University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District

(USC Thesis Other)

Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM IMPLEMENTATION:
A GAP ANALYSIS INQUIRY PROJECT FOR ROWLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT

by

Brent Alan Forsee

_______________________________________________________________

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 Brent Alan Forsee
ii
DEDICATION
Attending The University of Southern California has been a lifelong dream,
sprung from my childhood days of attending and watching anything that had to do
with USC. Achieving a doctoral degree would never have been possible without the
love and support of my family. It is to them this work and everything it stands for is
dedicated.
- Kimmie, the love of my life. We were engaged at the beginning of it,
married in the middle of it, and now adding to our family at the conclusion of it.
What will I do without your reminders, “did you work on your paper yet today”?
Your constant love and support have been without measure…you are my rock and I
love you for it!
- Mom, Dad, and Nan I could have never done this without your constant
support (emotionally and financially). From the day I was born you have provided a
life for me of wich most kids could only dream. Anything of value I have ever
accomplished has only been done through yours, and God’s, unconditional love and
support…we did it!
- Baby Averie you are not here yet, but you will be for graduation. Welcome
to your first day of your preparation for college sweetheart. Your mother and I love
you more than you’ll ever know.
- To my friends, there are too many of you to name, but you know who you
are. You are a tremendous group of men that I consider more brothers than friends.
Thank you for caring about this adventure we embarked on. A week never went by
iii
without one of you asking how it was going. Words don’t bring meaning to how
motivating that was for me.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This achievement would not have been possible without the love, inspiration,
and general prodding by some very loved and influential people. My families love,
encouragement, and support served as a motivating factor to finish this thing.
Kimmie, Mom, Dad, Nan, and now Averie I love you all very very much!
Beyond the personal circle many caring mentors and colleagues gently (and
sometimes not so gently) directed me down this path I now know as the USC
Family. What do you say when your superintendent calls and wants to talk with
about enrolling in “the program”? Dr. Franklin and Escalante, you serve as models
for what is possible in this chosen profession of helping children. I thank you for the
opportunities and guidance you have provided before, during, and after this journey.
You are role models and mentors. Dr. Rueda and Marsh thank you for your patience
and constant belief in us individually and collectively. Even when we did not
believe we could make it you never lost faith.
To those in Glendale that also helped guide me down the path towards degree
completion: Dr. Thorrosian, Dr. Garcia, Dr. Gandera, and Dr. Doll, your influence
and understanding has been priceless. To my GHS administrative team…Rene,
Tamar, Scott, and Bill I cannot thank you enough for covering my A.P. supervisions,
understanding why I was so tired on certain mornings, and generally just being a
wonderful group of friends and colleagues (in that order) to work with. Deb and
Monica you two are the best bosses any of us could ask for. You could not possibly
have cared about all the stuff I was working through in class, yet a week never
v
passed without you heartfelt inquiries and encouragement. Always a smile and a
word of encouragement, you’ll never know how much that meant. Finally, my alpha
center team for the past three years Lois, Olga, Karin, and Paul, words on this page
do not do justice to the support you have given me.
Dr. Cuauhtemoc Avila, this has been a wonderful adventure, but I think we
are both glad it is over. Thank you for your constant clarification of assignments,
especially the gap analysis and most of all your friendship. I will always be indebted
to you. To my dissertation team, Gilda and Mona, thank you for support and
friendship. We hung together through thick and thin and now have emerged
successful. I thank you for your hard work as we supported each other during this
process. To the rest of our cohort, I can’t name everyone, but you are all special.
Nick, Angela, and of course Temoc…we kind of carved out a friendship in the first
class with Dr. Rueda. I am so happy we are all walking together.
Last, but certainly not least thank you Jesus for you protection and guidance
and the will to see this thing through. All things are possible through you!
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication………………………………………………………………………… ...ii
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………......iv
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………. ...vii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………. ...viii
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview…………………………………………. ...1
Chapter 2: Chapter 2: Part A: Analyzing the Roots of the Problem…………. ...25
Chapter 2: Part B: Methodology…………………………………. ...42
Chapter 2: Part C: Findings………………………………………....51
Chapter 3: Possible Solutions to the District’s Reform Efforts……………….. ...60
References……………………………………………………………………….. ...81
Appendices
Appendix A: Inquiry Project Proposal………………………………... ...87
Appendix B: Scanning Interview Questions………………………….. ...95
Appendix C: Stages of Concern Questionnaire (About RUSD’s…….. ...96
Reform Strategies)
Appendix D: One Month Interview Questions……………………….. ...98
Appendix E: RUSD Strategic Plan…………………………………… ...99
Appendix F: Ball Foundation Partnership Graphic…………………. ...100
Appendix G: Comprehensive School Reform – Solutions Summary.. ...101
Chart
Appendix H: Presentation to Rowland Unified School District……......102
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Tier I Solutions……………………………………………………….. ...78
Table 2: Tier II Solutions………………………………………………………. ...79
Table 3: Tier III Solutions……………………………………………………... ...80
viii
ABSTRACT
Over the past half century school reform efforts have largely been driven as a
response to the biting indictment of public education enumerated in the Coleman
Report of 1966. The latest national directive, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
sought to further focus the efforts of American schools on the achievement gaps
persistent within minority and impoverished school children when compared to their
non-minority and wealthier peers. This Capstone Inquiry Project analyzed the
effectiveness of Rowland Unified School District (RUSD), in a consultative manner,
in implementing their chosen reforms. The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Model
served as the analytic tool to uncover root causes of gaps in the areas of
knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational culture. While Rowland has
experienced some success, they currently incorporate up to four reform initiatives.
The project team found that a narrowing and clarifying of goals and initiatives using
their “Three Priorities of Teaching and Learning” as a lens through which all current
and future initiatives must be viewed would allow for more effective
implementation. This narrowing of focus was supported within the literature and via
data collection as a means to address the root causes of gaps within RUSD.

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Authored by: Brent Forsee
Background of the Problem
Schools have faced increased scrutiny at the local, state, and federal levels to
improve student achievement in academic subjects as assessed by standardized
measures of student achievement, specifically in the areas of English and math. This
evolved in the form of numerous legislative initiatives designed to close the
achievement gap between non-minority and minority and socially or economically
disadvantaged students. Passage of the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) in
1994 began a sea change directed towards districts in order to provide a model for a
systematic approach to more successfully identify and remedy gaps in student
achievement. This mandated the provision of more effective learning opportunities,
through state departments of education, via curriculum changes and assessments. A
glaring weakness however was the lack of direct guidance for development and
implementation of these intended changes. As a result, districts developed plans
independently to improve student achievement through various curriculum changes.
The late 1990s witnessed the emergence of additional mandates from the
federal and state government(s) that pressed for standards-based reform that would
hold schools accountable for student achievement, as opposed to a sole focus on
instruction. Policy makers continued to target the implementation of a rigorous
curriculum geared toward developing students’ higher level thinking skills within the
2
cognitive domain and making content relevant and meaningful within the framework
of real world issues (McLaughlin & Shephard, 1995). While well intentioned, these
policies again provided little guidance on the more concrete process of how to
increase student achievement. As a result, states and districts developed programs
designed, and therefore isolated, to address specific areas. This isolation, at times,
lead to the implementation of programs with documented negative impact, in an
effort to meet policy mandates. Thus, again, leaving the focus on the fulfillment of
bureaucracy rather than on the true goal of student achievement. Aligning
bureaucratic or programmatic mandates to strategies that positively effect student
achievement remains a challenge. (Berends, Bodilly & Kirby, 2002).
The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
which resulted in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 created another
policy shift under the administration of President George W. Bush. This federal
legislation added new teeth that had previously been missing in the form of an
accountability component to standards-based education. Central to this legislation
was the belief that states, districts, and schools would be held strictly accountable for
student achievement, especially for socially-economically disadvantaged and
minority students. NCLB mandated the alignment of state assessments with content
standards and required a stricter monitoring of student progress toward proficiency.
The new law enacted financial levers to punish districts and schools that did not
attain Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goals (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001).
NCLB was the latest in the federal government’s attempt to take control over public
3
schools and districts as it mandated accountability for results in the form of student
progress towards proficiency on state developed standardized tests.
However, these policies fell short in their early attempt to address voids in
the practical application of methods and procedures to attend to the increased call for
improved student achievement. Much like the IASA that came before NCLB, local
districts and states struggled to find ways for policy to have a direct impact on
student achievement. Districts and schools have faced the continued challenge of
how to effect large scale change and produce improvement in student performance.
The stricter accountability standards, mandated by the new federal regulations, have
in essence mandated Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) as a national model for
student achievement under NCLB (Kim, J.S. & Sunderman, G.L., 2005).
The new shift to Comprehensive School Reform (CSR), with the goal of
producing systematic change, targeted school-wide strategies affecting all aspects of
education including curriculum and instruction, professional development,
organizational structure, and parent/community involvement (Desimone, 2002). This
new approach deviated significantly from past methods in its use of systemic change
through private sector involvement from a venture capitalist approach (New
American Schools), whole school design as a reform strategy, and national large
scale change (Berend, Bodilly & Kirby, 2002). CSR implementation resulted in the
creation of a myriad of programs aimed at addressing the new shift in strategies
targeting improved student performance, such as Success for All, and Accelerated
Schools. Canned programs such as these were put into effect by districts seeking to
4
effect school-wide reform in an era of increasing accountability. During this time
accountability was generally linked to funding allocations and evidence of continued
student improvement (Borman, 2009).
However, despite the numerous programs and reform efforts, districts
continued to experience challenges in meeting federal and state mandates for all
student subgroups. Even though districts have made overall gains in student
achievement as measured by the state Academic Performance Index (API) and the
federal gauges of Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and Annual Measurable Objectives
(AMO), the increases in student achievement in the State of California have fallen
below the proficiency level targets for a significant portion of students in the
following subgroups: Hispanic/Latino, Black or African-American, English learners,
socioeconomically disadvantaged, and/or Students with Disabilities.
