making.
Data-based decision making. As demonstrated by the literature (Datnow, et al.,
2007; DuFour, et al., 2006; Supovitz & Taylor, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003), high
performing schools are immersed in a culture of continuous improvement which utilize
multiple strategies to make decisions based on data rather than on instinct. According to
C. Principal, all elementary schools located in the LEA had been utilizing interim
benchmark assessments developed by the central office to evaluate student progress
(personal communication, October 14, 2010). The principal explained that these
assessments were aligned with the state standards and administered approximately every
four to six weeks (C. Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). Because the
assessments were initially driven and reinforced at the central office level, C. Principal
indicated that the process of having teachers use these measures and trust them had
steadily increased over the last couple of years (personal communication, October 14,
194
2010). However, teachers continued to struggle because the process was so complex and
many of the materials used did not directly connect with the standards (C. Principal,
personal communication, October 14, 2010). According to C. Principal, there was a lot
for teachers to mediate in connecting the data with instruction; therefore, he had
emphasized bridging the gap between standards and instruction through effective
formative assessment and feedback at the school level (personal communication, October
14, 2010).
School-level data can be instrumental in establishing appropriate and adequate
resource levels needed to educate students with different needs to high standards (Busch
& Odden, 1997). The research indicates that this process is only effective if coupled with
a systematic reform strategy on how to utilize data (Datnow, et al., 2007; Feldman, et al.,
2003; Fullan, 2003, 2005a, 2007; R. Johnson, 2002; Mohrman, 1994). In order to
reconcile the gap between the district interim assessment and instruction, the principal
instituted the use of classroom formative assessments to better guide instruction (C.
Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). According to C. Principal, the
teachers developed a number of classroom assessments that were administered
approximately every 15 to 20 days to evaluate previous instruction and gauge student
baselines for upcoming standards (personal communication, October 14, 2010). The
grade level teams would then meet and evaluate the students; and then based on this
information, the team would readdress a focus standard that children were struggling with
and brainstorm upcoming lessons based on student work samples (C. Principal, personal
communication, October 14, 2010).
195
Unfortunately, educational leaders and teachers too often hold a false assumption
that formative assessment is a particular kind of measurement instrument or is an interim
assessment rather than a process that is fundamental to the practice of teaching and
learning (Heritage, 2010; Perie, et al., 2009). Based on the discussions with the principal
and a walkthrough of the school, Crater Lake illustrated complex understanding of
incorporating data into decision-making. In addition to the evaluation of grade level
quizzes, each teacher was expected to post the California content standards blueprint for
their grade level in the classroom (Karns & Parker, 2007; Parker, 2006). Each student
also had a copy of content standards at their desk along with graphs of their progress
towards the core standards. As a standard was addressed in class, the teacher and students
each tallied the use of that standard so that the class could monitor their progress.
According to C. Principal, this formative process allowed for students to take ownership
of their own instruction and provided immediate feedback to the student regarding their
learning (C. Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010).
According to Sadler (1989), teachers also receive feedback from assessment data
and can use the information to make changes in teaching when formative assessment is
implemented correctly. According to C. Principal, he reinforced this strategy through the
use of visual schedules and walkthroughs (personal communication, October 14, 2010).
During curriculum and staff meetings, the team would focus on a specific strategy to
implement in the classroom; the principal would then provide videos, pictures, and
student samples of these instructional strategies being implemented correctly (C.
Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). According to C. Principal, he
196
would then inform the staff what components he would be looking for regarding the
instructional strategy being implemented in the upcoming week (personal
communication, October 14, 2010). Afterwards, the principal would conduct his
walkthroughs and tally if the strategy was being implemented as measured through
observation of direct instructional activities, student work samples, or if students could
articulate the lesson objectives and the importance of the lesson when queried (C.
Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). According to C. Principal, he
would then post the results of his tallies in the teacher workroom so that all teachers and
grade levels could gauge their level of progress in implementing the strategies (C.
Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). Through this process, the
principal attempted to help drive a cycle of continuous improvement in instruction
through feedback based on student products and instructional strategies so that teachers
could adjust teaching and learning (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Cervone & Martinez-Miller,
2007). The principal noted that although using data to drive instruction was a very
effective strategy, he also understood that providing systematic, intensive, and ongoing
professional development was a key strategy to improving student performance at the
school (Odden, 2009).
Professional development. As discussed by Datnow (2005), any change is only
considered institutionalized after it becomes second nature to the staff and is no longer
thought of as a special project or an effort for improvement. Therefore, staff development
programs should be systematic and attempt to bring about change; change in the
classroom, change in beliefs and attitudes, and change in learning outcomes (Elmore &
197
Burney, 1999; Guskey, 1986; Little, 1993; Smylie, 1996; Supovitz & Turner, 2000).
According to C. Principal, prior to his arrival there were a number of professional
development activities provided by the district and at the school site level in different
topic areas (personal communication, October 14, 2010). Rather than layering another
level of professional development on top of the ones that were already being
implemented with little success, the principal chose to focus around three strategies to
coalesce the previous professional development activities. As discussed in the setting
high expectations section of this case study, these strategies centered on setting high
expectations for all learners, effectively using data to analyze instruction, and sharing
goals with the whole school community, including parents as partners.
The principal at Crater Lake Elementary made an attempt to institutionalize the
previously trained instructional strategies and provided the opportunity for collective
participation regardless of staffs’ previous training (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin,
1999). According to C. Principal (personal communication, October 14, 2010), this was
critical during year two of his tenure at the school and the focal year of this study. Due to
budget constraints, during the 2009-2010 school year, Crater Lake was allocated nine
new teachers from surrounding schools in the district, and each teacher came to the
school with a different contextual understanding of the numerous district led professional
development activities (C. Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010).
Therefore, the principal had to trust that each teacher had a basic foundation in what
those effective instructional strategies were regarding pedagogy. The principal made a
point to emphasize that all curriculum and professional development activities should
198
align with the school’s goals and state standards, and demanded student artifacts
demonstrating this alignment (Desimone, Porter, Birman, et al., 2002).
A unique perspective observed at Crater Lake Elementary in terms of professional
development and leadership was the use of weekly early release days for staff
development. During early release Wednesdays, two meetings per month were centered
on general faculty activities and the other two were devoted towards curriculum
meetings. A number of other schools in this study pointed out that these early release
days were typically utilized for professional learning communities (PLCs), which can be
a very effective form of professional development and collaborative leadership (DuFour,
et al., 2006). Although C. Principal recognized that several components of the curriculum
meetings were synonymous with effective learning communities, he noted that upon his
arrival at Crater Lake staff made a point not to refer to these meetings as a PLC (personal
communication, October 14, 2010). Crater Lake Elementary was a school that utilized a
distributed leadership model for all activities including professional development, and
leadership was incorporated across multiple groups of individuals with the emphasis of
implementing instructional change (Harris & Spillane, 2008). This was further exhibited
in the principal’s choice to use additional professional development dollars to bring
teachers in prior to the start of the school year for professional development activities as
opposed to sending small groups out to additional trainings during the school year.
Pupil-free days. According to Odden (2009), student free days can be
accomplished in two ways: (1) hire substitute teachers and provide professional
development during the regular school year, or (2) provide pupil-free days by extending
199
the school year for teachers and provide training prior to school starting. During the focal
year of this study, Crater Lake Elementary was provided additional one-time professional
development dollars and made the decision to extend the school year for teachers by
utilizing those dollars to bring teachers in for organized and coordinated professional
development activities prior to the start of the school year (C. Principal, personal
communication, October 14, 2010). By providing this training prior to the start of the
school year, there was a clear direction to all staff as to what the priorities were for the
year regarding instructional strategies. In addition, it provided the principal and the
instructional coach an opportunity to support and reinforce those strategies during the
school year through classroom walkthroughs and curriculum discussions (C. Principal,
personal communication, October 14, 2010).
Instructional coaching. Professional development should be school-based, job
embedded, and focused on the curriculum over an ongoing period of time (Darling-
Hammond & McLaughlin, 1999; Elmore & Burney, 1999). Therefore, some of the most
effective professional development activities are when they take place in their own
schools and classrooms with coaching and ongoing feedback (Miles, et al., 2004). The
Crater Lake staff incorporated this effective strategy through the use of an assigned
instructional EL coach dedicated to their campus and an additional district coach that was
available upon request. Due to the demographics of the school and district, the majority
of the coach’s time was spent supporting teachers in the analysis of data and coordination
of instruction for English language development. Based on the conversation, the principal
clearly understood the importance of providing on-going feedback regarding the learning
200
associated with the curriculum goals (Heritage, 2010), but due to budget constraints he
had seen this resource diminish each year (personal communication, October 14, 2010).
Upon his arrival at Crate Lake Elementary, there was an assistant principal also assigned
to the school site which allowed the two administrators along with a special education
teacher to provide additional coaching support in the areas of language arts and
mathematics. However, during the focal year of this study, the assistant principal position
was eliminated, and the principal noted the difficulty in allocating more of his time to
provide this effective strategy. According to C. Principal, if there were additional dollars
available he would have added an instructional coach at his school site to support
effective instruction, especially in the area of language arts (personal communication,
October 14, 2010).
Effective instruction. The ideology behind the standards-based reform
movement is that the path to raising academic achievement for all students is through
effective instruction (Birman, et al., 2000; Odden & Archibald, 2000b). Upon his arrival
in the fall of 2008, C. Principal noted that there was a lot of energy being spent on a
number of non-instructional issues that teachers had no control over; therefore, his
primary task was redirecting the conversations around effective instruction and defining
what that looked like for all learners. Discussions with the principal revealed numerous
evidence-based instructional strategies in which the teachers were trained and expected to
utilize. In fact, the number of strategies being implemented initially sparked skepticism as
to how one school could effectively implement so many different strategies with
cohesion. According to C. Principal, this process started by defining what effective
201
instruction and teaching resembled given each instructional strategy (personal
communication, October 14, 2010). The majority of teachers had a common language
regarding effective instruction; however, the point in which this concept truly coalesced
was when the staff understood that all lessons and strategies should center around asking
students to state the learning objectives, providing ample opportunities for them to see the
concept being demonstrated, and finally checking for understanding (C. Principal,
personal communication, October 14, 2010). This conceptual framework reinforces the
research by Marzano (2003) and Langer (1999), that effective instruction should include:
(1) clearly stated learning objectives for each lesson or course, (2) multiple exposure of
skills and knowledge which are then repeatedly introduced in a variety of lessons across a
variety of curricular areas, and (3) structured learning that leads to transfer of knowledge
through strategies for thinking.
In order to help shape the instructional methods being implemented in the
classroom, the principal sought to reinforce the strategies through instructional
walkthroughs (C. Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). The classroom
walkthrough provided an opportunity for the principal to observe a variety of
instructional practices and engage staff in a collegial dialogue regarding teacher behavior
and instruction strategies (Brooks, et al., 2007; Cervone & Martinez-Miller, 2007;
Kachur, Stout, & Edwards, 2010). As highlighted throughout this case study, the
principal utilized the walkthroughs to address a number of effective strategies such as
data-based decision making, professional development, and effective instruction (C.
Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). As discussed earlier in data-based
202
decision making, the principal used a classroom and schoolwide scorecard to measure
and provide feedback to teachers regarding the instructional strategies observed (personal
communication, October 14, 2010). However, he was also careful not to make the
walkthroughs a punitive or judgmental process (C. Principal, personal communication,
October 14, 2010). According to C. Principal, he made it a point to provide handwritten
notes as feedback during each visit and participated in the coaching and modeling of
instruction (personal communication, October 14, 2010). While the walkthroughs
reinforced goal setting and setting high expectations, the primary purpose of the strategy
was to help drive a cycle of continuous improvement in instruction through feedback and
student-based evidence (Brooks, et al., 2007; Cervone & Martinez-Miller, 2007).
In addition to clearly defining effective instruction and conducting walkthroughs
to provide instructional feedback to teachers, the school made it a point to protect its
instructional time. Staffing models are an important factor in organizing the school so
that instruction may be more effective (Silva, 2010). Therefore, the principal did not
leave the instructional calendar to chance and organized the curriculum schedule so that
instruction was uniform throughout the school. In order to facilitate this best practice
(Silva, 2007, 2010), the school coordinated bell schedules and staffing in order to protect
language arts instruction and EL instruction from any interruptions or distractions (C.
Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). Furthermore, substitute teachers
were coordinated and brought in to provide tutoring and release teachers to observe
effective instruction by other teachers with instructional coaches. At first glance the use
of tutors appeared to be an additional strategy to extend the learning opportunities for
203
struggling learners. However, C. Principal clarified that his philosophy centered on
making the initial first teaching by instructors the most powerful instruction (personal
communication, October 14, 2010). He explained that the curriculum grade level
meetings and professional development activities only went so far, and the teachers
needed to see effective instruction in action because pull-out interventions could only
support a limited number of students for 45 minutes at a time (C. Principal, personal
communication, October 14, 2010). The approach was centered around providing
teachers the opportunity to quickly get in and out of the classroom and then use the most
skilled instructors to provide effective instruction six hours a day for the entire school
year. However, no matter how effective the instructional strategies, there are times when
even the most successful teachers and strategies can fall short in educating certain
populations of students in a traditional manner (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009;
The Education Trust, 2005a).