Rowland Unified School District (RUSD), a mid-sized district serving a
predominantly Hispanic/Latino and Asian student population in the San Gabriel
Valley of Los Angeles County reflects the statewide dilemma of the achievement
gap between student subgroups. As a result, the RUSD has taken on the challenge of
meeting the NCLB mandates and statewide goals in innovative ways, such as
partnerships with outside groups like the Ball Foundation, a non-profit organization
that provides support in school reform with an emphasis in professional
development, the creation of an Instructional Cabinet, a District team with
representatives from all employee groups within the organization, aimed at closing
the gaps in student achievement, and intra-site Communities of Practice designed to
5
further flatten the organizational hierarchy in a culture of decentralization. RUSD’s
leadership efforts toward increased student achievement have resulted in
achievements including the designation of four National Blue Ribbon Schools, 16
California State Distinguished schools, and a high school named “One of the Top
High Schools in the Nation” by Newsweek Magazine.
Despite all its successes and distinctions, Rowland Unified School District
(RUSD) has yet to achieve the national NCLB goal of math and English proficiency
for all students and the statewide goal of an 800 or above API score for all schools, a
daunting task not unfamiliar to many districts within the state. RUSD has 12 or over
50% of its schools identified as being in Program Improvement (PI) status as a result
of not meeting the state and national goals.
The Rowland Unified School District has made significant gains in student
achievement as evidenced by the data provided through the California Department of
Education (www.cde.ca.gov.dataquest). The data indicates the District’s AYP,
which measures the percentage of students who are proficient or above, has grown
from 49.9% to 56.5% since 2008 in English language arts. During the same period,
the District’s AYP grew from 56.1% to 61.3% in mathematics and the API increased
from 764 to 792. However, there is still a significant achievement gap between the
subgroups. Specifically, the Latino subgroup has an achievement gap, when
measured by the AYP, of almost 40 percentage points when compared to the other
major subgroup, Asian, in the area of English language arts. A gap of 38 percentage
6
points in the area of mathematics persists. The gap for the Latino subgroup when
measured by the API is 132 points below the other major subgroup.
District leadership has stressed the incorporation of numerous different
communities within Rowland Unified. This includes portions of several
incorporated cities bordering Rowland Heights as well as numerous unincorporated
areas of Los Angeles County. District officials indicated a district achievement
divide in the form of the 60 freeway, bisecting the RUSD by Northern (lower SES)
and Southern (higher SES) areas. Like much of the state, geographic areas of higher
socioeconomic status (SES) appeared to be having more success than other areas
within the District. There are twelve schools located on the northern side of the
District, which serves a large number of English Learners as compared to the
southern portion of RUSD. Of these twelve schools ten have been in program
improvement. Ten schools are located on the south side with only two (one is the
district alternative high school) schools having been placed into program
improvement. Statisitcally the northern schools represent a higher proportion of
students with extraordinary economical and or language barriers within RUSD. This
is consistent with the reality throughout the state, that areas with the greatest
educational need have fewer community resources when measured by performance
data and comparisons in SES state data.
Fidelity of implementation continues to be a major contributor to effective
comprehensive school reform in addressing achievement gaps. This challenge
stretches beyond the district office, as schools and community stakeholders play a
7
vital role Densimore (2003). Spillane, et al. (2002) comments that implementation
can be difficult as it challenges deeply rooted beliefs about teaching and learning.
These beliefs run particularly deep as they approach the classroom which is the
essence of instruction and learning. Fidelity can be further complicated by a lack of
alignment in goals from the district, to the site, through the classroom (Elmore,
2002). This alignment of goals, given that RUSD has been successful in increasing
student achievement and meeting statewide goals in some of its schools and not
others, a closer examination of how District-level school reforms have been
implemented at all levels shed light as to possible challenges it faces within its PI
status schools. These reforms consist of structural changes (Strategic Plan), federal
mandates (Program Improvement (PI) Addendum), and leadership models (Ball
Foundation as capacity builder). Furthermore, examining the alignment of goals
throughout RUSD assisted in the identification of immediate gaps consistent with the
Gap Analysis Model (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Importance of the Problem
Under the increased scrutiny of NCLB effective comprehensive school
reform for districts and schools has become increasingly important in an era where
student achievement and continued funding have become linked. This reality has
served to complicate matters within RUSD as they have recently entered program
improvement as a District and have absorbed tremendous staffing reductions as a
result of the current statewide budget shortfall. Districts and schools, such as RUSD,
in PI, do not have the luxury of unstructured or unclear program implementation.
8
Implementation should be focused in a consistent manner across all levels of the
organization and among all stakeholders to improve student achievement. For
reference, consistent implementation may often apply to goal alignment for the
purposes of this study. For districts that must meet accountability measures
established by the state such as the Academic Performance Index (API), in addition
to meeting federal AYP mandates for annual student achievement growth
expectations, on-going evaluation as to the effectiveness of comprehensive school
reform policies implementation is paramount. This holds especially true for RUSD
with its commitment to empower students to actualize his or her fullest potential. As
Elmore (2002) supports, implementation can be tied to professional development and
the quality of experiences in this area. Clark and Estes (2002) further this through
their description and use of training and job aides for the purpose of professional
development to close performance gaps.
RUSD, while maintaining a positive community reputation was placed on the
Program Improvement watch list for underperformance under AYP mandates in
December of 2009. AYP was developed as a way to breakdown student
achievement by subgroups within schools and districts. While RUSD maintains
many high performing schools, the lack of subgroup achievement, a focus of AYP,
has been a major contributor to placement under the PI program. Under this back
drop, the importance of reducing the District-wide achievement gap clarifies the
importance of the problem. Producing consistent student achievement gains across
subgroups on both sides of Highway 60 lends a concrete lens to the challenge RUSD
9
has faced and one which the District readily seeks to tackle in alignment with their
vision of creating opportunities for students to maximize his or her potential. To
address these challenges, RUSD has implemented District-level reform efforts for
increased student achievement and learning. It also sought to evaluate the current
reform effort as a means to improve student achievement. This study served this role
by identifying gaps in the areas if intent and implementation of reform efforts, while
positing practical and actionable solutions for RUSD leadership. Practical and
actionable solutions are important in the political environment of a school district
(Bolman & Deal, 2002). This study served to stretch the boundaries of action
research by suggesting solutions that are actionable in a political environment as
opposed to a theoretical environment. Working, in an informed way, with District
leadership, was vital to the eventual adoption of solutions by RUSD.
Measuring the effectiveness of school reform strategies in meeting student
achievement goals can be cumbersome and elusive. Although there are different
proposed methods, one that addresses the system comprehensively is Clark and
Estes’ (2002) Gap Analysis model. This model presents a system or framework that
works to identify root causes for gaps within an organization as they pertain to stated
goals and eventual solutions. The goals exist at three levels: global, intermediate,
and performance. The Gap Analysis Model was effective in exploring gaps in the
areas of skills and knowledge, organizational culture, and motivation as root causes
for existing gaps. It successfully targeted root causes and challenges to successful
comprehensive reform implementation within RUSD. This analysis method, as it
10
effectively uncovers root causes, allows districts to make strategic changes aimed at
closing the gap in student achievement, while maintaining fidelity with the
accountability measures in place within the confines of NCLB. These strategic
changes have the potential of being customized and replicated across different
schools and/or districts for school and program improvement purposes. As a district
living in program improvement, this model served as a strategic tool to assist RUSD
in the uncovering of root causes and more importantly possible solutions.
This project applied the Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis model to
inform RUSD as to the effectiveness of its comprehensive District-level school
reform efforts. We examined, 1) the perceptions of key stakeholders in regards to
current RUSD CSR intiatives 2) what key stakeholders in the District perceive to be
the root of the problem, goals, and possible solutions related to effective District-
level school reform strategies implementation; 3) identified gaps and root causes; 4)
proposed initial solutions in an effort to gain insight into the feasibility of
implementation; 5) proposed final solutions, as implantable within RUSD, taking
into account feedback gleaned from key stakeholders.
Significance of the Study
In the era of NCLB, effective implementation of comprehensive school
reform has been a necessity for any school or district in program improvement status.
Districts exhibiting persistent achievement gaps, under NCLB accountability
structures in the form of AYP, risk being penalized in their funding allocations.
Therefore, districts, like RUSD, are under increased pressure to ensure
11
comprehensive reform strategies are positively effecting achievement. This has
taken the form of setting measurable goals, documenting progress towards those
goals through the use of data, and identifying and remediating barriers to reform
implementation.
This inquiry project assisted RUSD in evaluating the effectiveness of its
District-level school reform effort and its implementation via the Gap Analysis
Model (Clark & Estes, 2002). The approach served as a lens to understand and
address challenges RUSD faced in achieving their goal of increasing student
achievement across all sub-groups. It was the goal of this project to provide RUSD
with clear root causes, gaps, and possible solutions to aide in their effort to move out
of program improvement status. In collaboration, results of this project in the form of
recommendations for practice have provided a starting point from which to continue
to implement change that will effectively address student learning needs.
Literature Review
As more and more schools within RUSD faced the reality of entering
program improvement status, numerous reform efforts were launched within the
district. As the program improvement designation was largely a result of a failure to
meet federal and state targets for specific subgroups, RUSD attempted a creative
design for its district-level school reform. This included a consideration of
scientifically-based CSR programs while dealing with a crushing budgetary loss to
the general fund resulting in the designing of its own strategies to address specific
needs while attempting to incorporate significant components of effective reform.
12
However, as in many districts, RUSD has faced numerous challenges in effective
implementation. Current reform efforts include a newly developed Strategic Plan,
Ball Foundation strategies, Program Improvement Plan, and most recently the Three
Essential Priorities for Teaching and Learning.