Extend learning opportunities for struggling students. A review of the
research indicates that individual and small-group tutoring is one of the most effective
extra-help strategies that can be employed at a school site level (Cohen, et al., 1982;
Elbaum, et al., 2000; L. S. Fuchs, et al., 2005; Odden & Picus, 2008; Shanahan, 1998;
Shanahan & Barr, 1995; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). According to C. Principal, one of the
major investments in human capital made at the school site level that went beyond the
typical supplemental educational services coordinated by the district was the use of four
fully credentialed substitute teachers to implement small group and individualized
instruction (personal communication, October 14, 2010). The principal indicated that
204
these certificated long-term substitute teachers were hired to provide intervention tutoring
three to four days a week during the regular school day and after school for those students
in the far below and below basic level (C. Principal, personal communication, October
14, 2010). In addition to using substitutes to provide tutoring services, Crater Lake
implemented four Saturday school programs throughout the year. According to C.
Principal, teachers used classroom data to identify students that were struggling with a
particular concept based on the standards and needed additional intensive support to
move from level of basic to above basic understanding (personal communication,
October 14, 2010). Extending learning opportunities through weekend program
opportunities is just one approach to support struggling learners, another effective
approach is individual and small group tutoring (Elbaum, et al., 2000; Odden & Picus,
2008).
As a Title I school designated in PI for more than one year, Crater Lake
Elementary was required to provide supplemental educational services to students of low-
income families (U.S. Department of Education, 2009b). Because of the large size of the
district and the number of schools that were required to provide supplemental educational
services, these services were coordinated by the central office in the form of tutoring
provided before and after school for about an hour, for one to two days a week only
through private companies. Because of the number of providers and students participating
in the program, there was little coordination of the tutoring program at the school site
level.
205
In addition to the traditional tutoring provided through supplemental educational
services, the district utilized additional Economic Impact Aid Limited English
Proficiency (EIA LEP) and other funds to provide additional instruction through an after
school program. In order to support programs and activities to assist ELs achieve
proficiency, EIA LEP funds were to be used at the school site level to supplement and not
supplant existing resources (California Department of Education, 2010e). The after
school program offered at the school site was called THINK Together. THINK Together
(2010) is a non-profit organization which partners with school districts to provide a
program free of charge to students in low socioeconomic area schools. The after school
programs consist of homework help, academic enrichment, structured physical activity,
and nutrition for those students that are currently struggling academically, and may not
have the resources at home that would allow them to catch up to their peers (THINK
Together, 2010). Although the school did not directly oversee the program, they
encouraged a number of families within their community to utilize the service and used
THINK Together as an additional resource for struggling students that required additional
support.
In addition to the traditional tutoring and community based after school program,
the school began the implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Intervention &
Supports (SWPBIS). The SWPBIS program is about ensuring that all students have
access to the most effective and accurately implemented instructional strategies, behavior
practices, and interventions possible (Office of Special Education Program, 2010).
Although Crater Lake did not fully implement the SWPBIS program under the direction
206
of the County Office of Education, the school did take the initiative to implement the
matrix planning phase on their own (C. Principal, personal communication, October 14,
2010). This process was then used to support setting high goals for students, use even
more data to make decisions, and systematically implement interventions for all students
throughout the school (Office of Special Education Program, 2010). Not waiting for
outside pressure to implement an effective strategy was just another example of how the
leadership at Crater Lake Elementary was collaborative and truly distributive amongst all
educators at the school (Blankstein, 2004; Fullan, 2007; Hallinger & Heck, 2002; Louis,
Kruse, et al., 1996; Spillane, 2006).
Collaborative and distributed leadership. School leadership is best understood
as a practice that is stretched over the school’s social and situational contexts and goes
beyond shared leadership roles and responsibilities (Spillane, 2006; Spillane, et al.,
2001). Using a distributed leadership perspective, it is the collective interactions among
the school principal, teachers, and parents in which the leadership tasks are stretched and
accomplished through the collaboration of multiple members of the school to bring about
change (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003; Harris & Spillane, 2008; Spillane, 2006;
Spillane, et al., 2001). Crater Lake Elementary exemplified this level of distributed
leadership through a number of interactions between the principal, teachers, and parents.
As previously discussed in this case study regarding setting high expectations, C.
Principal purposefully let the inertia for change start at the teachers’ level (personal
communication, October 14, 2010). Through this interactive shared responsibility, the
principal felt that he built a structure for change with both his teachers and parents (C.
207
Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). According to C. Principal, the
framework which he used to create a cultural norm regarding learning was similar to the
strategies successful coaches use regarding team sports (personal communication,
October 14, 2010). The emphasis of the interactions among staff and parents were
grounded in creating a positive winning culture in which everyone knew the common
goals to reach, but each had a unique job in attaining the goals by putting forth their best
individual performance to support the team and school (C. Principal, personal
communication, October 14, 2010). This leadership style exemplified that of a collective
distribution in which the teachers worked separately but interdependently to reach the
common goal of having all students achieve to the highest level possible (Spillane, 2006).
Because many groups, including schools, create a sense of themselves and their purpose,
this form of leadership style also helped create a social norm that allowed the staff and
parents to connect themselves with the school and identify their actions and interactions
as supporting a system (Spillane, 2006). According to Spillane (2006), this connection
results in a system that is not dependent on an individual for success, but rather is
embedded into the culture and interactions of several teachers. In fact, this form of
leadership has demonstrated a number of positive effects regarding sustained
organizational and programmatic change (Camburn, et al., 2003; Harris & Spillane,
2008).
According to Marzano (2003), effective change should take place through small
groups that work as a cohesive force to build a vision for improving learning outcomes.
This cohesive process occurred weekly through the curriculum meetings established at
208
each grade level. As previously discussed in the professional development section of this
case study, the process that took place during these curriculum meetings was very similar
to that of a professional learning community (PLC). However, the principal was savvy
enough to understand the culture at his school and fostered the collaborative interactions
but avoided calling it a PLC due to previous conations it held with staff (C. Principal,
personal communication, October 14, 2010). Through these meetings, C. Principal
provided teams needed feedback and encouraged his curriculum teams to collectively
take risks regarding their pedagogy, thus making their initial instruction more powerful
(personal communication, October 14, 2010). This process of collaborative decision
making and feedback allowed teachers the authority to make critical decisions for
individual student progress while receiving support from the principal to promote change
within the organization (Darling-Hammond, 2002; Parker, 2006; Ramirez, 2010).
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
As previously discussed in the review of the literature, an evidence-based model
approach strives to identify a set of effective educational procedures based on proven
research strategies in order to deliver an adequate and comprehensive instructional
program for all students at the school site level (Odden, 2000, 2003; Odden & Picus,
2008). Further, case studies have supported the value of using an evidence-based model
to determine school-level expenditure structures (Brinson & Mellor, 2005). One such
framework that can be used to help identify effective educational strategies is the
Evidence-Based Model outlined by Odden and Picus (2008). The following Table E.2 is
209
a comparison of Crater Lake Elementary to that of the core resources allocated to a
prototypical elementary school using the Evidence-Base Model (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Table E.2: Crater Lake Elementary Evidence-Based Model Comparison
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model
Current Allocation
Resources
Resources Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-5; 684 Students 58 % larger
Class Size
K-3 : 15
4-5 : 25
K-3 : 23.1
4-5 : 25.5
K-3: 54% larger
4-5: 2% larger
Instructional Days 200; includes PD 183; includes PD 17 days less
Kindergarten Full-day K Part-day K Full-day K
Administrative Support
Principal 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.58 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.58 FTE
School Site Clerical 1.0 FTE 0.75 FTE 1.58 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24 FTE 28 FTE 37.92 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 0% of core teachers 20% of core teachers
Instructional Facilitators 2.2 FTE 0 FTE 3.48 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors 1.0 FTE : 100 SES 12.68 FTE 6.49 FTE
Teacher for ELs 1.0 FTE : 100 ELs 1.0 FTE 6.12 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0.06 FTE 2.84 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0 FTE 2.84 FTE
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel 5.5% of personnel 5% of personnel
Librarians/Media Specialist 1.0 FTE 0.88 FTE 1.58 FTE
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133.
Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.
Impact of the reallocation of resources. As demonstrated in Table E.2, on
average Crater Lake Elementary executed their improvement strategies employing less
resources as compared to the prototypical school using the Evidence-Based Model
(Odden & Picus, 2008). An area that diverged from the prototypical pattern was the use
210
of tutoring resources provided through supplemental educational services and substitute
teachers for professional development. Due to the demographics of the LEA in which
Crater Lake was located, the district ranked in the top one percent of all LEAs in
California receiving supplementary educational services funding (California Department
of Education, 2010k); therefore, accounting for the large number of tutoring resources
allocated to students at the school site level.
An area that did not diverge from the prototypical pattern, but was unique
compared to other schools in the study and the county, was the average class size for the
upper elementary grade levels. As state budget concerns continued through the 2009-
2010 academic and budget year, nearly all states including California changed their class-
size laws and relaxed restrictions to allow for larger class sizes, especially at the upper
elementary and secondary levels (Sparks, 2010). Therefore, the influx of funding through
the QEIA grant was significant for Crater Lake Elementary when compared to what other
schools in the district and county received for class sizes. However, it is how those extra
dollar resources were allocated that appears to have brought about significant differences
as compared to other schools (Odden & Picus, 2008).
According to C. Principal, Crater Lake Elementary was a recipient of a Quality
Education Investment Act (QEIA) grant (C. Principal, personal communication, October
14, 2010). The QEIA was the result of a lawsuit settlement against the state regarding
Proposition 98 education funding during the 2004–05 and 2005–06 school years
(California Department of Education, 2010j; EdSource, 2009d). According to EdSource
(2009d), schools in the bottom 20 percent of the Academic Performance Index (API)
211
rankings were eligible to apply for QEIA funding. In return for the funds, participating
schools were required to meet annual benchmarks for ratios of pupils to teachers and
counselors, teacher qualifications and experience, and establish and demonstrate API
improvement growth targets (EdSource, 2009d). The principal indicated that the biggest
impact regarding these additional dollars has been the ability to maintain class size
reduction as other schools in the district increased their class sizes in the upper
elementary grades (C. Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). In addition
to using these dollars to reduce class size, the principal was able to use a portion of his
professional development funds under QEIA to extend the school year for teachers.
Lessons Learned
Crater Lake Elementary appeared to understand the process of resource
reallocation and demonstrated that there are ways to improve the efficiency of resource
use through the reallocation of the resources currently in the system (Odden & Archibald,
2009). Although the school demonstrated the use of all six evidence-based strategies in
achieving educational reform, Crater Lake exemplified the use of setting high
expectations for student learning, data-based decision making, professional development,
effective instruction, and collaborative and distributed leadership.
212
Table E.3: Crater Lake Elementary Performance of Evidence-Based Strategies
Evidence-Based Strategy Weak
Below
Average
Above
Average Strong
Setting High Expectations for Student Learning √
Data-Based Decision Making √
Professional Development √
Effective Instruction √
Extend Learning Opportunities for Struggling Students √
Collaborative and Distributed Leadership √
Note: Case study ranking of evidence-based strategies implemented at the school site level. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
Unique to this case study was the idea that the change process was not only
facilitated by the principal but distributed across multiple teachers and staff through
numerous reciprocal interactions (Spillane, 2006). As discussed in the setting high
expectations section of this case study, the principal of Crater Lake Elementary knew that
he needed to implement a change in how staff, parents, and students perceived the school
(C. Principal, personal communication, October 14, 2010). Teacher and school
expectations of students have a tremendous effect on student achievement (Cotton, 1989;
Resnick, 2005). According to C. Principal, the core method utilized to frame the change
and set high expectations for all learners was based on the Strategic Schooling Model
(personal communication, October 14, 2010). The Strategic Schooling Model is designed
to improve academic skills and increase student achievement within the environment of
the school by setting goals, evaluating feedback, and applying pedagogical expertise
213
(Ramirez, 2010). The principal at Crater Lake Elementary held a strong belief that all
students could learn and that staff should be setting high expectations and providing
effective instruction to all learners (C. Principal, personal communication, October 14,
2010).
Although the literature supports that to raise expectations of students schools need
to establish challenging goals (Marzano & Waters, 2009; Odden, 2009; Odden &
Archibald, 2009), it is difficult to perform this task without providing timely feedback
based on specific learning objectives (Heritage, 2010; Marzano, 2003). As discussed in
the data-based decision making section, the teachers at Crater Lake Elementary were
constantly engaged in providing a feedback loop regarding instruction and engaged in
making learning interactive so that they may adapt their own instruction (Black &
Wiliam, 1998). According to Sadler (1989), feedback should go beyond providing
information and is the critical element to assist learning. At Crater Lake, teachers were
correctly using formative assessment to guide instruction as demonstrated by their ability
to clearly define what the students should know, gauge for that understanding, and then
provide descriptive feedback regarding the learning associated with the curriculum goals
(Black & Wiliam, 1998).