Comprehensive School Reform Strategies and Programs
Literature has documented effective components of comprehensive school
reform as they serve to affect student achievement (Tushnet, et al., 2004; Levin &
Wiens, 2003). Successful strategies, as described by Levin and Wiens (2003)
include: 1) extensive use of targeted curriculum standards and outcomes, with more
focus on essential skills such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, and
technology; 2) increased use of student assessment data as publicly reported on a site
by site basis; 3) increased role of parents and students in choosing what school to
attend; 4) increased accountability measures for teachers in the areas of limiting pay,
controlling their work, etc.; 5) adjusted school finance structures that more effectively
reward schools that increase academic results or attract more students or both; and 6)
decentralization of managerial responsibility at the site level. NCLB expands this
list to include: 1) measurable goals and benchmarks for student performance, 2)
support for staff and from staff, 3) external assistance, 4) evaluation, 5) coordination
of resources, 6) professional development, 7) use of proven methods and strategies
that are research-based and target student learning, teaching and school management,
and 8) and a design that is comprehensive in scope and aligned to a school-wide
reform plan to provide an opportunity for all students to meet state content and
13
performance standards (Tushnet, et al., 2004). The above by no means constitute a
finite list. Other authors such as Fullan (2006), Elmore (2002), and Collins (2001),
and Fullan (2007), believe attributes such as goal alignment, focus, collaboration,
and purposeful professional development play an important role in successful school
reform. Many of these authors propose that the manner in which reform is carried
out, or implementation, is at least as important as the reform itself in having a
positive effect on student achievement.
An aspect of comprehensive school reform consistently found throughout the
literature is the need for a systematic approach requiring the commitment of all
stakeholders, including district, site, parent, student, and community. Of note is the
belief that a “systemic approach” to implementation is a long term process (Levin &
Wiens, 2003). The length of time required for effective implementation and stake
holder “buy in” can be at odds with accountability timeline under NCLB, especially
for schools and districts in program improvement. Literature which directly
responded to the barriers associated with implementation of District-level reform
strategies, such as a lack of alignment of goals, reform strategies, and stakeholder
“buy in” informed this project as to how these strategies affected implementation
within RUSD. These assertions are supported within the literature as school reform
efforts that have incorporated them have demonstrated improved student
achievement when maintaining fidelity to implementation. Reform efforts that are
externally developed, aligned, and clearly defined, positively affect student learning,
along with reforms with strong professional development and training components.
14
Borman, et al. (2003), when discussing professional development, found that a
continuance of training to assist teachers in classroom implementation as well as
stakeholder “buy in” has been associated with effective implementation. This “buy
in” can be greatly affected by communication factors. Communication between and
among different stakeholders can influence school reform implementation from
administrators to teachers to students, parents and the community (Desimone, 2003).
Additionally, perception and interpretation of reform strategies can differ among
stakeholders. This too can affect fidelity in implementation that is so important for
positive student outcomes (Spillane, 2002).
School wide reform can be slow and challenging. Implementation factors
should be addressed before linking reform designs to student outcomes (Desimone,
2003). Hamilton et al. (2003) found a primary barrier to effective reform
implementation, is the variability that exists within different levels of the educational
bureaucracy: state, district, school site. How administrators, teachers, parents,
students, and communities interpret and implement policy may differ, thus leading to
differences in goal attainment at the district and school level. The more effectively
schools are able to consistently align their efforts with state and district policy,
affects the depth of comprehensive school reform efforts (Desimone, 2003). The gap
analysis structure was useful in this area as it helped identify gaps related to these
factors and assisted in signaling root causes in the areas of knowledge, motivation,
and culture for these gaps (Clark & Estes, 2002).
15
Programs that have supplied comparative data such as Success for All, and
work done by the NAS have been identified factors including composition,
evaluation, and implementation as having significant effects on student achievement.
Some practices incorporated on a broad scale were found to be less effective than
previously thought of as a result of these studies (Borman, Hewes, Overman, &
Brown, 2003). This is vital as RUSD sought research based solutions with positive
results based on literature and data as is required by the NCLB.
Gap Analysis Model
Clark and Estes (2002) initiate the gap analysis process via the determination
of global, intermediate and instructional (performance) goals. Goal setting and
benchmarking are important components of the gap analysis model. Alignment of
goals and the benchmarking of them is vital to the implementation and eventual
success of the model. Surprisingly, a consensus on goals and measurement processes
(Elmore, 2003) were not evident as RUSD continued to press on in their effort to
meet state (API) and federal (AYP) mandates of increasing student achievement.
Ideally, goals should be attainable as determined by the current situation and
data compiled by the District. Relevant literature within this area provided
information as to the current processes related to goals and objectives and
benchmarking to aid in creating a clear picture of what is to be accomplished and be
able to effectively evaluate whether or not that particular goal has been met. As part
of the goal creation process, important aspects considered, involved goal alignment
both within the different types of goals as well as within the overall mission and
16
vision of the organization and how all three goal levels interrelate with other major
components within the organization such as organizational culture, and skills and
knowledge.
Secondly, the skill and knowledge component was addressed via relevant
literature and data collection. Clark and Estes (2002) evaluate whether those
expected to perform a task have the required skills and knowledge necessary to
complete that task, otherwise known as capacity. Knowledge gaps are best
addressed with four knowledge enhancements: information, job aids, training, and
education (Clark & Estes, 2002). Information enhancements provide the most basic
level of information or facts a person needs to perform a task. Literature relevant to
learning theories provided a lens through which assessment of root causes in this
area are grounded and systematic research-based evaluation can take place in the
process of assisting districts in the improvement efforts. As an example, socio-
cognitive theory elucidated how different types of knowledge are required to meet
various tasks, and describes how a mismatch in the types of knowledge acquired and
that required by the task itself can produce unwanted outcomes, especially when
district-level reform involves curriculum, instruction, and use of professional
development and training without clearly delineated data-driven performance goals.
Accurate assessment of knowledge and skills is paramount in addressing any
gaps in this area (knowledge and skills) through professional development and can
be a tool for improvement in ensuring the implementation of District-level reform
strategies. Literature related to the effective implementation of professional
17
development programs and challenges to such implementation once again provided
powerful information as a starting point in this investigation. An exploration of
successful district-level reform strategies within this area through a literature review
provided, once again, a baseline for analysis and evaluation.
Along with the skills and knowledge component is the fact that districts are in
and of themselves organizational structures within their own cultures.
Implementation of district reform strategies cannot happen in a vacuum and attempts
at implementation without taking into consideration organizational culture may not
be effective (Sipple, et al., 2004). Studies such as Distributed Leadership in
Schools: The Case of Elementary Schools Adopting Comprehensive School Reform
Models (Camburn et al., 2003), describe different organizational configurations,
effective leadership styles, and describe various settings similar to the District that
are useful for investigative purposes when data collection and methodological
approaches are considered and when evaluating existing implementation of policies
and strategies established for the purpose of meeting the stated District goals and
objectives.
Leadership theories such as contingency (leader-match) theory, wherein
leaders are matched to appropriate situations, suggests that a leader’s ability to be
effective depends on how well the leader’s style fits the context, and the path-goal
leadership theory where leaders who can motivate subordinates to accomplish goals
are assigned with the goal to enhance employee performance and employee
satisfaction by focusing on employee motivation (Northouse, 2007), can be
18
instrumental within this area of the Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis model as a
powerful evaluative tool.
Finally, motivation, in terms of choice, persistence and effort within all levels
of the reform implementation are crucial as an integral part of the gap analysis
model. District-level reform efforts can be thwarted when key players are not
motivated to perform the tasks required for success in improving student
performance. Motivational theories assist in understanding how different
motivational components interact when goal achievement is the expected outcome.
Constructs such as self-efficacy, beliefs, interests, expectations, and values helped
guide the analysis of root causes in this area and were useful in addressing potential
solutions. In thinking about motivational factors, other questions arose for further
literature search specifically related to district-level reform strategies and goals: 1)
what are the beliefs of the stakeholders regarding the new strategies and how they
impact achievement? and 2) Do teachers, parents, students, administrator and district
staff “buy-in” to the new reforms and are they motivated to persist and put forth the
needed effort to accomplish the goal in a milieu of standard-based reforms, statewide
assessment, and a myriad of other demands? How key stakeholders react to school
reform and what their beliefs are about student abilities, their own abilities and the
effectiveness of the “new” mandates all affect goal attainment and ultimately student
achievement.
Within all of the root causes mentioned above, goal setting, knowledge and
skills, organizational culture, and motivational factors are barriers which districts
19
have had to face in efforts to implement district-level school reform. Studies
describing other districts’ attempts at comprehensive school reform implementation
shed light into the possible challenges and root causes of the gaps identified by
districts. In doing so, examination of specific components incorporated in CSR
programs inform current practices in addressing gaps. As CSR research continues to
grow, the refinement of these practices may become broader as districts seek
solutions to their achievement gaps.
Purpose of the Analysis
The gap analysis model as presented by Clark and Estes centers around the
identification of performance gaps as they link to performance goals, in
organizations through the examination of root causes. Performance gaps in
organizations are generally attributable to at least one of three factors:
Knowledge/Skills, Motivation, and/or Organizational/Cultural barriers (Clark and
Estes, 2002). Identifying the gap in performance is often easy as most organizations
have numerous performance indicators. For educators in California, API scores,
AYP, and numerous other formative and summative assessments and benchmark
indicators are used. Reaching proficiency on these assessments is the goal for every
child in California by the year 2014. These results provide a clear if not accurate
picture of academic performance from year to year. The results can be easily
measured and compared providing the general populous at least a cursory
understanding of a school or district quality.
20
A lack of knowledge and/or skills is essentially a capacity gap between the
expected performance and the professional “tool belt” available to those within the
organization. A number of approaches may be used to address this gap, however,
professional development or training has been shown to effectively increase
knowledge/skill capacity. The effectiveness of these approaches, however, has been
dependent on many factors including the alignment of the training content with goals
and the knowledge and skills required, coherence in professional development
trainings, and implementation in the classroom.
Motivational gaps seem to be tougher and more complex than those
generated from a lack of knowledge/skills (Clark & Estes, 2002). Motivation is
greatly, an internal compass that directs us in a focused direction towards stated
goals. The inability to accomplish tasks with quality is realized within an
organization as a performance gap. The inability to produce in a quality way, as a
result of a lack of motivation, is the essence of motivation gaps. While a gap in
performance may be quantitative, motivational factors are often harder to target
(Bandura, 1997; Clark & Estes 2002). Motivational issues often center on
perceptions and beliefs, self-efficacy, and, more importantly, the active choice to
engage in tasks, persistence in the face of adversity, and mental effort exerted to
complete a task and achieve a goal (Bandura, 1997; Pintrich, 2003).
Organizational/Cultural root causes for gaps occur when processes and even
policy stand in the way of quality production. The organization/culture must be
taken into consideration as potential challenges to meeting the goal of closing
21
performance gaps. These gaps often occur when organizational processes do not
align with organizational goals or structure. To gain a better understanding of how
organizational culture affects achievement gaps, one must understand the unwritten
rules of the organization, its structure, policies, mission statements and vision and
how the leadership affects all of these components. In RUSD, current reforms, in
collaboration with the Ball Foundation, have focused on “flattening” the district
hierarchy to create “buy in” from stakeholders and recognize the creative problem
solving possibilities in a de-centralized organizational culture. Some reforms, such
as the Strategic Plan offer broad, less measurable goals, while the Program
Improvement Plan seems to identify specific subgroups. The de-centralized nature
of RUSD lends itself to this smorgasboard of reform efforts.
Understanding the performance gaps and root causes are critical for
organizational improvement. However, gaps and root causes gain meaning only
when contrasted with organizational goals. For RUSD the organizational goal seems
to be achievement for all students with closer attention given to the reduction of the
Hispanic achievement within the District. This is perhaps a result of being placed in
Program Improvement status, largely as a result of poor performance on assessment
indicators by this subgroup (CST, Benchmark, and CAHSEE Proficiency rates). The
Hispanic subgroup is significant within RUSD (approx 60%) and achievement of this
goal would certainly result in significant API gains and movement toward meeting
its AYP as well as lead to its removal from PI status. As discussed previously, RUSD
recognizes this need and has taken a positive step by forming a partnership with the
22
Ball Foundation. However, the goal has remained elusive as schools above Highway
60 lag behind those below.
This inquiry project proposed a systematic investigation with the use of the
Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis model as a framework, and district
cooperation, utilizing outside resources to assist in closing achievement gaps.
Examining the root causes (knowledge/skills, organization/culture, and motivation)
through structured interview questionnaires, unstructured interviews, focus groups,
artifacts and available data that shed light onto the challenges districts may aid in
implementing district-level school reform as a means of closing achievement gaps
and meeting state and federal mandates requiring increased accountability and
improved student performance.
This project focused, specifically, on district-level school reform at the
Rowland Unified School District to assist RUSD district leaders, in a consultative
way, to more effectively evaluate current reform strategies. Furthermore,
documented analysis of the districts reform efforts was provided in the form of
possible solutions to aide RUSD in it’s efforts to speed reform. The intention was to
provide a comprehensive evaluation, through the framework of Clark and Estes
(2002) Gap Analysis model, grounded in a research-based theoretical perspective, a
consultative evaluation.
Through collaborative efforts, Rowland Unified School District was chosen
for this project, based on, among other criteria, their innovative district-level reform
strategies and commitment to reform with the goal of transforming teaching and
23
learning in the face of serious budgetary constraints (Gopalankrishna, 2010). In
creating this partnership, the focus of our evaluation at Rowland Unified School
District was centered around the RUSD redesign process which incorporates the
adoption of Holladay’s (2009) Values-Functions-Structures Model, and major
structural changes such as the creation of the Instructional Cabinet, Communities of
Practice, Learning Directors, and its site-based reconfigurations.
To accomplish this goal, initially, our team (comprised of three persons with
experience in the district, administration and educational psychology fields)
envisioned establishing rapport and a supportive network through the connection
with key district personnel who would be able to assist the team in navigating
through the organization. Clearly defining the framework under which the team
functioned (Gap Analysis and negotiated solutions) and obtaining a sense of what the
District already had in place was a critical foundational component of this study.
Interviews and artifact collection became integral parts of the initial team contact
with Rowland Unified School District and were utilized in on-going data collection.
Scanning, stages of concern, and month-long interviews were conducted through the
use of interview protocols developed for this project. Scanning interviews provided
insight at the macro level as to how key personnel view the root causes and gaps
within the context of the organization and its District-level school reform strategies.
Stages of concern interviews helped inform the team regarding issues of awareness,
information, personal effects, degree of management of reform, and how it has
affected those involved (students, staff, etc.).
24
Analysis of gaps and root causes continued as different levels of stakeholders
(administration, teachers, and reform providers) provided information through the
interview process, the primary method for data collection. Triangulation efforts
useful in data validation will include utilization of existing documentation such as
documented implementation of instructional strategies, test scores, etc.
Finally, our team utilized its data collection findings to analyze and identify
root causes and gaps that can impact the success of District-level reform strategies
and goal attainment and provide insight into possible challenges. Driven by this data
analysis, our team created possible solutions targeting the root causes and gaps and
grounded on current research and best practices for the District’s consideration.
Solutions were developed with a keen and respectful sense of the de-centralized
nature of Rowland Unified.
The qualitative approach (interviews, the Ball Survey, and district
documents) to data gathering used by the team of researchers, each with an area of
expertise (school site administration, District-level staff, and education psychology),
served as an effective tool when combined with the Clark and Estes (2002) Gap
Analysis model to properly diagnose and inform current practice and add to the body
of knowledge, possible solutions, and root causes that must be weighed in any school
reform strategy implementation, with the ultimate goal of increasing student
performance. A team methodology and solutions chapter is included in this
document that accurately reflects the conclusions of a consulting team in fidelity
with the guidelines of this Capstone Project.
25
CHAPTER 2
PART A: ANALYZING THE ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM
Authored by Brent Forsee
Comprehensive School Reform
As schools rarely operate as autonomously funded institutions outside of a
district model, Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) will also be used in reference
to district wide reform.
The Coleman Report (Coleman, et al. 1966), a controversial indictment of
public education served to ignite a flurry of educational research activity.
Researchers, looking for evidence to refute the seminal reports findings, synthesized
their findings into what became the Effective Schools movement. At the heart of this
drive was the uncovering of evidence that schools do in fact make a difference, a
direct challenge to Coleman’s findings (Lezotte, 2003). Since this time research has
become more intently focus not on where schools do make a difference, but rather
how, in the form of reform, can they make larger gains in shorter time frames.
Researchers involved in The Effective Schools movement soon turned their
findings into a set of correlations. These, attributed to Ronald Edmonds, included
characteristics that have been shown to make schools effective and include: An
orderly environment, a focused mission, instructional leadership, high expectations,
dedicated time on task, monitoring of student achievement, and quality home/school
relationships. This research was later built upon by Purkey and Smith (1983) who
26
described school environments as being built in layers where each layer has an effect
on its adjacent partner, the most important of which was the school culture/climate.
More recently the tenents enumerated by Edmonds were supported in an
analysis by Marzano (2003) and Sheerens and Boske (2007) regarding what schools
do that have the greatest impact on student achievement. This meta-analysis found
that the Effective Schools research, which lead to the Effective Schools Correlates,
lead to higher levels of student achievement. These were particularly effective in
urban environments and could likely be expanded to other school cultures in the
form of best or promising practices.
Over the past decade and half reform efforts have focused on the
reorganization of sites and districts as opposed to the implementation of
uncoordinated specialized programs having little impact on the school as a whole
(Borman, 2009). Programs such as Success For All and High Schools That Work
evidence a growing desire to reframe the way education is delivered in the United
States. These efforts have targeted resources anywhere from reducing literacy issues
to addressing student socio-emotional health and academic needs in a holistic way
(Success for All) to creating smaller environments for specific groups of students
(Borman, 2009; Sizer, 1992).
Current Comprehensive School Reform policy and initiatives have been
dominated by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) instituted in 2001. A meta-
analysis by Gorey (2009) indicates a gap in effectiveness of this legislation for the
neediest students. NCLB, sought to even the playing field among American youth
27
by using economic levers in American schools and districts. Gorey (2009)
evidenced the ineffectiveness of this strategy as the threat of economic sanctions
(reduction of Title 1 funding), combined with a lack of resource supports for testing
mandates, has only deepened the waters these students and the schools that support
them, must now swim.
As schools and districts have continued to operate within the bureaucratic
mandates of NCLB (Title 1), CSR funding has been revised. Since 2007 CSR
research has gone unsupported by the federal government. This perhaps, coming as
a result of only 3 percent of studies producing the most reliable results or the “gold
standard”, in research related data of CSR’s effect on achievement (Borman, 2009).
This is an about turn from the largely remedial efforts of the past as Title 1 funds
were used to remediate, as opposed to the entire system’s reform CSR represents.
Togneri points to multiple lessons learned in the area of Comprehensive
School Reform (CSR) in her 2003 study, “Beyond Islands of Excellence”. Her
lessons indicate:
• Districts can make a difference when they provide a coherent
instructional framework under which schools can be expected to operate.
Coherent practices within a district can provide for broader
implementation of best or promising instructional practices (Marzanno,
2003; Togneri, 2003).
• Communication of where the district stands is vital. Districts can create a
climate for change that focuses on assessing the achievement reality and
28
moving towards solutions rather than blame, thus uniting the reform
effort.
• Improving classroom instruction takes a strategic approach. Adjustments
must be coherent and systematic to stretch throughout the organization.