214
APPENDIX F – JOSHUA TREE ELEMENTARY
Utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework, the
purpose of this case study is to examine site level resource allocation at a school in
Program Improvement (PI), yet demonstrated significant growth in their Academic
Performance Index (API). The purpose for utilizing a case study approach was to provide
comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth information regarding resource allocation based
on the single unit of schools (Patton, 2002). Previous case studies have supported the
value of using an evidence-based model to determine school-level expenditure structures
(Brinson & Mellor, 2005). By providing an analysis at the school level, this case study
contributes to the discussion of how an evidence-based approach can help identify
effective educational strategies for improving elementary schools so that others may link
future recommendations based on school finance adequacy models to achieve gains in
student performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Key elements of the case study include
how the improvement process was initiated at each school, common themes that led to
successful outcome measures, and what resources it took to achieve the school’s goals.
School Background
Joshua Tree Elementary (a pseudonym; UP-IRB IIR0000701) is a K-6 school
located in a large suburban unified school district within Southern California. During the
2009-2010 academic year, Joshua Tree Elementary reported an enrollment of 589
students and was 1 of 30 elementary schools in the district (California Department of
Education, 2010g). The district serves approximately 30,000 students in grades
kindergarten through 12
th
grade and encompasses all or parts of five cities, along with
215
portions of unincorporated Southern California (California Department of Education,
2010g). During the 2009-2010 school year, the district was in Year One of PI as indicated
by the 2009 Federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report, and Joshua Tree was one
of seven elementary schools within the district in Year Two or above PI status in 2009-
2010 (California Department of Education, 2010d). Table F.1 provides a description of
the school and district demographics as compared to the county and state averages.
Table F.1: Joshua Tree Elementary Demographic Comparison, 2009-2010
%
Hispanic
%
White
%
EL
%
Free/Reduced
Joshua Tree Elementary 91.1 2.9 63.8 76.0
District Average 48.4 34.5 23.7 45.0
County Average 46.9 31.8 27.5 42.3
State Average 50.4 27.0 23.8 55.9
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
As illustrated in Table F.1, Joshua Tree Elementary served a disproportionately
large Hispanic community with 91.1 percent of the total population reporting their
ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino. Joshua Tree Elementary was located in one of the lower
socioeconomic areas in which the district served. Of the total population, 63.8 percent
were reported as English learners (ELs) and 76.0 percent were enrolled in the free and
reduced meals program (California Department of Education, 2010d).
Assessment and data. At the initiation of this study, Joshua Tree was in Year
Five of PI as indicated by the 2009 Federal AYP Report (California Department of
Education, 2010d). According to the California Department of Education (2010d), Joshua
Tree’s first year of PI status was during the 2004-2005 school year. As further illustrated
216
in Figure F.1, the school’s Academic Performance Index (API) score remained relatively
flat during the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008 school years. However during the
2008-2009 school year, there was a significant shift in academic performance at Joshua
Tree Elementary as demonstrated by their 56-point API increase.
Figure F.1: Joshua Tree Elementary API Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
During the 2009-2010 academic year, the school remained in PI status but met the
2009 AYP criterion. This status signified that the school had met 2009 AYP measures for
participation and proficiency in each content area assessed on the statewide assessments
as well as met the API indicator criterion. A school can exit PI only after making all AYP
criteria for two consecutive years (California Department of Education, 2010i). During
the focal year of this study, Joshua Tree Elementary continued to make significant gains
in their API scores as demonstrated by the 30-point increase in Figure F.1. Consequently,
the school met 2010 AYP criterion and for the 2010-2011 school year was no longer
considered in PI status.
652
654
665
721
751
600
650
700
750
800
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
217
English-language arts (ELA). As indicated in Figure F.2, Joshua Tree
Elementary demonstrated a significant achievement gap between Hispanic and White
students on statewide ELA assessments during the 2006-2007 school year. Due to the
lack of a significant White subgroup during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic
years, information regarding the achievement gap could not be obtained at the school
level. Between 2008 and 2010, the school demonstrated an 18.6 percentage point increase
in the number of Hispanic students scoring proficient and above on statewide ELA
assessments (California Department of Education, 2010d). A cursory analysis revealed
that the achievement gap was closed between the White subgroup and the Hispanic
subgroup at the school level during the 2009-2010 school year, with the Hispanic
subgroup outscoring the White subgroup by 4.5 percentage points. However after a more
comprehensive examination, when comparing the school to the district there continued to
be a large achievement gap between the school’s Hispanic students and the district’s
White students. According to the California Department of Education (2010d), the
school’s Hispanic population continued to lag behind the district’s White subgroup
average score (74.5 percent scored proficient or above) as indicated by the 33.6
percentage point gap between subgroups.
218
Figure F.2: Joshua Tree Elementary Language Arts – Proficient & Above Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
Mathematics. Examination of Figure F.3 demonstrates that there was also a
significant achievement gap between Hispanic and White subgroups on statewide math
assessments during the 2006-2007 school year. Due to the lack of a significant White
subgroup during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years, information regarding
the achievement gap could not be obtained. Between 2008 and 2010, the school
demonstrated a 21.3 percentage point increase in the number of Hispanic students scoring
proficient and above on statewide math assessments. Again, a cursory analysis of the
achievement gap indicated that during the 2009-2010 school year the gap was closed
between the White subgroup and the Hispanic subgroup at the school level, with the
White subgroup outscoring the Hispanic subgroup by 1.8 percentage points. However, a
comparison made at the district level continued to demonstrate a large achievement gap
between the school’s Hispanic and the district’s White students. According to the
23.4
20.2
25.2
35.5
41.4
17.4 17.3
22.3
34.4
40.9
46.4
55.0
36.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide Hispanic White
219
California Department of Education (2010d), the school’s Hispanic population continued
to lag behind the district’s White subgroup average (73.2 percent scored proficient or
above) as indicated by the 20.5 percentage point gap between subgroups.
Figure F.3: Joshua Tree Elementary Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
Improvement Process Themes
The data in the previous figures indicates that an improvement process occurred
at Joshua Tree Elementary. However, the numerical data lacks the narrative information
as to how and why a transformation occurred. According to Odden (2009), in order to
implement any powerful education improvement strategy the system must utilize a set of
core research-based strategies. A review of the research literature by Odden and
Archibald (2009) has outlined ten core elements that have constituted effective
educational change. As previously discussed in the literature review, for this study these
strategies were strategically consolidated into six evidence-based strategies and used as a
36.7
35.2
32.4
41.6
53.3
33.3 33
31.4
40.6
52.7
53.6
73.7
54.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide Hispanic White
220
framework to discuss the literature as it relates to effective resource allocation in
elementary schools. The following section is a description of what occurred, together
with how these six evidence-based strategies guided Joshua Tree Elementary in achieving
educational reform and becoming more productive through resource reallocation (Odden
& Archibald, 2000a).
Setting high expectations for student learning. Teacher and school expectations
of students have a tremendous effect on student achievement (Cotton, 1989; Resnick,
2005). According to J. Principal (a pseudonym; UP-IRB IIR0000701), prior to the 2008-
2009 academic year teacher morale was low due to declining test scores; consequently,
much of the that blame was directed towards the administration, parents, and students of
the school (personal communication, May 4, 2010). Upon arriving at Joshua Tree
Elementary during the fall of 2008, the principal sought to set high and ambitious goals
regardless of the current performance level or student demographics (Odden, 2009).
According to J. Principal, the teachers at Joshua Tree Elementary wanted to do a good
job but felt overwhelmed and became protective and resistant to change (personal
communication, May 4, 2010). Therefore, one of the primary activities the principal
engaged in was creating a need for change by setting high expectations for student
learning.
Setting high expectations for student learning was exemplified during the
principal’s beginning of the year teacher planning meetings. During these discussions, the
principal met with each teacher and reviewed the statewide assessment scores for each of
their students from the previous year (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4,
221
2010). Each class was sorted into three categories based on the following criteria: (a) if
they gained at least five scaled score points; (b) lost at least five scaled score points; or
(c) remained relatively constant compared to the previous statewide assessment. After
reviewing the previous year’s data, the principal then arranged the teacher’s current class
roster and repeated the same process of categorizing the class demographics. According
to J. Principal, teachers’ first reactions were to make excuses regarding the student
demographics and began questioning and blaming the previous year of instruction
(personal communication, May 4, 2010). However, the principal then shifted the
conversation toward setting high expectations for students and began to give the teachers
control over how to make a difference (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4,
2010). The principal and school exemplified the strategy of expecting that all students
could learn and placed a strong emphasis on removing the often-implicit belief that not
all students could perform to the standards by setting high expectations for both the
learners and teachers (Odden, 2009). This example also illustrated the effective use of
data-based decision making.
Data-based decision making. School-level data can be instrumental in
establishing appropriate and adequate resource levels needed to educate students with
different needs to high standards (Busch & Odden, 1997). This strategy was visibly
utilized and constantly interwoven into all the other improvement strategies identified at
Joshua Tree Elementary. For example, upon first entering the school’s office, one could
observe numerous charts and graphs posted on the main wall indicating the status of each
individual grade level’s scores on schoolwide benchmark assessments. Visiting
222
individual classrooms confirmed that students and teachers constantly updated
assessment indicators. When students were questioned by the principal, students could
clearly articulate where their individual performance was compared to the state standard.
Students were also able to illustrate their progress by pointing to a number of formative
assessment results located in their personal folder at their desks. It can be implied that not
only was data being utilized, but data was also being made transparent at the student,
grade, and teacher level to provide on-going feedback (R. Johnson, 2002).
According to J. Principal, the assessment strategies employed were multi-tiered
(personal communication, May 4, 2010). As demonstrated in the earlier example, the
initial tier utilized was summative and based on the previous year’s statewide
assessments. These standardized assessments were used to target instruction and
interventions for students that demonstrated the most need. At the beginning of the year
each teacher identified six students, three that scored far below basic and three that
scored below basic in relation to the content standards tested on the statewide
assessments. These students became the target students for each teacher which resulted in
a contractual relationship between the student, teacher, and parent (J. Principal, personal
communication, May 4, 2010). When examining the collaborative and distributed
leadership at the school, this contractual relationship appeared influential in initiating and
driving the instructional strategies developed throughout the school between teachers and
grade levels.
Initially, the strategy of targeting just low performing students sparked skepticism
as to if the school was actually engaged in effective learning strategies for all students
223
versus using data to manipulate the API system. Based on the accountability formulas
utilized to calculate the AYP and API formulas, there was a disproportionate reward for
growth in student scores at the lower bands of performance levels (Ritter & Lucas, 2006;
Williams, et al., 2005). According to Williams et al. (2005) this tended to create an
incentive for a school to work with its lowest-performing students and possibly ignore
other learners. After further conversation with the principal and a more in-depth analysis
of the strategies implemented at Joshua Tree Elementary, it was discovered that although
the data discussion was initiated with a targeted number of students, these discussions
and strategies were implemented with all students at each grade level (J. Principal,
personal communication, May 4, 2010).
The second tier in the process included participation in the district’s six-week
interim pacing guide assessment known as the Pace Standards Assessments (PSA). Each
assessment was based on the pacing guidelines approved in coordination with the district-
adopted textbooks. Results of the PSA were made available to teachers and principals in
a timely manner, at which time each individual student, classroom, grade level, and
school charted their scores (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4, 2010). To
further emphasize the use of interim assessments to make data-based decisions,
individual school scores were compared and discussed at district principal meetings.
Unfortunately, educational leaders and teachers too often hold a false assumption
that formative assessment is a particular kind of measurement instrument or is an interim
assessment rather than a process that is fundamental to the practice of teaching and
learning (Heritage, 2010; Perie, et al., 2009). Joshua Tree Elementary illustrated this
224
complex understanding and did not rely solely on district-wide interim or statewide
summative assessments to incorporate data-based decision making. As part of the
formative assessment strategy employed by the school, each teacher was expected to post
the California content standards blueprint for their grade level in the classroom (Karns &
Parker, 2007; Parker, 2006). Each student also had a copy of content standards at their
desk along with sample test questions and graphs of their progress towards the core
standards. As a standard was addressed in class, the teacher and students tallied the use of
the standard and reviewed release questions from the state assessments. According to J.
Principal, the release questions were not used as test prep (personal communication, May
4, 2010). The release questions were used first for instruction so that each student could
identify why an answer was correct or wrong. However, after the students became
familiar with the format of the questions they were allowed to create their own questions
for class examinations and end-of-lesson learning activities. Essentially, students were
taking ownership of their own instruction and then provided immediate feedback by their
teachers and peers regarding their learning (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4,
2010). This was just one example of how effective formative assessment was utilized at
Joshua Tree and involved teachers making adjustments to instruction and learning in
response to assessment evidence, students receiving feedback about their learning with
advice on what they can do to improve, and students participating in the process through
self-assessment (Black & Wiliam, 1998).
According to Sadler (1989), teachers also receive feedback from formative
assessment data and can use the information to make changes in teaching when formative
225
assessment is implemented correctly. During time dedicated for learning communities,
teachers at Joshua Elementary met and used student generated test questions in
conjunction with anecdotal instructional records and classroom blueprint tallies to
examine the evidence of learning to assist in guiding further instruction. Evidence that
supported teachers understanding of creating useful anecdotal instructional records based
on real classroom learning was demonstrated through a number of effective instructional
strategies. A few of these effective strategies included giving pupils time to respond and
recording response rates, asking students to discuss their thinking in pairs or small groups
and gauging group responses, giving pupils a choice between different possible answers
and asking them to vote on the options, and asking all students to write down an answer
and then selecting a few to respond (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Fisher & Frey, 2007, 2008).