• Working together is unnatural and requires training and commitment.
The most successful districts not only work together on important reform
strategies, but work together on working together.
Togneri’s lessons are eerily consistent with the research of Elmore (2002)
and Collins (2001). Organizational goals must be clear and coherent whether in
business or education as communication dominates the effectiveness and speed with
which this will occur. This last piece is vital as Bowen (2001) points to
communicative and cultural tug of wars between political and academic interests on
campuses. Providing a coherent goal Structure (lesson 1) can in effect limit the
divisive room in which these two may operate (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Collins,
2001).
The cultural tug of war Bowen (2001) illustrated resonates with the earlier
research by Edmonds (1983) in regards to the importance and effect of school
cultures/climates. While the Effective Schools research was born as a response to
Colman Report of 1966, the correlates it produced lead to many of the research based
strategies used today in school reform movements.
29
Gap Analysis Model
As school districts face increased pressure to comply with state and federal
mandates of accountability by meeting student performance targets, district-level
comprehensive school reform strategies have been put into place. Districts have been
creative in their implementation of district-level school reform, many modeling their
efforts after scientifically-based CSR programs and others designing their own
strategies to address their particular needs while incorporating major components of
effective comprehensive school reform as documented in the literature.
In utilizing the Clark and Estes’ (2002) Gap Analysis model as a framework
to assist districts in meeting the state and federal student performance and
accountability goals, several areas within the literature can help to create a starting
point from which to begin implementation of this study, including identification of
the gap to be addressed for district, and in this case, the gap in student achievement,
framed under the effectiveness of district-level school reform. Once the gap is
identified, goal setting can begin followed by an investigation of root causes of the
gaps which in turn can lead to proposed solutions aimed at closing the gap(s) and
meeting the pre-determined goal.
The Gap Analysis model as presented by Clark and Estes centers around the
identification of performance gaps in organizations. Performance gaps in
organizations are generally attributable to at least one of three reasons:
Knowledge/Skills, Motivation, and/or Organizational/Cultural barriers (Clark and
Estes, 2002). Identifying the gap in performance is often easy as most organizations
30
have numerous performance indicators. For educators in California API scores,
AYP, and numerous other testing and benchmark indicators are used. These
outcomes provide a clear if not accurate picture of improved performance from year
to year. They can be easily measured giving the general populous at least a cursory
understanding of the quality of a school or district.
A lack of knowledge and/or skills is essentially a capacity gap between the
expected performance and the professional “tool belt” available to those within the
organization. A number of approaches may be used to address this gap, however,
staff development or training has been shown to effectively increase knowledge/skill
capacity.
Motivational gaps seem to be tougher and more complex than those
generated from a lack of knowledge/skills (Bandura, 1993; Clark & Estes 2002).
Motivational is greatly, an internal nudge that keeps us moving in a focused direction
to accomplish our goals. The lack of accomplishing tasks with quality is in essence a
performance gap. If this occurs due to a lack of motivation, connecting the
psychological process to that of quality production, there is a motivational gap.
Organizational/Cultural gaps occur when processes and even policy stand in
the way of quality production. When the first two causes for performance gaps
discussed previously can be ruled out, organization/culture is what is left as a cause.
These gaps often occur when organizational processes do not align with
organizational goals or structure.
31
First, Clark and Estes (2002) indicate that in order to begin the process
global, intermediate and instructional goals must be set to drive improvement efforts.
Districts must come to a consensus as to what goal(s) they are trying to achieve in
terms of student performance to meet state and federal mandates. The goal ideally
would be realistic, based on the present data compiled by the district, on capacity,
resources, vision, etc. Relevant literature within this area provide information as to
the current processes related to goals and objectives and benchmarking to aid in
creating a clear picture of what is to be accomplished and be able to effectively
evaluate whether or not that particular goal has been met The use of Diagnostic and
Process benchmarking may be useful as RUSD seeks to identify the “health” of their
organization while maintaining their de-centralized process with the Ball Foundation
(Dowd, 2005). As part of the goal creation process, important aspects to consider
would involve goal alignment both within the different types of goals as well as
within the overall mission and vision of the organization and how all three goal
levels mesh with other major components within the organization such as
organizational culture, motivation, and skills and knowledge. Gaps within these
three components can be considered root causes (Clark & Estes, 2002) therefore
leading to greater, more visible, gaps within achievement of the organization.
Knowledge Gap
Clark and Estes (2002) define knowledge as, “any situation where people
must acquire “how to” knowledge and skills” (p. 58). They continue to identify a
knowledge gap “when people do not know how to accomplish their performance
32
goals” (p. 58). Seemingly, RUSD’s desire to create a learning community through
their Communities of Practice and Instructional Leadership team addresses these
statements posed by Clark and Estes. RUSD leadership believes their knowledge
gap is a product of a lack of collaboration or sharing of practice as opposed to a
requirement for additional outside training or learning opportunities. Thus they are
acting on their continued belief that the capacity for improvement lies within the
current human resource assets of the district. Elmore believes knowledge acquisition
involves improvement in order to connect new knowledge to necessary skills
(Elmore, 2002). This supports Elmore’s notion (2002) as the performance gap
identifies a lack of improvement which leads to a lack of knowledge building
connections. This presents a knowledge gap that must be addressed by a solution
that exposes the trainee or employee to situations where the expected performance
can be observed, such as a humanistic “worked out example” (Mayer, 2008).
The analysis of interview data revealed the presence of knowledge gaps
related to district reforms among a number of staff members. According to Clark
and Estes (2008), knowledge gaps are best addressed with four knowledge
enhancements: information, job aids, training, and education. Information
enhancements provide the most basic level of information or facts a person needs to
perform a task, such as being aware that one is responsible for implementing a new
reading program. Job aids, meanwhile, enhance information at a slightly higher
level than do information enhancements, for they “…provide people with recipes for
achieving performance goals in a form that permits them to do it on their own,”
33
(Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 58). Moreover, training (information and job aids
combined) provides “how to” knowledge and skills through practice and corrective
feedback to achieve specific performance goals. Lastly, education is formal
conceptual and theoretical knowledge about what and how things happen. Each
enhancement is intended to address knowledge gaps at specific levels of knowledge
deficiency. If knowledge deficiencies concerning district reforms are declarative
(factual and conceptual) and procedural in nature, training is perhaps the most
appropriate knowledge enhancement to address gaps in the implementation of
district reforms (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Training or professional development is defined as a comprehensive,
sustained, and intensive approach to improving one’s effectiveness in raising
performance (Wei, Darling-Hammond & Adamson, 2010) and is thus considered a
viable tool for capacity building (Colbert, Brown, Choi, & Thomas, 2008).
However, professional development comes in various forms, and not all variations
are necessarily effective. Wei, Darling-Hammond, and Adamson (2010), in the first
two of a three-phase study on professional development in the United States, have
found the following indicators in, what they suggest is, effective professional
development. First, professional development must focus on the specific material
that one is expected to learn. One can easily recall training sessions taking place in
schools with no students, where there are multiple coffee breaks, consultants in fancy
clothing, and participants veering from the agenda at will. To be impactful,
professional development must be focused, structured, and well-managed
34
(Marchant, 2002). Second, professional development, as referenced in chapter 1,
must be offered as a coherent part of a whole school reform effort, with assessments,
standards, and professional development seamlessly linked. Participants should be
able to visualize how a given training connects to other pieces of the system, as when
one is provided with a sample of what one’s performance should look like as a
finished product (Hall & Hord, 2005). Clark and Estes (2008) emphasize that
training objectives should be clearly linked to performance and organizational goals.
Third, professional development must be designed to engage teachers in
active learning that allows them to make sense of what they learn in meaningful
ways. That is, participants must be able to see the purpose and the value in the
training. Butler (1992) and Mariage and Garmon (2003) argue that professional
development must be translated into manageable and comprehensible strategies and
procedures to alter teaching practices in order to improve learning performance.
Fourth, professional development must be presented in an intensive, sustained, and
continuous manner over time. “…professional development that is short, episodic,
and disconnected from practice has little impact” (Wei Darling-Hammond, &
Adamson, 2010, pp 1). In other words, one-day or infrequent trainings often sputter
and connections to performance and organizational goals quickly evaporate,
producing little if any effect. By contrast, long-term training has been proven to
have meaningful and lasting effects, especially as the trainings generate momentum
and consistency over time. A case in point is made by Cobb (2000), who found that
among a sample of teachers who received professional development over a period of
35
years, there were more positive attitudes toward school initiatives being implemented
and more favorable perceptions of their impact with each successive year of the
training.
Finally, professional development must be supported by coaching, modeling,
observation, and feedback. Professional development must prepare participants to
make decisions congruent with expected performance objectives. This means
participants need to acquire and develop the “how to” knowledge to perform tasks
independently. Moreover, with reference to teachers, Fearn and Fanan (2007)
contend that to enhance their knowledge and skills, teachers have to see what
effective instruction looks like in the classroom, with such living examples modeled
by colleagues with whom they can identify (i.e. other teachers). This position is
supported by research in the branch of Learning Theory that centers on learning from
examples. The work of Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, and Wortham (2000), for example,
has shown that increases in skill development when examples or modeling are
presented in close proximity to matched practice problems and when participants are
encouraged to actively self-explain.
Yet learning in any context, including trainings or professional development,
is inextricably tied to motivational factors. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that
the knowledge and skill gap affecting individuals invariably stifles their collective
motivation to implement innovations. Clark and Estes (2008) argue that unmotivated
individuals tend to blame others for their poor performance, are indifferent to change
and lack the direction, persistence, and energy to accomplish tasks. Thus efforts to
36
build knowledge capacity related to district reforms must include strategies to secure
buy-in. Lock and Latham (1990) expect individual confidence is nurtured through
assigning short-term, challenging, but achievable goals; positive feedback;
depersonalized corrective feedback; and focusing on past successes. Clark and Estes
(2008), on the other hand, contend that buy-in is accomplished by describing the
utility of a task; incentives; positive mood; and trust and fairness.
Therefore, in structuring learning activities to increase the knowledge related
to district reforms among staff members, leaders in the RUSD must do so with
consideration of the motivational nuances that may affect the level and quality of the
expected learning. It then behooves district leaders to ensure that all professional
development activities related to district reforms are focused, presented and modeled
by peers in meaningful ways to build confidence, links training objectives to
organizational goals, and sustained over the course of an extended period of time.
Motivation Gap
The belief that people perform better when they are motivated seems a
common thought. How and why people are motivated is a very tough question.
Motivational gaps can be identified in many ways. Literature points to one
possibility being a survey scored by a modified Likert Scale in order to measure
interest. The neutral response removed leaving four options: 1. Strongly Agree 2.
Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree (Clason & Dormody, 2001). Rowland and
Ball together have demonstrated an openness to using such survey tools as evidenced
by their joint survey (appendix C), rendering notation of this type of motivational
37
survey appropriate for this portion of the review of the literature. Questions to assess
levels of interest could be taken from the initial section (first 31 questions) of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990), which
measures motivation. Results of such an assessment could help identify levels of
interest within a group. Understanding levels of interest is important in order to
employ more targeted “next steps” in the area of motivation (Meyer, 2002).
Identification of areas and levels of interest within RUSD may in turn identify root
causes as well.
When people value something they will work hard to achieve related goals.
On the contrary, people become unmotivated, even in a learning environment such as
school, when they do not view topics or information as being valuable to them
(Mayer, 2008). Not coincidentally, staff who do not understand how a reform will
help them in the future find little individual interest in achieving an elusive goal. A
lack of individual interest can breed a lack of collective interest (Mayer, 2008),
individual interest (Schiefele, Krapp, & Winteler, 1992) is the belief that people do
better in areas that interest them (1992). Some staff see little consequence or reward
(possibly as a result of de-centralized culture) (Schiefele, 1999) connected to
achievement, therefore creating a lack of individual interest. Furthermore,
Pintrich’s (2003) view that increased interest leads to greater achievement may very
well play into the role the district leadership views the Communities of Practice as
playing, building of staff interest.
38
The Communities of Practice model established by the district does have
some basis in the literature as they are solely interest based. However, a weakness is
that interest based Communities of Practice have little if any accountability towards
a goal other than a loose relationship towards having a positive effect on students.
Goal alignment and clarity will be addressed in the findings and solutions sections.
Guskey (1989) argues that practice changes perceptions. While his theory
was directed towards instructional delivery it may be expanded to address
motivational factors involved in the assessment of performance gaps. His general
idea that new practice changes perception rather than the opposite, could serve as an
explanation for the current, but multiple, reform movements available in RUSD.
Locked in the same practices that lead to failure or even the lack knowledge forming
connections evidenced previously by Elmore (2002) can lead to a staff perception of
failure. Building on practice forming perception, Bandura (1997) evidences the
thought that people are most likely to regret what they have not risked as a result of a
lack of confidence. Tapping into this motivational theory may direct more fruitful
COP practices for RUSD in the future. The current Program Improvement status of
the district may serve as evidence of this theory as schools have sought more
traditional routes to achievement as opposed to the outside the box thinking that can
be cultivated in a Community of Practice.
Culture
Organizational Culture, a set of often unwritten rules that dominate
interactions within the organization is identified by Clark and Estes (2002) as, “The
39
water we swim in” (p. 107) and Boan (2006) as “The shared beliefs, perceptions, and
expectations of individuals in organizations” (p. 51). Beliefs regarding the culture
within a group are critical to addressing performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Clark and Estes believe the use of focus groups is a primary way to identify beliefs
and perceptions that make up school culture (2002). These groups are brought
together to discuss an area of educational interest. Surveys can be effective to assure
anonymity in answers to questions that may be viewed as sensitive (Kreuter, Presser,
& Tourangeau, 2009). The Ball Survey of RUSD staff in the spring of 2009 is
consistent with this research practice as it asked sensitive questions regarding
efficacy. Efficacy questions are sensitive as they often probe the inner beliefs
teachers hold regarding their ability to affect student achievement (Bandura, 1997).
Ball Foundation literature in regards to Rowland on organizational culture is
one that embraces de-centralization (Ball/Rowland Partnership, 2006). Their joint
information points to a belief that de-centralization makes the district more creative
and adaptable problem solvers. Research on the Professional Learning Communities
supports this belief that staff can build their capacity by working together (DufFour,
DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2010) in leadership and collaboration. The nature of
PLC’s as influencing instructional practice serves to flatten the organization through
the building and exchanging of knowledge in a joint enterprise, which elevates the
capacity of the entire organization (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). The definition
supplied by DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2006) paints the picture of educators of all
40
levels within the organization working collaboratively through inquiry and action
research to achieve more favorable results.
The Communities of Practice model (Wenger & Snyder, 2000) depends a
great deal on collective efficacy being built through the exchange of knowledge by
passionate and committed individuals in an informal or flexible setting. A concern
with this approach is it is so organic the effectiveness may be challenged by the
bureaucratic nature of education. Other models, such as the Purposeful Community
(Waters, McNulty, & Marzano, 2005) and Professional Learning Communities
(PLC) (Hord, 1998) (DuFour & Eaker, 1998) provide for a congruence of values,
process, and accomplishment. A short analysis of these three models provides a
realization that the Communities of Practice, while more open and adaptable, may
not provide a unified direction as quickly as the other two. The C.O.P. model seems
to rely on internal accountability measures in an educational context moved by
external measures. This leaves leadership to develop accountability measures within
a lose COP model that may at times be in conflict with the beliefs of a given C.O.P.
This challenge could lead to conflicts in the area of motivation as beliefs or interests
held within specific Communities of Practice may conflict with those held by the
organization collectively.
A final literary concern is the tendency of old policies and reform actions
tend to remain in effect, even while new reforms are implemented. Given the current
state of RUSD, with multiple reform initiatives in place, a concern is there will
remain little focus or fidelity to any reform. A challenge to Rowland and our
41
educational system as a whole is to provide more coherence throughout the system or
organization (Gordon, 2003). Elmore (2002) continues with the question of whether
practice is forming policy or policy is informing practice? This question yet remains
unanswered as reform movements continue to mount in RUSD as a result of our
current educational culture
42
CHAPTER 2
PART B: METHODOLOGY
Authored by: Gilda Dixon, Brent Forsee, and Monalisa Hasson
Inquiry
Through collaborative efforts, Rowland Unified School District was chosen
for this project, based on, among other criteria, their innovative District-level reform
strategies and commitment to reform with the goal or transforming teaching and
learning in the face of serious budgetary constraints (Gopalankrishna, 2010). In
creating this partnership, the focus of our evaluation at Rowland Unified School
District will be centered on the RUSD redesign process which incorporates the
adoption of Holladay’s (2009) “Values-Functions-Structures Model”, and major
structural changes such as the creation of the Instructional Cabinet, Learning
Directors, and site-based reconfigurations. The intention is to provide a
comprehensive evaluation, through the framework of Clark and Estes (2002) Gap
Analysis model, grounded in a research-based theoretical perspective, a consultative
evaluation.
Our investigation into the Rowland Unified School District’s reform
implementation takes place through the use of the gap analysis model as presented
by Clark and Estes (2002) which focuses on the identification of performance gaps,
in connection with performance goals in organizations through the examination of
root causes: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational structure. In
evaluating the implementation process at the Rowland Unified School District, our
43
team seeks to gain insight into the root causes from three different role groups:
District personnel, Ball Foundation partners, administrators and teachers. These role
groups were selected based on the hierarchical nature of school reform and the
interrelatedness of processes at different hierarchical levels within the District.
With this focus, our team adopted a qualitative approach to data collection
that would yield detailed information to inform gaps in the District’s goal attainment
related to implementation of its reform efforts. Our team believed that conducting
the inquiry project in this manner would allow the team to gain a richer
understanding of the perspectives of individuals within each of the role groups.
Understanding the individual perspectives within each role group would more
broadly inform the team as to the knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational
root causes at all levels that may be barriers to effective reform implementation.
Participants
Initially, our team met with the District Superintendent and its leadership
staff in order to gain an overarching sense of the District’s history, its efforts at
school reform, its financial outlook, and the goals for improved student achievement.
Along with these key pieces of information, District personnel provided information
on the District’s current strategic plan, goals for the District, possible challenges to
meeting its District reform goals, and District administration’s response to these
challenges. This informational meeting allowed our team to ask broad questions to
gain an understanding of the District’s desired focus and it also provided an
opportunity to meet some key informants.
44
Key Informants
After gathering other information from available public records as well as
those provided by the District leadership such as strategic plans, demographic
information, financial support, AYP, and API scores for the District, key informants
were identified. Our team met with the District’s Assistant Superintendent to
conduct the first scanning interview. The Assistant Superintendent was chosen as
the first contact because the team believed he would be able to provide insight into
the history of the RUSD school reform efforts from a high-level administrative
perspective, ease access into the organization, and provide a global picture of the
current District efforts. He would also be instrumental in providing access to school
personnel who would participate in the interviews required to gain insight into the
potential root causes associated with school reform efforts in the District. This key
informant became the liaison between our team and the District and provided the
team follow-up contacts for interviews.
Administrators, Teachers, Ball Foundation Partners
Our key informant, RUSD’s Assistant Superintendent, selected a
combination of follow up contacts for our initial round of scanning interviews to be
representative of the different levels of implementation within the District (Ball
foundation partners, administrators, and teachers); these included two Ball
Foundation partners, three principals, four teachers. The second round, month-long
interviews, had the same informant composition incorporating administrators, Ball
Foundation partners, and teachers, which allowed the team to capture in-depth
45
information about the extent of school reform implementation related to the root
causes.