The use of formative assessments is subtle, and for classroom instruction and assessments
to function formatively the results have to be used to adjust teaching and learning;
therefore, a significant aspect of utilizing formative assessments correctly is based on
supporting teachers to make adjustments in their instruction (Black & Wiliam, 1998). The
principal confirmed this by indicating that although he felt his staff was experienced in
data-based decision making, the teachers required the acquisition of additional tools
through professional development activities to implement formative assessment strategies
effectively (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4, 2010).
Professional development. In order to increase teacher capacity to use data for
instructional improvement, districts and schools should consider that teachers need more
professional development and support on interpreting data and connecting evidence to
226
specific instructional approaches and strategies (Goertz, Oláh, & Riggan, 2009).
Providing systematic, intensive, and ongoing professional development is a key strategy
to improving student performance in elementary schools (Odden, 2009). According to J.
Principal, upon his arrival, the school was implementing a number of effective strategies
under the leadership of the previous principal (personal communication, May 4, 2010).
However the district continued to request additional instructional strategies, which further
layered additional programs and strategies on top of the ones that were already being
implemented with little success. Therefore, the principal established a need for change
and defined how that change would take place through systematic support of pedagogical
development (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4, 2010). Professional
development activities were routinely carried out at the school site level during weekly
staff development meetings and professional learning community level. In addition, there
were three district-wide staff development days allocated in the professional development
calendar. Although these strategies are typical to many schools throughout California, the
use of a consultant and coaching were unique to Joshua Tree Elementary.
Consultants. The Strategic Schooling Model was developed by Dennis Parker in
2000 and encompasses a number of skill sets that contribute to systemic and instructional
accountability (Karns & Parker, 2007; Ramirez, 2010). The Strategic Schooling Model
was designed to improve academic skills and increase student achievement within the
environment of the school by setting goals, evaluating feedback, and applying
pedagogical expertise (Ramirez, 2010). During the 2008-2009 school year, Dennis Parker
was hired as a consultant to work with teachers at Joshua Tree Elementary. During the
227
interview, the principal contributed much of the schools success to the strategies
implemented through the Strategic Schooling Model (J. Principal, personal
communication, May 4, 2010). The principal indicated that the previous principal had
initiated a number of the successful strategies prior to his arrival, but the hiring of Dennis
Parker as a consultant was a unique change upon his arrival (J. Principal, personal
communication, May 4, 2010). The consultant provided a number of trainings and
demonstration lessons for teachers outside the regularly planned staff development
periods such as during the summer prior to the start of the school year and after school in
the evenings. This was an ongoing process throughout the school year but was limited
during the 2009-2010 school year due to the district and state budget shortfall. In the
summer of 2009, the district requested that all outside consultant agreements be
suspended for the academic year. The principal indicated that for Joshua Tree
Elementary, the district made an exception, and the consultant’s role was limited but not
discontinued during the year because the school was a recipient of a Quality Education
Investment Act (QEIA) grant (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4, 2010).
Coaching. Some of the most effective professional development activities are
when they relate directly to the instructional content materials teachers use and take place
in their own schools and classrooms with coaching and ongoing feedback (Miles, et al.,
2004). The Joshua Tree staff incorporated this effective strategy through the use of the
following: (a) a part-time instructional coach dedicated to their campus; (b) a resource
specialist teacher that was permitted to adapt her role and provide intervention strategies
and coaching support beyond students with disabilities; and (c) additional district coaches
228
that were available upon request. According to J. Principal, he trusted his coaches
tremendously and empowered the coaches and teachers to make decisions (personal
communication, May 4, 2010). However due to the recent budget constraints and high
turnover in teachers, J. Principal understood that there were limits to moving forward
with additional effective instructional strategies and new professional development
(personal communication, May 4, 2010). The principal therefore opted to focus coaching
support in the areas of direct instruction, student engagement, differentiation, guided
language acquisition, and the strategic schooling process.
Effective instruction. The research suggests (Langer, 1999; Marzano, 2003;
Togneri & Anderson, 2003) that an effective system-wide approach to curriculum and
learning leads to an increase in student achievement. Joshua Tree Elementary made a
conscious decision to limit the number of instructional strategies executed at the school
site so that teachers could be adequately supported in the effective implementation of
those strategies. The principal continued to stress that the goal was to provide good
instruction using the strategies adopted and put an emphasis on the quality of instruction
regarding the state standards over general methodology (J. Principal, personal
communication, May 4, 2010). In addition, J. Principal verbalized to his staff what type
of instructional strategies he was expecting to observe as he performed his daily walk
through of the classrooms (personal communication, May 4, 2010). However no matter
how effective the instructional strategies, there are times when even the most successful
teachers and strategies can fall short in educating certain populations of students in a
229
traditional manner (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009; The Education Trust,
2005a).
Extend learning opportunities for struggling students. According to Odden
(2009), an effective strategy is to intervene quickly and intensively for students
struggling over a concept; in addition, the intervention should be embedded within the
program. As a Title I school designated in PI for more than one year, Joshua Tree
Elementary was required to provide supplemental educational services to students of low-
income families (U.S. Department of Education, 2009b). Supplemental educational
services in the form of tutoring was provided after school for about an hour, for one to
two days a week by private companies, a district based tutoring program, and through the
school’s Title I funds. Although some tutoring was provided by outside vendors, students
were monitored by the school resource specialist and principal to supervise individual
growth. The principal also encouraged a number of the school’s teachers to enroll as
tutors in the district program so that there could be a coordinated effort between what
occurs in the classroom on a daily basis and the outside tutoring program (J. Principal,
personal communication, May 4, 2010).
Due to budget constraints, all summer school programs other than mandated
special education services were eliminated for the 2010 summer. During the 2009
summer, the general education program was reduced to eight hours and students were
selected according to data-based information on whether they were on the cusp of
moving up levels of proficiency. Although tutoring and extended school programs can be
effective interventions, the resource intensiveness of these programs are continually
230
being questioned as to their feasibility and thus are being scaled back or eliminated
(Odden & Picus, 2008). As a result, educators have been required to adapt and
collaborate in different ways so that they may effectively implement those strategies and
reallocate current resources available.
Collaborative and distributed leadership. According to Bolman and Deal
(1994), leadership does not have to be positional and leadership involves intangible
human qualities that take into account the symbolic and political climate of the
organization. Upon the district’s request, the principal left retirement and joined Joshua
Tree Elementary in the fall of 2008 to attempt a turnaround of a school that was
continually lagging behind others (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4, 2010).
The principal appeared to possess many of the intangible qualities of an effective leader.
Much of the conversation with J. Principal included words and phrases such as: giving
control to and empowering the teachers, taking ownership of the problem, creating a need
for change, students and parents are both our partners, it’s a relationship with me, my
teachers, kids, and parents (personal communication, May 4, 2010).
According to J. Principal, the staff did not trust one another when he first arrived
at the school (personal communication, May 4, 2010). In order to implement change the
principal first had to build trust and be transparent throughout the process (J. Principal,
personal communication, May 4, 2010). Beginning of the year meetings held by the
principal with each teacher was an example of this trust and transparency in practice. As
previously discussed in this case study, the initial discussion could have easily turned off
several teachers in becoming partners in the process of change. However, excuses were
231
quickly removed from the conversations, high expectations were made of the students
and teachers, and an informal contractual relationship was entered upon between the
principal and the teacher (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4, 2010). This
example of collaboration supports the idea that it is not enough to have a single
individual lead change; but rather, change is about increasing commitments of teachers
and giving them tools to improve performance (Joyce & Calhoun, 1996; Mohrman,
1994).
According to Marzano (2003), effective change should take place through small
groups that work as a cohesive force to build a vision for improving learning outcomes.
This cohesive process occurred weekly through the professional learning communities
(PLCs) established at each grade level. In addition to weekly meetings, the Joshua Tree
staff exhibited daily collaborative leadership through their constant structuring and
restructuring of learning groups and shared responsibility of effective instruction. Each
student was not only the responsibility of the individual teacher but that of the whole
grade level team. Each teacher trusted the other to provide the most effective instruction
for the students, and the principal encouraged teachers to be actively engaged in the
decision making of the instructional strategies utilized. This restructuring in decision
making provided teachers a resource and allowed them the authority to make critical
decisions for individual student progress (Darling-Hammond, 2002).
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
As previously discussed in the review of the literature, an evidence-based model
approach strives to identify a set of effective educational procedures based on proven
232
research strategies in order to deliver an adequate and comprehensive instructional
program for all students at the school site level (Odden, 2000, 2003; Odden & Picus,
2008). Further, case studies have supported the value of using an evidence-based model
to determine school-level expenditure structures (Brinson & Mellor, 2005). One such
framework that can be used to help identify effective educational strategies is the
Evidence-Based Model outlined by Odden and Picus (2008). The following Table F.2 is a
comparison of Joshua Tree Elementary to that of the core resources allocated to a
prototypical elementary school using the Evidence-Base Model (Odden & Picus, 2008).
233
Table F.2: Joshua Tree Elementary Evidence-Based Model Comparison
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model
Current Allocation
Resources
Resources Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 589 Students 36 % larger
Class Size K-3 : 15; 4-5 : 25
K-3: 20.3
4-6: 24.4
K-3: 35 % larger
4-5: 2 % lower
Instructional Days 200; include PD 185; includes PD 15 less days
Kindergarten Full-day K Part-day K Full-day K
Administrative Support
Principal 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.36 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.36 FTE
School Site Clerical 1.0 FTE 0.5 FTE 1.36 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24 FTE 25 FTE 32.64 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 0% of core teachers 20% of core teachers
Instructional Facilitators 2.2 FTE 0.5 FTE 3.0 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors
1.0 FTE : 100 low
SES
7.98 FTE 4.44 FTE
Teacher for ELs 1.0 FTE : 100 ELs 0.3 FTE 4.08 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0 FTE 2.45 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0 FTE 2.45 FTE
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel 5.4% of personnel 5% of personnel
Librarians/Media Specialist 1.0 FTE 0 FTE 1.36 FTE
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133.
Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.
As demonstrated in Table F.2, on average Joshua Tree Elementary executed their
improvement strategies employing less resources as compared to the prototypical school
using the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). Two areas that evidently
diverged from the prototypical pattern were average class size for the upper elementary
grade levels and tutoring resources provided through supplemental educational services.
234
As previously noted under professional development, Joshua Tree Elementary was a
recipient of a QEIA grant. In short, QEIA provides additional funding to low performing
schools in order to increase student achievement (California Department of Education,
2010j; EdSource, 2009d). Although this influx of funding is significant when compared
to what other schools in the district and county received, it is how those extra resources
were allocated that appears to have brought about significant differences as compared to
other schools (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Impact of the reallocation of resources. Although not the focal point of this
study, it appears that QEIA dollars may have been part of the catalyst for impacting the
school’s performance. Regardless of the source of dollars, there appeared to be indirect
alignment between educational strategies and resources allocated for the prototypical
school within the Evidence-Based Model and strategies used by Joshua Tree Elementary.
In discussing supplemental dollars with J. Principal, the initial reaction was that the
dollars associated with lower class sizes at the upper elementary levels did not have an
overt impact in the school’s success (personal communication, May 4, 2010). However,
J. Principal indicated that the resource of smaller class sizes at the upper elementary
followed by the focused professional development activities with the outside consultant
may have allowed for the additional strategies to have a stronger impact (personal
communication, May 4, 2010). Further analysis of the data strengthened this assumption
that smaller class sizes may have had some significant impact as demonstrated by the 22-
point increase in ELA scores and 32-point increase in math scores for the fourth grade
students at Joshua Elementary. Hypotheses regarding the demonstrated success in the
235
upper elementary grades are that the smaller class sizes allowed for more effective
differentiated instruction, more time for individualized analysis using data, and less time
engaging in classroom behavioral strategies, and more time engaging in core instructional
strategies (Finn & Achilles, 1990, 1999; Finn, et al., 2001; Glass & Smith, 1979). In a
discussion outside of the semi-structured interview process, the instructional coach
assigned to the school reported that there was the feeling of more collaboration with the
upper elementary teachers at Joshua Tree compared to the other school in which she was
assigned (J. Anonymous, personal communication, September 14, 2010).
An obvious strategy for reducing inequality is to provide extra schooling to those
children who need it more (Krueger, 2003). The second resource that significantly
appeared to have impact was that of tutoring. Although all schools in this study were
required to provide supplemental educational services due to their PI status (U.S.
Department of Education, 2009b), Joshua Tree Elementary took unique ownership in
providing these services through the use of their own teachers along with adding an
additional level of accountability for private vendors. As previously discussed, this
accountability started with the principal’s drive to set the expectation that all students can
learn and that his teachers could have effect on the outcomes. Therefore, tutoring was not
left to chance and the strategy was supplemented by additional evidence-based strategies
(Odden & Picus, 2008).
Lessons Learned
Joshua Tree Elementary appeared to understand the process of resource
reallocation and demonstrated that there were ways to improve the efficiency of resource
236
use currently in the system (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Although the school
demonstrated the use of all six evidence-based strategies in achieving educational reform,
Joshua Tree demonstrated the strong use of data-based decision making, professional
development, and extending learning opportunities for struggling students.
Table F.3: Joshua Tree Elementary Performance of Evidence-Based Strategies
Evidence-Based Strategy Weak
Below
Average
Above
Average Strong
Setting High Expectations for Student Learning √
Data-Based Decision Making √
Professional Development √
Effective Instruction √
Extend Learning Opportunities for Struggling Students √
Collaborative and Distributed Leadership √
Note: Case study ranking of evidence-based strategies implemented at the school site level. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
As previously noted in discussing the impact of reallocating resource dollars, the
principal at Joshua Tree Elementary believed that the school had the resources and
instructional expertise at the site prior to his arrival (J. Principal, personal
communication, May 4, 2010). That being stated, it appeared that the principal was
effective in reallocating those resources and implementing change by prioritizing and
setting high expectations for all student learning in consort with using data to drive and
refine the other evidence-based strategies. Teacher and school expectations of students
have a tremendous impact on student achievement (Cotton, 1989; Resnick, 2005). The
principal at Joshua Tree Elementary held a strong belief that the all students could learn
237
and that staff should be setting high expectations and providing effective instruction to all
learners (J. Principal, personal communication, May 4, 2010).
Although the literature supports that to raise expectations of students, schools
need to establish challenging goals; it is difficult to perform this task without providing
timely feedback based on specific learning objectives (Marzano, 2003). Joshua Tree
exemplified this strategy and went further than most other schools in this study.
According to Sadler (1989), feedback should go beyond providing information and is the
critical element to assist learning. At Joshua Tree discussions were taking place in which
students were being led to talk about their learning in their own words, which then leads
to increasing their own knowledge and improving understanding of the material (Black &
Wiliam, 1998). Teachers also correctly used formative assessment to guide instruction as
demonstrated by their ability to clearly define what the students should know, gauge for
that understanding, and provide descriptive feedback regarding the learning associated
with the curriculum goals (Heritage, 2010). Regarding data-based decision making, the
teachers at Joshua Tree were frequently engaged in this feedback loop and making
learning interactive; consequently, teachers were knowledgeable about their pupils’
progress and they could adapt instruction to meet their needs (Black & Wiliam, 1998).
238
APPENDIX G – REDWOOD ELEMENTARY
Utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework, the
purpose of this case study is to examine site level resource allocation at a school in
Program Improvement (PI), yet demonstrated significant growth in their Academic
Performance Index (API). The purpose for utilizing a case study approach was to provide
comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth information regarding resource allocation based
on the single unit of schools (Patton, 2002). Previous case studies have supported the
value of using an evidence-based model to determine school-level expenditure structures
(Brinson & Mellor, 2005). By providing an analysis at the school level, this case study
contributes to the discussion of how an evidence-based approach can help identify
effective educational strategies for improving elementary schools so that others may link
future recommendations based on school finance adequacy models to achieve gains in
student performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Key elements of the case study include
how the improvement process was initiated at each school, common themes that led to
successful outcome measures, and what resources it took to achieve the school’s goals.
School Background
Redwood Elementary (a pseudonym; UP-IRB IIR0000701) is a K-6 school
located in a small suburban elementary only school district within Southern California.
During the 2009-2010 academic year, Redwood Elementary reported an enrollment of
791 students and was 1 of 9 elementary schools in the district (California Department of
Education, 2010g). The district serves approximately 6,275 students in grades
kindergarten through 6
th
grade and encompasses all or parts of two cities. During the
239
2009-2010 school year, the district was not in Program Improvement (PI) as indicated by
the 2009 Federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report, and Redwood was one of two
elementary schools within the district in Year Two or above PI status (California
Department of Education, 2010d). Table G.1 provides a description of the school and
district demographics as compared to the county and state averages.
Table G.1: Redwood Elementary Demographic Comparison, 2009-2010
%
Hispanic
%
White
%
EL
%
Free/Reduced
Redwood Elementary 84.1 1.9 69.9 91.6
District Average 69.3 9.8 52.8 81.3
County Average 46.9 31.8 27.5 42.3
State Average 50.4 27.0 23.8 55.9
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
As illustrated in Table G.1, Redwood Elementary served a disproportionately
large Hispanic community with 84.1 percent of the total population reporting their
ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino. Of the total population, approximately 69.9 percent were
reported as English learners (ELs) and 91.6 percent were enrolled in the free and reduced
meals program (California Department of Education, 2010d).
Assessment and data. At the initiation of this study, Redwood Elementary was in
Year Three of PI as indicated by the 2009 Federal AYP Report (California Department of
Education, 2010d). According to the California Department of Education (2010d),
Redwood’s first year of PI status was during the 2006-2007 school year. As further
illustrated in Figure G.1, the school’s API score demonstrated steady upward progression
from the 2005-2006 through 2007-2008 school years. However during the 2008-2009
240
school year, there was a significant shift in academic performance at Redwood
Elementary as demonstrated by their 46-point API increase.
Figure G.1: Redwood Elementary API Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
Although Redwood continued to make progress, they were not able to keep pace
with the growing annual measurable objective (AMO) target required under No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Consequently, the school did not meet 2010 AYP
criterion, and for the 2010-2011 school year, the school moved forward into Year Four of
PI status. During the 2009-2010 academic year, the school remained in PI status but met
the 2009 AYP criterion. This status signified that the school had met 2009 AYP measures
for participation and proficiency in each content area assessed on the statewide
assessments as well as met the API indicator criterion. A school can exit PI only after
making all AYP criteria for two consecutive years (California Department of Education,
2010i). During the focal year of this study, Redwood Elementary continued to make
gains in their API scores as demonstrated by the 8-point increase in Figure G.1.
662
693
707
753
761
600
650
700
750
800
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
241
English-language arts (ELA). As indicated in Figure G.2, during the 2009-2010
school year, Redwood Elementary demonstrated a significant achievement gap between
Hispanic and White students on statewide ELA assessments. Between 2008 and 2009, the
school demonstrated a 10.1 percentage point increase in the number of Hispanic students
scoring proficient and above on statewide ELA assessments. However, for the 2009-2010
academic year the ELA scores leveled off again as indicated by 0.6 percentage point
increase. Due to the lack of a significant White subgroup during the 2009-2010 academic
year, information regarding the achievement gap could not be obtained. However, an
examination at the district level revealed that there continued to be a large achievement
gap between the school’s Hispanic students and the district’s White students (62.0
percent scored proficient or above) as indicated by the 24.0 percentage point gap between
subgroups (California Department of Education, 2010d).
Figure G.2: Redwood Elementary Language Arts – Proficient & Above Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
24.6
28.8
33.9
41.3
43.0
19.8
23.0
27.0
37.1
38.0
47.1
26.7
40.0
50.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide Hispanic White
242
Mathematics. Examination of Figure G.3 demonstrates that there was also a
significant achievement gap between Hispanic and White subgroups on statewide math
assessments during the 2007-2008 school year. Between 2008 and 2009, the school
demonstrated a 17.2 percentage point increase in the number of Hispanic students scoring
proficient and above on statewide math assessments. However, for the 2009-2010
academic year, the math scores also leveled off as indicated by the 2.6 percentage point
increase. Again due to the lack of a significant White subgroup, an analysis of the
achievement gap at the school site level during the 2009-2010 school year was not
attainable. However, a comparison made at the district level continued to demonstrate a
large achievement gap between the school’s Hispanic and the district’s White students.
According to the California Department of Education (2010d), the school’s Hispanic
population continued to lag behind the district’s White subgroup average (68.8 percent
scored proficient or above) as indicated by the 19.3 percentage point gap between
subgroups.
243
Figure G.3: Redwood Elementary Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
Improvement Process Themes
In the previous figures, the data indicates that for Redwood Elementary an
improvement process initially occurred followed by a leveling off of overall assessment
scores. However telling these numbers may appear, the numerical data lacks the narrative
information as to what transpired. According to Odden (2009), in order to implement any
powerful education improvement strategy the system must utilize a set of core research-
based strategies. A review of the research literature by Odden and Archibald (2009) has
outlined ten core elements that have constituted effective educational change. As
previously discussed in the literature review, for this study these strategies were
strategically consolidated into six evidence-based strategies and used as a framework to
discuss the literature as it relates to effective resource allocation in elementary schools.
The following section is a description of what occurred, together with how six evidence-
35.8
40.8
37.7
52.4
54.1
30.1
34.9
29.7
46.9
49.5
47.1
40.0
66.7
50.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide Hispanic White
244
based strategies were utilized at Redwood Elementary in an attempt to institute
educational reform and become more productive through resource reallocation (Odden &
Archibald, 2000a).
Setting high expectations for student learning. Holding students responsible
and encouraging high expectations for all students should be a standard practice for
educational organizations (Resnick, 2005). According to R. Principal (a pseudonym; UP-
IRB IIR0000701), the district’s central office played a critical role in setting high
expectations for all learners, teachers, and administrators (personal communication,
August 19, 2010). Upon his arrival in the fall of 2009, the principal attempted to continue
this practice by actively engaging students in discussing their individual goals and setting
high standards for their own learning (R. Principal, personal communication, August 19,
2010). This strategy was illustrated in the way the principal and his assistant principal
conducted walkthroughs on a daily basis. Rather than directly monitoring teacher
instruction or lesson plans, the administrators used student products as their benchmarks
for learning. According to R. Principal, they would go straight to the source of the
learning and inquired of the students what the lesson objectives were, what they were
learning, why were they learning the material, and what was the importance of the lesson
(personal communication, August 19, 2010). This strategy was based on the UCLA
School Management Program classroom walkthrough protocol which emphasized
classroom community engagement and student self-direction (Cervone & Martinez-
Miller, 2007). Through this process, the administrators actively engaged students in
setting and verbalizing challenging goals for their learning. While the walkthroughs
245
reinforced goal setting and setting high expectations, the primary purpose of the strategy
was to help drive a cycle of continuous improvement in instruction through feedback
based on student products (Cervone & Martinez-Miller, 2007).
Data-based decision making. According to Sadler (1989), feedback goes beyond
providing information and is the critical element to assist learning. The use of data as a
foundation for examining student performance, especially through formative assessment,
has been an effective practice in implementing schoolwide reform (Heritage, 2010; R.
Johnson, 2002). As previously discussed, many of the strategies employed at Redwood
Elementary were initiated at the district level. Data-based decision making was one such
initiative.
The local educational agency (LEA) in which Redwood Elementary resided was
one of several LEAs in the state to receive funding to implement California’s Reading
First Plan. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2009a), the Reading First
program focuses on putting proven early reading instruction methods in the classroom by
providing states and districts support in applying scientifically based reading strategies
and assessment tools so that all children learn to read by the end of third grade. Through
California’s Reading First Plan, reliable screening, diagnostic, monitoring, and outcome
tools were required to be used by teachers (California Department of Education, 2002;
Sacramento County Office of Education, 2010b). Assessment tools were selected by the
LEA based on a list provided by the California Department of Education; in addition,
teachers and principals received training on the assessment tools purpose and use during
professional development programs (California Department of Education, 2002).
246
According to R. Principal, the primary assessment tool used by the staff at Redwood
Elementary was the 6-8 Week Skills Assessments (personal communication, August 19,
2010).
Designed by the Sacramento County Office of Education (2010a), the Skills
Assessments was a series of curriculum based measurements that was administered to
students approximately every 6-8 weeks. Through the use of data, the Skills Assessments
is designed to help classroom teachers and grade-level teams determine how effective
their delivery of instruction is in meeting expected student-learning goals in relation to
the concepts and skills taught in the curriculum program (Sacramento County Office of
Education, 2010a). According to R. Principal, Redwood Elementary utilized the Skills
Assessments that were aligned with their district-adopted curriculum, Houghton Mifflin
Reading (HMR), and this information was then used to guide and plan instruction for
upcoming reading units (personal communication, August 19, 2010). The information
obtained through the assessment was then uploaded to the district’s Online Assessment
Reporting System (OARS). According to the principal, OARS was critical in providing
teachers timely feedback so that they could modify their instruction (R. Principal,
personal communication, August 19, 2010). The system also supplied the principal with
information to plan upcoming professional development activities based on school site
level data (Red Schoolhouse Software, 2010).
Professional development. According to Miles et al. (2004), some of the most
effective professional development activities are when they relate directly to the
instructional content materials teachers use and take place in their own schools and
247
classrooms with coaching and ongoing feedback. The Redwood staff incorporated this
effective strategy through the use of two full-time instructional coaches, an EL teacher
and a general instructional coach, dedicated to their campus. There was tremendous trust
and leadership empowered to the coaches as exhibited by their duties of facilitating
meetings, reviewing data, teaching sample lessons, and implementing intervention
strategies for students with teachers (R. Principal, personal communication, August 19,
2010). Professional development activities centered on data-based decisions were
routinely carried out at the school site level during bi-monthly professional learning
community (PLC) meetings. According to R. Principal, the school and district invested
heavily in the support of personnel versus materials (personal communication, August 19,
2010).