Inquiry Procedures
The main instruments in this investigation were 1) structured scanning, semi-
structured stages of concern, and month-long interviews, 2) strategic plans, 3) district
information meeting, 4) observational data and 5) Ball Foundation surveys. All
interviewees were assured of their anonymity and were advised that inquiry project
results would be shared in a manner that would not jeopardize the integrity of the
process as it relates to protecting the identity of individual participants. Scanning
interviews were instrumental in understanding how each role group sees the
implementation of reform strategies, perceived successful or unsuccessful strategies,
goals (District and personal), awareness/knowledge, and barriers (knowledge/skills,
motivation and organizational culture). Stages of concern interviews aimed at
assessing the stages of concern on how implementation efforts were perceived and
the feelings associated with them. Month-long interviews focused on identifying the
interviewees’ goals for the month (in this case April), what strategies were used, and
the extent of success achieved. Strategic plans and organizational charts allowed for
understanding of how District structures assist or hinder reform efforts and finally
District meetings inform integration between and within role groups. We used these
methods concurrently to triangulate information provided from all sources such as
Ball questionnaires and observations to gain a richer understanding of possible root
causes.
46
Additionally, our team presented a summary of the findings to the District
Executive Cabinet in the fall in a collaborative effort to gain perspective on how the
District personnel conceptualized the possible gaps found by our team of researchers.
The information gathered at this meeting became the foundation for prioritizing and
tailoring proposed solutions to the gaps that were found in a way that could be
practical and useful for the District and would have the best likelihood of being
implemented within the work already in progress to strengthen overall District
school reform efforts.
Following this initial meeting, a summary of the proposed research-based
solutions (Appendix G) was again presented to the Executive Cabinet members and
the Ball Foundation liaison for consideration along with a comprehensive report of
the team’s findings (Appendix H). These solutions were tailored to fine-tune the
work already in progress while at the same time the solutions were focused and tied
to the decentralization focus of the District and its move toward adding a non-
negotiable component in defining and aligning global goals. Results of the team’s
inquiry project was shared with the District’s Governing Board in February 2011, per
request from the Superintendent.
Scanning Interviews
The team designed a set of scanning interview questions (Appendix B)
aimed at gaining knowledge of how different role groups within the school district
understand the historical perspective, the District goals (both informal and formal)
for both what the District was trying to accomplish and what the interviewee was
47
personally trying to accomplish toward that goal, the goals and future achievement
the interviewees identified, and where they would like to see themselves, whether
they thought the district reform had or had not been successful, the barriers to
success that may be present in the RUSD, as well as knowledge, skills, and
motivational factors associated with various role groups. Finally, we asked
suggestions for other possible interviewees which would inform District-level reform
implementation.
Stages of Concern Interviews
Stages of concern interviews (Appendix C) were conducted with a second set
of interviewees again comprised of the various role groups within the District that
represented the District composition. These interviews aimed to identify different
stages of concern and feelings related to District-level reform. Responses were
coded based on the following stages: awareness (level of awareness of reform),
information (level of information present/or lack thereof), personal (how it affects
the interviewee), management (need for managing reform efforts), and consequences
(effect of reform use on students, staff, etc.). This data was analyzed with a focus on
gaining an understanding of the motivational, knowledge, and skill factors and how
each factor affects the implementation of District-level reform within the District.
Month-long Interviews
Next, administrators, teachers, and Ball partners were asked to complete
month-long interviews (Appendix D) at their work sites. The team members selected
the month of April and asked interviewees to elaborate on their goals for that month
48
related to school reform. They were asked about the strategies they had used, with
whom, where and how, and then to speak about the extent of their success. Probes
were used at each of the levels of questioning to further delve into the root causes as
identified by the interviewees.
Interviews were conducted by each of the three member team, recorded and
transcribed for analysis without identifying the interviewees. Interviews were coded
in a way that allowed our team to evaluate themes related to the root causes from the
Gap Analysis Model (Clark & Estes, 2002): knowledge and skills, motivational, and
organizational culture by each of the role groups. The goal of this analysis was to
inform our study in terms of not only the roots of the problem but to aggregate data
by role group to identify common threads or unique characteristics within potential
barriers to implementation across the role groups. Individual team members coded
their interviews, exchanged their transcript with the other team members, then the
responses individually. Coding results from each member were then compared for
inter-rater reliability of at least 90 percent.
Strategic Plans
Within the Gap Analysis Model (Clark & Estes, 2002), organizational culture
can encompass both structures and unwritten rules. For RUSD, District-level reform
also involves restructuring efforts and a guided mission and vision for the
organization. Accordingly, our team found it crucial to examine artifacts related to
the District’s organizational structure. The Ball Foundation effort at RUSD assisted
the District in creating a visual representation of its strategic plan illustrating
49
different “branches”, each representing various aspect of school reform (Appendix E,
F). Among those branches were the creation of several collaborative groups aimed at
“flattening” the organizational structure and increasing communication in and among
various role groups. As a result, Communities of Practice, Instructional Leaders, and
the Executive Cabinet were created. In essence these served to flatten the
organization in a model leaning towards shared leadership.
Action plans were also shared which were initially intended to specifically
guide the implementation of the strategic plans through the different role groups
within the organization that would lead to goal attainment of improved student
achievement. The structure of these action plans indicated some awareness by those
developing the strategic plans of the need for clear instruction within the various
District role groups as an important component of an effective implementation
process.
Professional Development Meeting
Additional information utilized to facilitate insight into the root causes of our
analysis came from the Leadership Conference in which different role groups
convene to discuss the successes of the District reform efforts at the Rowland
Unified School District. This format served as an unstructured way to gather
information from members from each role group in a natural setting. One of our
team members attended the leadership conference and participated as an interested
observer initially, following up with additional stages of concern questions to
administrators, teachers and Ball foundation partners present at the meeting. As with
50
the interview questions presented earlier, data gathered from this format was coded
in response to themes related to root causes from the Gap Analysis Model (Clark &
Estes, 2002) such as knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational culture to
assess achievement gaps in District-level reform implementation.
Ball Foundation Survey
Additional information was gathered through results of a Ball Foundation
survey distributed to role groups working on school reform and involved in the
various collaborative teams in an effort to assess the level of involvement and views
on the school reform strategies being implemented. This survey was used for
information purposes only to add to the already developing themes from data
collection through interviews and other artifacts.
51
CHAPTER 2
PART C: FINDINGS
Authored by: Gilda Dixon, Brent Forsee, and Monalisa Hason
Rowland Unified School District in its partnership with the Ball Foundation
is headed down a path of whole systems change. Evidence from multiple interviews,
a Ball survey, and observational data provide evidence of a desire to expand a shared
leadership model throughout the District. The Ball Foundation has been very
forthright with the goal of increasing literacy through systems change, while the
District appears to have taken substantial steps toward a shared leadership model.
Evidence of this finding is the creation of a District-wide Instructional Cabinet,
Communities of Practice, and increased collaboration time for school-site teams.
The Instructional Cabinet model is not indigenous to RUSD. However the
size and scope of its team reflects the shared leadership model promoted by the Ball
Foundation. It incorporates the executive cabinet as well as principals, labor leaders,
and other school site level instructional leaders. With over 25 members, the
Instructional Cabinet sets the democratized leadership tone for the District.
Currently, they are concentrating on RUSD’s new status as a Program Improvement
district and on District-wide assessment. Interview data indicates that prior to the
current format, the District was extremely decentralized. School site leaders did
what they thought was best with little direction from the central office. In meetings,
“often the person with the loudest voice won the argument” (personal contact Ball
Foundation). Numerous interview subjects pointed to a lack of consistency in
52
direction from school to school. Ball and upper-level management agreed that
RUSD was moving toward a democratized sense of leadership throughout the
District and away from a laissez-faire atmosphere.
Communities of Practice (COPs) are a communication strategy brought by
Ball and used in its work with RUSD. In theory, COPs may be formed by any
member in the District and may include any level or number of people within the
District. COPs are formed by people that have a similar interests or goals and meet
periodically to discuss or take action toward the group’s goal. COPs need not be
instructionally or educationally based. Interviews evidenced the creation of
numerous non-work related COPs that met periodically to pursue recreational
interests. When this practice was brought to Ball foundation representatives’
attention they seemed to believe this was an important part of the process. When
asked how many COPs were operating within the District, no respondents could give
an accurate count. When asked how COPs benefit students, some respondents felt
that the COP model opened lines of communication for sharing educational
practices.
Collaboration time within RUSD has been almost exclusively funded by Ball.
Upper level management, via interviews, has made it very clear that they do not
know how they will continue to fund the collaboration and professional development
time once the Ball Foundation funding ends. While observing a day-long staff
development culminating activity between RUSD and Ball it seemed hard to
determine who was leading. The superintendent receives high marks for her
53
willingness to become a participant in the activities of the day rather than lead the
activities. She served as a model for the type of leadership she would like to promote
District-wide. This collaboration time produced valuable information for school site
teams as they discussed information gleaned throughout the year. One of the most
popular initiatives brought by Ball was the “learning walk”. This is a practice where
school site teams composed of administrators and teachers observe each other during
instructional time. Non-judgmental feedback is given as the school site teams serve
as another set of eyes within the classroom. These learning walks were just
beginning to develop into “best practices” within school sites.
Interviews with Ball members reveal that they feel RUSD is on the correct
path toward systems change, but is not there yet. When asked what will happen
when Ball funding ends and the Foundation leaves Rowland, there was no definitive
answer as to how this transition would look. Seemingly, upper level management is
taking a big yet noble risk heading down the path of systems change while under the
pressure that comes from entering program improvement.
One upper-level management participant noted that things did not look good
as “the strategic plan is in shambles.” Yet during the professional development day
with Ball there was a sense of optimism. Participants seemed to communicate freely
about gains made throughout the year. Balancing this with interview data made one
wonder what was being communicated beyond the structured time with Ball.