In addition to the school-based PLC activities supported through coaching and
ongoing data feedback, the district provided a structured professional development
schedule. One Thursday a month, the central office led a series of professional
development activities in which teachers from all schools were expected to attend. For
the 2009-2010 school year, these professional development activities were based on the
data from the previous year’s statewide testing and centered around strategies for English
learners (R. Principal, personal communication, August 19, 2010). In addition to the
single district led activity, there was one school-based professional development
calendared each month for Redwood Elementary. According to R. Principal, because the
professional development activities and calendar were structured by the central office, the
activities at the school site level were typically used to reinforce district led professional
248
activities and help promote effective instruction (personal communication, August 19,
2010).
Effective instruction. Providing time during the school day for teachers to meet
and collaborate strengthens a shared responsibility in providing effective instruction
(DuFour, et al., 2006; Spillane, et al., 2001). As previously discussed, Redwood
Elementary supported this philosophy by providing instructional coaches. An additional
strategy utilized to shape effective instruction was through the use of the UCLA School
Management Program classroom walkthrough protocol (R. Principal, personal
communication, August 19, 2010). According to Cervone and Martinez-Miller (2007),
student-based evidence collected from walkthroughs drives the cycle of improvement by
focusing on the effects of the instruction. The classroom walkthrough also provided an
opportunity for principals to observe a variety of instructional practices and engage staff
in a collegial dialogue regarding teacher behavior and instruction strategies (Cervone &
Martinez-Miller, 2007; Kachur, et al., 2010). According to R. Principal, he was less
concerned about the fidelity of the delivery of the instruction and much more interested in
ensuring that the instruction was effective (personal communication, August 19, 2010).
However even with the most effective instruction, there are times when students lack the
opportunity to learn the content that is expected of them in the classroom setting
(Marzano, 2003).
Extend learning opportunities for struggling students. A review of the
research indicates that individual and small-group tutoring is one of the most effective
extra-help strategies that can be employed at a school site level (Cohen, et al., 1982;
249
Elbaum, et al., 2000; L. S. Fuchs, et al., 2005; Odden & Picus, 2008; Shanahan, 1998;
Shanahan & Barr, 1995; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). According to R. Principal, the other
major investment in human capital made at the school site level that went beyond the
typical supplemental educational services coordinated by the district was the use of
certificated teachers to implement small group and individualized instruction during and
after school (personal communication, August 19, 2010). This was facilitated through the
certificated long-term substitute teachers which the school hired to provide a
collaborative intervention model. Each long-term substitute was assigned classes and
brought in to supplant instruction for the average student so that the assigned teacher
could be released to implement differentiated instructional strategies and tutoring for the
struggling learner (R. Principal, personal communication, August 19, 2010). This theme
of matching the most skilled instructors with struggling learners was also demonstrated
during English language development (ELD) instruction. According to R. Principal, the
EL teacher provided collaborative services but would only provide instruction in the one
proficiency level in which most students were not progressing (personal communication,
August 19, 2010).
As a Title I school designated in PI for more than one year, Redwood Elementary
was required to provide supplemental educational services to students of low-income
families (U.S. Department of Education, 2009b). Because of the small size of the district
and the fact that only two schools were in at least Year Two of PI status, supplemental
educational services were coordinated by the central office in the form of tutoring and
provided after school for about one hour, for one to two days a week only through private
250
companies. Although these tutoring services were provided by outside vendors, they were
well planned and the implementation was monitored closely at the central office level.
All approved private vendors were required to attend a mandatory meeting at which time
they were informed of the district’s strict guidelines, high expectations, timelines, and
required documentation for providing tutoring services (R. Principal, personal
communication, August 19, 2010). According to R. Principal, providers were then
required to complete an individual service agreement and submit their plans for parent
communication (personal communication, August 19, 2010). The district required
vendors to assess student achievement, progress, and develop individual student learning
plans based on that assessment data using the English-language arts key standards
provided by the district (R. Principal, personal communication, August 19, 2010). The
central office then reviewed, revised, and approved all student learning plans; vendors
were also required to submit monthly attendance and progress reports for each of their
students. Upon completion of services in June, a final assessment was given and
documentation was provided to the parents and teachers of the student (R. Principal,
personal communication, August 19, 2010).
In addition to tutoring, researchers have been urging school districts to develop
school calendars that acknowledge differences in student learning, especially for students
at risk for academic failure (National Education Commission on Time and Learning,
1994). Unfortunately due to budget constraints, alternative school year calendars were
eliminated for the 2009-2010 school year and no summer school was offered during the
summer of 2010. Although tutoring and extended school programs can be effective
251
interventions (Odden & Picus, 2008), without effective leadership and collaboration
amongst educational staff to guide the implementation, schools may not experience the
positive effects of extending learning opportunities for struggling learners.
Collaborative and distributed leadership. Collegiality and professionalism are
two critical attributes of leadership identified by Marzano (2003) that shape an
organizational climate. The manner in which administrative leadership facilitates openly
sharing instructional failures and mistakes, as well as constructively analyzing practices
and procedures leads to overall staff collegiality (Marzano, 2003). According to R.
Principal, the assistant principal and he tried to facilitate collaboration by celebrating
student success during walkthroughs and actively participating in grade level team
learning communities (personal communication, August 19, 2010). The term PLC has
become common place and somewhat misused within most education settings (R.
Principal, personal communication, August 19, 2010). The principal explained that the
PLC model implemented at Redwood Elementary was focused around data meetings and
data discussions. Therefore, much of the team building and distributed collaborative
leadership developed during those team meetings where criticism was removed; thus,
placing the focus on improving everyone’s instructional strategies and not their faults. In
addition, R. Principal explained that he viewed the role of the two administrators as being
part of the instructional game (personal communication, August 19, 2010). The principal
also cited research that explained that the principal’s role in improving instruction is most
effective when they are seen and have a constant presence in the classroom, playground,
252
and lunch areas engaging students and not just passively monitoring instruction (Darling-
Hammond, Meyerson, LaPointe, & Orr, 2009; Ing, 2010).
Although R. Principal alone exemplified many of the qualities of an effective
leader by broadening the schools focus regarding learning and centering on the well-
being of all students (Hancock & Lamendola, 2005), he was also quick to note the
collaborative and effective leadership at the central office level. According to R.
Principal, there was a strong coupling between the central office and school site
leadership (personal communication, August 19, 2010). An example of this practice was
when the superintendent and assistant superintendent visited the campus monthly.
According to the principal, both were very passionate and knowledgeable about
curriculum, and during their walkthroughs, they knew what to look for regarding
effective instruction as well as were seen participating in lessons with students and
modeling instruction for teachers (R. Principal, personal communication, August 19,
2010). This leadership style by the district is typically perceived by teachers that it is
everyone’s primary focus to provide high-quality instruction to all children (Elmore &
Burney, 1999).
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
As previously discussed in the review of the literature, an evidence-based model
approach strives to identify a set of effective educational procedures based on proven
research strategies in order to deliver an adequate and comprehensive instructional
program for all students at the school site level (Odden, 2000, 2003; Odden & Picus,
2008). Further, case studies have supported the value of using an evidence-based model
253
to determine school-level expenditure structures (Brinson & Mellor, 2005). One such
framework that can be used to help identify effective educational strategies is the
Evidence-Based Model outlined by Odden and Picus (2008). The following Table G.2 is
a comparison of Redwood Elementary to that of the core resources allocated to a
prototypical elementary school using the Evidence-Base Model (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Table G.2: Redwood Elementary Evidence-Based Model Comparison
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model
Current Allocation
Resources
Resources Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 791 Students 83% larger
Class Size
K-3 : 15
4-5 : 25
K-3 : 22.9
4-6 : 31.1
K-3 : 53% larger
4-6 : 24% larger
Instructional Days 200; includes PD 186; includes PD 14 less days
Kindergarten Full-day K Full-day K Full-day K
Administrative Support
Principal 1.0 FTE 2.0 FTE 1.83 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.83 FTE
School Site Clerical 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.83 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24 FTE 29 FTE 43.92 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 1% of core teachers 20% of core teachers
Instructional Facilitators 2.2 FTE 1.0 FTE 4.03 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors 1.0 FTE : 100 SES 11.35 FTE 6.97 FTE
Teacher for ELs 1.0 FTE : 100 ELs 1.0 FTE 5.75 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 0 FTE 3.29 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0 FTE 3.29 FTE
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel 5.4% of personnel 5% of personnel
Librarians/Media Specialist 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.83 FTE
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133.
Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.
254
As demonstrated in Table G.2, Redwood Elementary executed their improvement
strategies employing less resources as compared to the prototypical school using the
Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). Areas that evidently diverged from the
prototypical model and other case studies were the addition of an administrator, a full-day
kindergarten program, a tutoring program embedded within the instructional day through
Title I funding, and the after school tutoring provided through supplemental educational
services. Although the influx of additional categorical funding is significant when
compared to other schools in the district and county, it is how those extra resources were
allocated at the site level that appears to have brought about differences as compared to
other schools (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Impact of the reallocation of resources. Regardless of the funding source, there
appeared to be indirect alignment between educational strategies and resources allocated
for the prototypical school within the Evidence-Based Model and strategies used by
Redwood Elementary. However, one resource that was not visible in the 2009-2010
numbers was the financial impact of California’s Reading First Plan. As previously
discussed in data-based decision making, Redwood Elementary utilized the program to
develop reliable screening, diagnostic, monitoring, and outcome tools. However the
impact of this program may have been further reaching and the discontinuation of its
funding could explain partially for the slowed growth in API scores compared to years
previous.
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2009a) the Reading First
program focuses on putting proven early reading instruction methods in the classroom by
255
providing states and districts support in applying scientifically based reading strategies
through proven instruction and assessment tools so that all children learn to read by the
end of third grade. In August of 2002, California was approved to receive approximately
$900 million in funding, over a six-year period, to implement the program to LEAs
through competitive grants (California Department of Education, 2002; Sacramento
County Office of Education, 2010b). As previously discussed in data-based decision
making, the district in which Redwood Elementary was located was one of several
districts in the state to receive funding and had implemented the Reading First program
beginning in the 2002-2003 school year. Because the Reading First program was initially
authorized for federal fiscal years of 2002 through 2007 (October 1, 2002 through
September 30, 2007), ongoing funding and support for the program came into question at
the state and LEA level for the 2007-2008 school year (Sacramento County Office of
Education, 2010b; U.S. Department of Education, 2008). According to R. Principal,
because the on-going funding of this resource was questionable the district decided not to
apply for ongoing supplemental funding and discontinued implementation of the
program, with the exception of the 6-8 Week Skills Assessments, during the 2009-2010
school year (personal communication, August 19, 2010). This is an example of how
despite pressure to reduce budgets through the cutting of staff and programs, districts
continued to make an effort to preserve interim and formative assessments (Sawchuk,
2009).
Although the structures for interim and formative assessments were preserved,
there were a number of structures and resources that were eliminated. Prior to 2009-2010
256
school year, Redwood Elementary agreed to implement explicit program components,
such as: embedding instructional strategies, utilizing a pacing schedule, maintaining
uninterrupted instructional minutes (60 minutes for kindergarten, 150 minutes for grades
1-3), providing extended time for at-risk students (30-40 minutes), implementing a
minimum of 120 hours of professional development for teachers and 80 hours for
principals annually, and embedding instructional support systems such as 1 coach per
every 30 teachers and content experts for support to coaches (Sacramento County Office
of Education, 2010b). Although some of these components were retained at the school
site level, it was at the expense of other resources previously utilized (R. Principal,
personal communication, August 19, 2010). There were difficult decisions that
transpired, and the principal was able to maintain a portion of these resources for the
2009-2010 school year (R. Principal, personal communication, August 19, 2010).
However for the 2010-2011 school year, even the 6-8 Week Skills Assessments was
expected to discontinue and R. Principal was unsure if the school was going to be able to
maintain a full-time instructional coach; thus, impacting the effective feedback loop
through formative assessment and coaching (Heritage, 2010; Knight, 2006).
Lessons Learned
Redwood Elementary appeared to understand the process of resource reallocation
and demonstrated that there were ways to improve the efficiency of resource use
currently in the system (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Although the school demonstrated
the use of all six evidence-based strategies in achieving educational reform, Redwood
257
demonstrated the strong use of data-based decision making, extending learning
opportunities for struggling students, and collaborative and distributed leadership.
Table G.3: Redwood Elementary Performance of Evidence-Based Strategies
Evidence-Based Strategy Weak
Below
Average
Above
Average Strong
Setting High Expectations for Student Learning √
Data-Based Decision Making √
Professional Development √
Effective Instruction √
Extend Learning Opportunities for Struggling Students √
Collaborative and Distributed Leadership √
Note: Case study ranking of evidence-based strategies implemented at the school site level. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
Unique to this case study was the open discussion regarding the collaborative and
distributed leadership from the central office level. Criticism regarding the role of the
central office as it relates to educational reform has become very popular in recent years
(Mac Iver & Farley, 2003). However, a number of researchers (Bodilly & Berends, 1999;
Corcoran, et al., 2001; Datnow & Stringfield, 2000; M Honig, 2009; MI Honig &
Copland, 2008; P. Johnson & Chrispeels, 2010; Marzano & Waters, 2009; Murnane, et
al., 2008; Vaughan & Kelly, 2008) have offset this anti-district and anti-central office
criticism by citing the importance of the central office in school reform efforts. It was
apparent that the central office played a role at Redwood Elementary by supporting good
instructional practice through professional development and guiding data-based decision
making to refine instructional practice (Corcoran, et al., 2001; Mac Iver & Farley, 2003).
258
APPENDIX H – SEQUOIA ELEMENTARY
Utilizing the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework, the
purpose of this case study is to examine site level resource allocation at a school in
Program Improvement (PI), yet demonstrated significant growth in their Academic
Performance Index (API). The purpose for utilizing a case study approach was to provide
comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth information regarding resource allocation based
on the single unit of schools (Patton, 2002). Previous case studies have supported the
value of using an evidence-based model to determine school-level expenditure structures
(Brinson & Mellor, 2005). By providing an analysis at the school level, this case study
contributes to the discussion of how an evidence-based approach can help identify
effective educational strategies for improving elementary schools so that others may link
future recommendations based on school finance adequacy models to achieve gains in
student performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Key elements of the case study include
how the improvement process was initiated at each school, common themes that led to
successful outcome measures, and what resources it took to achieve the school’s goals.
School Background
Sequoia Elementary (a pseudonym; UP-IRB IIR0000701) is a K-6 school located
in a large suburban unified school district within Southern California. During the 2009-
2010 academic year, Sequoia Elementary reported an enrollment of 504 students and was
1 of 30 elementary schools in the district (California Department of Education, 2010g).
The district serves approximately 30,000 students in grades kindergarten through 12
th
grade and encompasses all or parts of five cities, along with portions of unincorporated
259
Southern California (California Department of Education, 2010g). During the 2009-2010
school year, the district was in Year One of Program Improvement (PI) as indicated by
the 2009 Federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Report, and Sequoia was one of seven
elementary schools within the district in Year Two or above PI status in 2009-2010
(California Department of Education, 2010d). Table H.1 provides a description of the
school and district demographics as compared to the county and state averages.
Table H.1: Sequoia Elementary Demographic Comparison, 2009-2010
%
Hispanic
%
White
%
EL
%
Free/Reduced
Sequoia Elementary 86.1 3.3 62.3 76.4
District Average 48.4 34.5 23.7 45.0
County Average 46.9 31.8 27.5 42.3
State Average 50.4 27.0 23.8 55.9
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
As illustrated in Table H.1, Sequoia Elementary served a disproportionately large
Hispanic community with 86.1 percent of the total population reporting their ethnicity as
Hispanic or Latino. Sequoia Elementary was located in one of the below average
socioeconomic areas in which the district served. Of the total population, approximately
62.3 percent were reported as English learners (ELs) and 76.4 percent were enrolled in
the free and reduced meals program (California Department of Education, 2010d).
Assessment and data. At the initiation of this study, Sequoia was in Year Five of
PI as indicated by the 2009 Federal AYP Report (California Department of Education,
2010d). According to the California Department of Education (2010d), Sequoia’s first
year of PI status was during the 2003-2004 school year. As further illustrated in Figure
260
H.1, the school’s Academic Performance Index (API) score remained relatively flat
between the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years. However during the 2008-2009
school year, there was a significant shift in academic performance at Sequoia Elementary
as demonstrated by their 47-point API increase.
Figure H.1: Sequoia Elementary API Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
During the 2009-2010 academic year, the school remained in PI status but met the
2009 AYP criterion. This status signified that the school had met 2009 AYP measures for
participation and proficiency in each content area assessed on the statewide assessments
as well as met the API indicator criterion. A school can exit PI only after making all AYP
criteria for two consecutive years (California Department of Education, 2010i). During
the focal year of this study, Sequoia Elementary did not continue to make significant
gains in their API scores and regressed back towards previous API scores as
demonstrated by the 38-point decrease in Figure H.1. Consequently, the school did not
670
690
692
739
701
600
650
700
750
800
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
261
meet 2010 AYP criterion, and for the 2010-2011 school year, the school continued in
Year Five of PI status.
English-language arts (ELA). As indicated in Figure H.2, during the 2008-2009
school year, Sequoia Elementary demonstrated a significant achievement gap between
Hispanic and White students on statewide ELA assessments. Between 2008 and 2009, the
school demonstrated a 12.2 percentage point increase in the number of Hispanic students
scoring proficient and above on statewide ELA assessments. However for the 2009-2010
academic year, the ELA scores regressed by 5.6 percentage points. Due to the lack of a
significant White subgroup during the 2009-2010 academic year, information regarding
the achievement gap could not be obtained. An examination at the district level revealed
that there continued to be a large achievement gap between the school’s Hispanic
students and the district’s White students (74.5 percent scored proficient or above) as
indicated by the 38.8 percentage point gap between subgroups (California Department of
Education, 2010d).
262
Figure H.2: Sequoia Elementary Language Arts – Proficient & Above Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
Mathematics. Examination of Figure H.3 demonstrates that there was also a
significant achievement gap between Hispanic and White subgroups on statewide math
assessments during the 2008-2009 school year. Between 2008 and 2009, the school
demonstrated a 9.1 percentage point increase in the number of Hispanic students scoring
proficient and above on statewide math assessments. However for the 2009-2010
academic year, the math scores regressed by 3.9 percentage points. Due to the lack of a
significant White subgroup, an analysis of the achievement gap at the school site level
during the 2009-2010 school year was not attainable. A comparison made at the district
level continued to demonstrate a large achievement gap between the school’s Hispanic
and the district’s White students. According to the California Department of Education
(2010d), the school’s Hispanic population continued to lag behind the district’s White
29.6 31.5 32.4
43.0
37.4
26.0
27.4
29.1
41.3
35.7
55.6
65.6
76.0
63.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide Hispanic White
263
subgroup average (75.2 percent scored proficient or above) as indicated by the 42.9
percentage point gap between subgroups.
Figure H.3: Sequoia Elementary Mathematics – Proficient & Above Trend
Note: Adapted from DataQuest by California Department of Education (2010d).
Improvement Process Themes
The data in the previous figures indicates that an improvement process initially
occurred followed by a weakening of overall assessment scores at Sequoia Elementary.
However telling these numbers may appear, the numerical data lacks the narrative
information as to what transpired. According to Odden (2009), in order to implement any
powerful education improvement strategy the system must utilize a set of core research-
based strategies. A review of the research literature by Odden and Archibald (2009) has
outlined ten core elements that have constituted effective educational change. As
previously discussed in the literature review, for this study these strategies were
strategically consolidated into six evidence-based strategies and used as a framework to
35.8
32.1
31.0
39.5
35.2
32.3
29.6
27.1
36.2
32.3
61.1
53.1
76.0
63.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
School Wide Hispanic White
264
discuss the literature as it relates to effective resource allocation in elementary schools.
The following section is a description of what occurred, together with how six evidence-
based strategies were utilized at Sequoia Elementary in an attempt to institute educational
reform and become more productive through resource reallocation (Odden & Archibald,
2000a).
Setting high expectations for student learning. Setting high expectations and
encouraging students to achieve begins with establishing challenging goals and learning
objectives for students (Marzano, 2003). According to S. Principal (a pseudonym; UP-
IRB IIR0000701), prior to the 2008-2009 academic year the staff lacked instructional
drive and motivation due to low test scores with sporadic gains over the past five years
(personal communication, June 21, 2010). In discussing instructional strategies, the
principal expressed a desire change this attitude regarding student learning primarily
through the results of effective instruction (S. Principal, personal communication, June
21, 2010). According to S. Principal, the district had been the primary motivator for
demanding high expectations of staff and students (personal communication, June 21,
2010). In order to reinforce the districts goal that all students will meet or exceed
proficiency in core content areas, the administration implemented a district led
categorical program monitor (CPM) walkthrough for all schools (Brooks, et al., 2007).
According to S. Principal, this boosted the moral of the teachers at Sequoia Elementary
because they felt they were no longer being singled out and asked to participate in
additional training as one of the lowest performing schools in the district (personal
communication, June 21, 2010). The principal reported that teachers previously
265
complained they were being required to work harder and longer hours than their peers
just because they taught at a school site with a lower socioeconomic population (S.
Principal, personal communication, June 21, 2010). Based on the conversation, it was
apparent that the district, state, and federal government had been the driving force in
setting high expectations at Sequoia Elementary. This was further reinforced through
discussions with the principal regarding the schools data-based decision making
strategies.
Data-based decision making. As demonstrated by the literature (Datnow, et al.,
2007; DuFour, et al., 2006; Supovitz & Taylor, 2003; Togneri & Anderson, 2003), high
performing schools are those immersed in a culture of continuous improvement through
the use of multiple strategies to make decisions based on data. Data-based decision
making was motivated at the district level, and Sequoia Elementary was required to
participate in the district’s six-week interim pacing guide assessment (S. Principal,
personal communication, June 21, 2010). The assessment was known as the Pace
Standards Assessment (PSA) and was based on pacing guidelines approved in
coordination with the district-adopted textbooks. Results of the PSA were then made
available to teachers and the principal. Compared to other schools in this study, there was
little discussion by the principal as to how or if students were also provided the
assessment data to monitor their own progress (S. Principal, personal communication,
June 21, 2010).
Although the principal did not provide a lot of detailed discussion or evidence as
to how data-based decisions were occurring at the school level, the principal did
266
emphasize in her communication that she felt it was very important to look at data as
much as possible and know how to utilize the data in effective decision making (S.
Principal, personal communication, June 21, 2010). The principal made data analysis a
priority during professional learning community (PLC) meetings, and teachers were
provided additional instruction on how to analyze the district assessments so that they
may base their lesson plans from the results (S. Principal, personal communication, June
21, 2010). Although data-based decision making is an effective strategy, it should not be
used as the sole strategy for school reform (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009).
Teachers also need to be skilled in choosing appropriate assessments, skilled in
developing their own assessments, comfortable in communicating assessment results, and
provided guidance on how to make decisions based on individual students, instruction,
and curriculum (McMillan, 2000; Scholastic, 2010).
Professional development. Research suggests (Birman, et al., 2000; Elmore,
2002) that effective professional development should be organized to include the
collective participation of the entire faculty. Upon her arrival in the fall of 2008, S.
Principal reported that she put an emphasis on professional development that supported
successful instructional strategies that were being implemented outside of the district
(personal communication, June 21, 2010). Professional development activities were
routinely carried out at the school site level during weekly staff development meetings at
both the group and professional learning community (PLC) level. In addition, there were
three district-wide staff development days allocated in the professional development
calendar.
267
As previously discussed in the literature review, some of the most effective
professional development activities are when they relate directly to the instructional
content materials teachers use and take place in their own schools and classrooms with
coaching and ongoing feedback (Miles, et al., 2004). As a school identified as in PI,
Sequoia Elementary was assigned a 50 percent instructional coach by the district.
According to S. Principal, the role of the instructional coach was to work specifically
with teachers and not to get involved with general school planning or organizational
duties (personal communication, June 21, 2010). The instructional coach was new to
Sequoia Elementary during the 2009-2010 school year and was expected to observe
classroom lessons, meet with teachers, provide constructive feedback, demonstrate
sample lessons, provide materials, and help interpret data from the district’s database (S.
Principal, personal communication, May 4, 2010). Although this is a typical role for an
instructional coach observed in a number of schools throughout the state, how the
resource was allocated during the academic calendar was a unique approach. The
principal reported that prior to the 2009-2010 school year, part-time instructional coaches
were split between two or more schools during the working week and flexed days so as to
be equitable (S. Principal, personal communication, June 21, 2010). According to S.
Principal, she felt this was not an effective use of staff time and successfully lobbied with
the district to allow her coach to work one continuous week at the site and then alternate
to the other school site for an entire week (personal communication, June 21, 2010). The
argument made by S. Principal was that the coach could provide her undivided attention
268
to the school site and teachers knew that they could follow up with the instructional
coach throughout the entire week (personal communication, May 4, 2010).
In addition to the assigned instructional coach, teachers at the site were able to
access a district instructional coach upon request. When queried as to how that process
occurred and who would be the one to initiate the request for the coach, the principal
indicated that this decision was left to the individual teacher and that she trusted her
teachers because they were a veteran staff (S. Principal, personal communication, May 4,
2010). As the discussion progressed, there was a reoccurring theme of the school reliance
on district led, or district sanctioned staff development, including at the principal level.
The principal indicated that all principals were provided training on walkthrough
strategies and expected to follow a specific protocol when visiting classrooms to promote
effective instruction (S. Principal, personal communication, June 21, 2010).
Effective instruction. Upon arriving at Sequoia Elementary, the principal sought
to focus on effective instruction by making sure that teachers were doing their number of
minutes according to the academic program survey and using all the materials provided
by the district (S. Principal, personal communication, June 21, 2010). This theme was
repeated throughout much of the conversation with S. Principal and included words and
phrases such as: improving instruction for all students, making sure teachers were
following the instructional protocol, walking through classrooms every day looking for
instruction, focusing them on doing a better job in the classroom, engaging students
through effective instruction (personal communication, June 21, 2010).
269
Recent evidence suggests that variation in instructional quality is strongly
associated with variation in student learning (Raudenbush, 2009). It was apparent that the
principal had a strong belief in this assumption regarding instructional quality and later
shared her own expertise in pedagogy and using technology for effective instruction. It
was apparent that the thrust of the school improvement process at Sequoia Elementary
was centered on ensuring that teachers provided effective instruction. However if solely
left to be implemented at the teacher level, it has been demonstrated that the school as a
whole may still lack the improvement efforts to support explicit and powerful classroom
instruction, thus producing small effects (Raudenbush, 2009). Therefore, the principal did
not leave the instructional calendar to chance and organized the curriculum schedule so
that instruction was uniform throughout the school. This reinforced studies conducted by
Silva (2010) that note staffing models are an important factor in organizing schools so
that instruction may be more effective. In order to facilitate this best practice (Silva,
2007, 2010), the school coordinated bell schedules and staffing in order to provide
language arts instruction during the morning block and math during the afternoon.
Language development instruction was organized based on student levels and was also
provided based on a schoolwide rotation with additional support from special education
teachers. The principal highlighted that the purpose of including special education
teachers was so that the grouping of students could be kept as small as possible and
additional credentialed teachers could provide instruction (S. Principal, personal
communication, June 21, 2010).
270
An additional tool used at Sequoia Elementary to evaluate the effectiveness of
instruction was the use of a schoolwide Response to Intervention (RtI) model. RtI is
about providing good teaching, evaluating how the instruction is working, and then
making adjustments based on these assessments (D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Gibbs, 2009;
Sprague, 2006). According to S. Principal, RtI became an integral part of the instructional
day, and students were leveled based on their educational needs for approximately 30
minutes for intensive instruction (personal communication, May 4, 2010). However, the
principal noted difficulty in implementing this resource because it was being
implemented for the first time during the 2009-2010 school year along with a number of
other interventions initiated at the central office level (S. Principal, personal
communication, May 4, 2010). Sequoia Elementary noticeably put a great deal of their
resources and effort into effective instruction. However, no matter how effective the
instructional strategies, there are times when even the most successful teachers and
strategies can fall short in educating certain populations of students in a traditional
manner (Odden, 2009; Odden & Archibald, 2009; The Education Trust, 2005a).
Extend learning opportunities for struggling students. According to Odden
(2009), an effective strategy is to intervene quickly and intensively for students
struggling over a concept and embed that intervention within the school program. As a
Title I school designated in PI for more than one year, Sequoia Elementary was required
to provide supplemental educational services to students of low-income families (U.S.
Department of Education, 2009b). Supplemental educational services in the form of
tutoring were provided before, during, and after school by both private companies and
271
through a district based tutoring program. The principal encouraged a number of the
school’s teachers to enroll as tutors in the tutoring program and reported that
approximately 12 to 14 teachers on her site participated (S. Principal, personal
communication, May 4, 2010). However, there was no coordination or monitoring of the
tutoring at the school site level other than documentation of hours spent with each child
and the topic areas covered in the tutoring sessions. In addition to the traditional
supplemental educational services, the school utilized additional Economic Impact Aid
Limited English Proficiency (EIA LEP) funds to provide additional instruction through
an after school program. In order to support programs and activities to assist English
learner achieve proficiency, EIA LEP funds were to be used at the school site level to
supplement and not supplant existing resources (California Department of Education,
2010e).
Due to budget constraints, all summer school programs other than mandated
special education services were eliminated for the 2009 and 2010 summer. However
during the 2009-2010 school year, Sequoia Elementary was able to maintain their after
school education and safety (ASES) program which provided instruction for one hour
every instructional school day. The ASES Program was a voter approved categorical
program that funded the establishment of local after school education and enrichment
programs to provide literacy, academic enrichment, and safe constructive alternatives for
students (California Department of Education, 2010c). Although tutoring and extended
school programs can be effective interventions (Odden & Picus, 2008), without effective
leadership and collaboration amongst educational staff to guide the implementation of
272
such effective strategies, schools may not experience the positive effects of such an
approach.
Collaborative and distributed leadership. Powerful instructional systems
require shared goals, shared assessment tools, shared instructional strategies, active
collaboration, and accountability of peers and the community (Raudenbush, 2009). As
previously discussed in the area of effective instruction, the principal at Sequoia
Elementary put a great deal of emphasis on powerful and effective instruction as part of
the turn-around process at the school. In discussing how this was facilitated through
leadership, S. Principal outlined in detail how her goal was to de-emphasize her role and
expand the role of collaborative leadership among teachers by stressing learning
communities (personal communication, May 4, 2010). Learning communities have
demonstrated a positive relationship with the organization of classrooms for learning
through an emphasis on the academic performance of students by empowering teachers at
the school site level (Louis & Marks, 1998; Louis, Marks, et al., 1996).
Three out of four early dismissal Wednesdays each month were devoted to the
grade level professional communities. During these PLC meetings, teams were expected
to collaboratively work as a team to perform vertical planning with other grade levels,
investigate data, and use data to create an action plan (S. Principal, personal
communication, May 4, 2010). When asked about the teachers’ success regarding the
PLC model, S. Principal reported that most grade levels were successful; however, there
were conflicts along the way and at times she had to intervene and model the process
(personal communication, May 4, 2010). In fact, the principal often down-played her role
273
as an authoritative site leader and preferred to see herself as an instructional leader that
was there to provide guidance in focusing the staff to work openly and collaboratively
with each other and take ownership of all students at the school (S. Principal (personal
communication, May 4, 2010). According to S. Principal, moving the school towards a
collaborative model to improve instruction was what she felt was most influential in
making the schools scores climb (personal communication, May 4, 2010).
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
As previously discussed in the review of the literature, an evidence-based model
approach strives to identify a set of effective educational procedures based on proven
research strategies in order to deliver an adequate and comprehensive instructional
program for all students at the school site level (Odden, 2000, 2003; Odden & Picus,
2008). Further, case studies have supported the value of using an evidence-based model
to determine school-level expenditure structures (Brinson & Mellor, 2005). One such
framework that can be used to help identify effective educational strategies is the
Evidence-Based Model outlined by Odden and Picus (2008). The following Table H.2 is
a comparison of Sequoia Elementary to that of the core resources allocated to a
prototypical elementary school using the Evidence-Base Model (Odden & Picus, 2008).
274
Table H.2: Sequoia Elementary Evidence-Based Model Comparison
School Element
Evidence-Based
Model
Current Allocation
Resources
Resources Based on
Prototypical Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 504 Students 17 % larger
Class Size
K-3 : 15
4-5 : 25
K-3: 21.8
4-6: 29.1
K-3: 45 % larger
4-5: 16 % larger
Instructional Days 200; include PD 185; includes PD 15 less days
Kindergarten Full-day K Part-day K Full-day K
Administrative Support
Principal 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.17 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.17 FTE
School Site Clerical 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.17 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24 FTE 18 FTE 28.08 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 4% of core teachers 20% of core teachers
Instructional Facilitators 2.2 FTE 0.5 FTE 2.57 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors 1.0 FTE : 100 SES 6.55 FTE 3.64 FTE
Teacher for ELs 1.0 FTE : 100 ELs 0 FTE 2.94 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 1.69 FTE 2.11 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 0 FTE 2.11 FTE
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel 5.4% of personnel 5% of personnel
Librarians/Media Specialist 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE 1.17 FTE
Note: Adapted from School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.) by Odden and Picus (2008), pp. 132-133.
Copyright 2008 by McGraw-Hill. Adapted with permission.
As demonstrated in Table H.2, Sequoia Elementary executed their improvement
strategies employing less resources as compared to the prototypical school using the
Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). An area that diverged from the typical
pattern was tutoring resources provided through supplemental educational services. As a
Title I school designated in PI for more than one year, Sequoia Elementary was required
to provide supplemental educational services to students of low-income families (U.S.
275
Department of Education, 2009b). Although lower than what the prototypical model
would call for, an additional area of interest when compared to other schools examined in
this study was the use of extended day resource dollars. EIA LEP funds were utilized to
provide this additional instruction for ELs through an after school program (California
Department of Education, 2010e). Although the influx of additional categorical funding
was significant when compared to what other schools in the district and county were
provided, it is how those extra resources were allocated at the site level that appears to
have brought about differences as compared to other schools (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Impact of the reallocation of resources. Regardless of the funding source, there
appeared to be indirect alignment between educational strategies and resources allocated
for the prototypical school within the Evidence-Based Model and some of the strategies
used by Sequoia Elementary. An obvious strategy for reducing inequality is to provide
extra schooling to those children who need it more (Krueger, 2003). Sequoia Elementary
was mandated to allocate a number of its categorical resources towards tutoring and
extended learning. Although all schools in this study were required to provide
supplemental educational services due to their PI status (U.S. Department of Education,
2009b), each school site in this study took different ownership of these services. It was
apparent from discussions with S. Principal that a majority of the thrust came from
pressure from the federal, state, and district level (personal communication, May 4,
2010). It appeared that the use of resource dollars at Sequoia Elementary was based on
mandates and inducements and lacked capacity building and systems change at the school
site level (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987).
276
Lessons Learned
Sequoia Elementary appeared to struggle with the process of resource
reallocation. Based on the narrative provided, Sequoia Elementary gave the impression as
to be trapped into simply trying to replicate and refine existing practices that were
perceived previously effective, and implementing the same strategies with more intensity
or efficiency (Koret Task Force, 2006; Odden, 1998). This practice met the federal and
state requirements but was limited and resulted in short-term gains. However, it is
important to note that although significant change was not demonstrated and maintained,
the school did attempt to shift their practices at the school level. And although the school
demonstrated the use of all six evidence-based strategies in attempting educational
reform, Sequoia heavily allocated resources towards providing effective instruction and
extending learning opportunities for struggling students.
Table H.3: Sequoia Elementary Performance of Evidence-Based Strategies
Evidence-Based Strategy Weak
Below
Average
Above
Average Strong
Setting High Expectations for Student Learning √
Data-Based Decision Making √
Professional Development √
Effective Instruction √
Extend Learning Opportunities for Struggling Students √
Collaborative and Distributed Leadership √
Note: Case study ranking of evidence-based strategies implemented at the school site level. Adapted from
Doubling student performance:…and finding the resources to do it by Odden and Archibald (2009).
Copyright 2009 by Corwin Press.
277
As previously noted, the principal at Sequoia Elementary believed that effective
instruction through teacher led collaboration was the focal point for success for the
school (S. Principal, personal communication, June 21, 2010). This belief was in-line
with the research that suggests an effective system-wide approach to curriculum and
learning leads to an increase in student achievement (Langer, 1999; Marzano, 2003;
Togneri & Anderson, 2003). However, school improvement efforts that lack support for
explicit and powerful classroom instruction produce small effects (Raudenbush, 2009).
At Sequoia Elementary there was impetus for change in the instructional delivery, but the
motivation to initiate change was spurred outside the school site level and lacked the
ongoing support to make it lasting (Bitter & O'Day, 2006). Most teachers perceive federal
probation as mild pressure and do not worry about the sanctions which may ensue
(Mintrop, 2003). Therefore it appears that the teachers made just enough change to avoid
sanctions at the school site level but not enough to implement change at the classroom
level. In theory, high-stakes accountability should improve teacher motivation which
should then spur instructional change in the classroom (Mintrop, 2004). However, if the
driving force of the accountability system is left solely to the state and district level to
make schools rather than individuals accountable, the results tend to be predominately
externally induced, directed by administrators and not fueled by individual teachers
(Bitter & O'Day, 2006; Mintrop, 2004). And although the approach of PLCs utilized by
Sequoia Elementary was one such model that moves away from the bureaucratic model
of an organization to one that is based on school-based management (Lee & Smith, 2001;
Mohrman, 1994), it lacked focused direction and leadership at the site level.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In May of 2010, California followed the pattern of other states regarding educational adequacy lawsuits (Hanushek, 2006a
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Aligning educational resources and strategies to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model
PDF
Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies in rural single-school elementary districts
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of non-title I schools
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
Successful resource allocation in times of fiscal constraint: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California elementary schools
PDF
Resource allocation practices in relation to identified school reform strategies
PDF
Where does the money go?: an analysis of student level resource allocation at the school level
PDF
Evidence-based resource allocation model to improve student achievement: Case study analysis of three high schools
PDF
The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within 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
Allocation of resources and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California Title I Program Improvement middle schools
PDF
Making the Golden State glitter again: how the evidence based adequacy model can save struggling schools in difficult times
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
The allocation of resources at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers: What is adequate?
PDF
School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning in a sample of California schools
PDF
Resource use and instructional improvement strategies at the school-site level: case studies from ten southern California elementary schools
PDF
Toward school improvement and fiscal equity: examining educational adequacy in a Southern California school district
PDF
Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: Case studies of school level resource use in California middle schools
Asset Metadata
Creator
Gutierrez-Lohrman, Christopher Michael
(author)
Core Title
Educational resources to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
03/04/2011
Defense Date
02/02/2011
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
educational adequacy,educational strategies,evidence-based model,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation,school finance,school improvement
Place Name
California
(states)
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
clohrman@ocde.us,cmgutier@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3678
Unique identifier
UC1120821
Identifier
etd-GutierrezLohrman-4318 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-417516 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3678 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-GutierrezLohrman-4318.pdf
Dmrecord
417516
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Gutierrez-Lohrman, Christopher Michael
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
Tags
educational adequacy
educational strategies
evidence-based model
resource allocation
school finance
school improvement