Interviews with site level administrators and teachers gave pause to the belief that
this type of democratic leadership has taken hold. There are still school site
54
administrators who do not know the priorities of the Instructional Cabinet. Many
individuals at sites are not sure whether they should be following the Ball model or
attempting to follow a now decimated Strategic Plan. A District administrator
solidified this sentiment by responding “We have so many things going, but nothing
is connected. We have Ball, Strategic Plan, a coming PI Addendum. Which one am I
supposed to be working through? I don’t know what the Instructional Cabinet is
doing or supposed to be doing” (RUSD Interview). Clearly this indicates a broad
gap in the organizational culture of RUSD. Recognizing this, District leadership is
attempting to incorporate the shared leadership model to attend to this gap.
Unfortunately, this may not be successful unless the knowledge gap of capacity is
bridged as well. This will be discussed in a following paragraph. When one Ball
respondent was asked about the strategic plan he said he wished Ball partners could
have written the Plan with the District so that it could be a living document. When
pressed regarding the value of the Plan to the District, he indicated there was little, if
any. “I think our biggest mistake was not being more involved in the development
of the Strategic Plan. I don’t believe it is a poor plan, I’m just not sure if it is easily
linked to the work we [Ball]are doing in the District. I believe there are links, but
they are not clear or easily evident” (Ball Interview, 4-15-10).
In sum, there seems to be a sense of accomplishment and optimism amongst
those participants receiving the most help and feedback from Ball. However, it does
not seem to take very long to find school site personnel who are confused or
completely unknowledgeable about the direction of the District. There seems to be
55
little evidence of alignment of school goals to District goals, with classroom goals
even further distanced. Again, this points to a gap in organizational culture.
Interview respondents overwhelmingly addressed the lack of accountability toward
the central office. The organizational culture was such that each principal could do
whatever they wanted at their school site. Seemingly, RUSD’s status as a PI district
may be rooted in this organizational gap that lacks direction or sound educational
alignment as referenced in the literature review. During school site visits, the
saturation of Ball felt at the professional development day was lacking. There was
little if any observational evidence one could use to support Ball’s effect at the
school site level. While much was celebrated at the professional development day,
there was little evidence in the form of student achievement data or in feedback from
school site personnel present to support Ball’s effect at the school site level. One
interview respondent agreed saying, “The principals smile and nod at the meetings
and then come back to the school site and do their own thing. If you have a strong
principal then you probably have a strong school, but if you don’t, there is no
accountability to the D.O. [District Office]. Half the District is PI now so
realistically what is the D.O. going to do?” This brings into question whether the
capacity exists within RUSD to solve its problems. Harkening back to a few years
ago when people within the District largely did what they wanted, it would seem
difficult to build a democratic foundation. District leadership supports the desire to
remain decentralized despite the barriers this may cause in developing District-wide
continuity. “Keeping the COPs [Communities of Practice] in place is a high priority.
56
I believe these will be the lever through which we will achieve our goals. COPs are
aligned with our decentralized nature and will help us develop creative solutions to
our problems” (RUSD interview, 6-12-10). While Ball has certainly sought to build
capacity within District employees it remains questionable whether it has been in the
District long enough or cast its net wide enough to realize the gains on which both
Ball and RUSD are banking. This again points to a knowledge gap that may not be
bridgeable under a shared leadership model. A question regarding a knowledge gap
or capacity may not be readily solved by sharing leadership amongst those that do
not know the direction of the District.
Along with the knowledge gaps of the understanding of the communicated
reform strategies within the administrative role group, there are also knowledge gaps
in the understanding of reform implementation at the teacher level. Several teachers’
statements during the interviews indicated that despite efforts in collaboration
through Communities of Practice, other than building leadership skills, they did not
seem to make a clear connection between the COP-driven collaboration and
classroom instruction to the extent that when asked about the stated goal of moving
out of program improvement, several informants conceptualized the process as
separate from the reform efforts rather than the reform efforts leading to program
improvement. One interviewee stated when asked about the PI status of the school,
“Oh, yeah. That’s a whole other situation.”
Additionally, the superficial aspect of the reform efforts were clearly
articulated with statements related to the need to learn from others, and the idea that
57
the collaborative structure allowed for more dialogue with other role groups as
strategies to encourage communication between District-level personnel, teachers,
administrators, and executive cabinet members. Substantive information regarding
reform and how teachers see this process implemented, resulted in responses such as
“we are learning to be ‘leaderful.’ We have a chance to learn how to lead by
facilitating collaborative groups.” It appeared that reform strategies had not been
communicated in a concrete way to teachers with clear action items for
implementation.
Compounding the challenges to implementation are the differences in skill
level of the teachers. Informants mentioned the lack of experience of the new
teachers as a deterrent to incorporating reform efforts. They explained that new
teachers seem willing to collaborate with other colleagues but they are overwhelmed
with just being able to master the task of being a new teacher and many times when
they go back to the classroom, they fall back on what is within a particular new
teacher’s personal level of comfort given the beginning teacher’s new and
developing skills. For veteran teachers, who also saw themselves as advocates of the
reform efforts, lack of implementation was reported due to the veteran teachers’
perceived understanding that he or she already incorporates these new ideas into his
or her teaching practice and therefore, no changes are needed.
Along with knowledge/skills gaps, themes around motivation also surfaced.
The majority of those interviewed endorsed the reform effort as they understood it,
again, mostly in superficial terms. Those interviewed responded, for the most part,
58
with enthusiasm and willingness to adopt the strategies and participate in the newly
created collaborations. There were a few participants who responded that some
colleagues are not motivated to participate and learn from others. These colleagues
were characterized as “stuck in their own classrooms” and “wanting to do what they
always do because they know what they are doing.” Others mentioned their fear of
evaluation by an unfriendly administrator as the reason for wanting to participate in
the collaborative effort. Others interviewed related the feeling that they had been
teaching for a long time and that they were competent in his or her teaching craft.
Reform efforts to these teachers appear to threaten their self-concept and hinder
motivation needed to actively choose to participate in the reform strategies, or persist
at the task if engaged in it at all. Some expressed that the administrator would do
what she wanted anyway and that this was just a phase that would soon be gone.
Along with motivational causes, teachers also discussed the organizational
culture in relation to school reform. Many expressed the history of the District as one
in which role groups did not communicate with each other and even within their own
role groups. Teachers mentioned working in isolation in their classroom with little
contact in the form of department meetings. Communication between elementary,
middle and high school staff was non-existent as reported by the majority of the
interviewees. According to several interviewees, the District-level personnel did not
communicate well with site staff and information was not disseminated, or if it was
disseminated many times what was happening at the school sites did not align with
what the District office envisioned. Some teachers, however, did endorse their
59
school as a place where staff was passionate about student learning and teachers
were very willing to try new ways to instruct students. They viewed their school
culture as one of experimentation. Other school sites viewed the school culture as
one of appeasing the school administrator and not really “making waves.”
Organizational structural changes were readily evident to all the interviewees,
given the newly created collaborative groups within the RUSD and the loss of
District-level personnel that led to restructuring of the roles of the assistant principals
now incorporating District-level responsibilities as learning directors. Other changes
cited included the Communities of Practice and the lack of professional development
due to budgetary constraints.
In sum, gaps in goal alignment from various levels within the organization
play a role in the difficulties of implementation of District-level reform for RUSD.
This reality is coupled with an unclear understanding by those who need to
implement the reform as to what is to be implemented. The lack of concrete action
items is evident in the varying interpretations by teachers of meaningful reform
which results in the adoption of superficial aspects. Motivational factors also
influence fidelity of implementation possibly caused by the perception that reform is
a possible threat to self-concept which negatively affects motivation in choice and
persistence. Finally, organizational culture and structure and capacity are the context
in which all of these root causes take place and different histories, resources, rules,
and norms at different sites impact fidelity as well.
60
CHAPTER 3
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE DISTRICT’S REFORM EFFORTS
Authored by: Gilda Dixon, Brent Forsee, and Monalisa Hasson
Determining Possible Solutions: Literature Review
Solutions for RUSD are presented as a result of collaboration with District
leadership. Traditional research studies may present solutions derived purely from a
strong literature and research. While recognizing the primary role research must
play in the presentation of solutions, the nature of this project, under a practical
problem solving lens, dictates proposed solutions must fit within the political and
systemic boundaries of the educational entity studied. This solutions piece seeks to
meld literature-based solutions to the political and cultural climate while building
upon current strengths and positive activities within RUSD. As a result, broad
solutions requiring extensive organizational change have been dismissed in favor of
solutions that may better fit within the context of the District’s current reform
initiatives.
RUSD has faced unprecedented budgetary issues due to the economic
collapse of 2008. As this collapse was unexpected, the budget shortfall caught many
districts including RUSD off guard and in the middle of numerous reform and
restructuring movements. An additional challenge was created when the District
entered program improvement status in December, 2009.
Over the past three to four years, RUSD has moved to create an eight pillar
strategic plan, a professional development plan, a partnership with the Ball
61
Foundation, and developed a program improvement addendum to its Local
Educational Agency (LEA) plan, all while initiating necessary, yet critical personnel
cuts at the District-level.
In response to all the impeding pressures, RUSD has been able to establish a
solid foundation from which to build a strong District-level reform effort to
ultimately target improved student achievement. In doing so, it is obvious that RUSD
has considered research-evidenced practices which have proven essential in school
reform success efforts. McCombs and Quiat (2003) propose that the following
criteria is an integral part of successful reform movements: 1) using research-
validated principles and their corresponding assessment tools, 2) considering both
student and teacher perceptions of instructional practices, and 3) assessing impact on
both learners and learning and on both motivation and multiple achievement
measures. Also RUSD’s work takes into consideration creating school capacity
through: principal leadership; professional community; program coherence; technical
resources; knowledge, skills, and dispositions of individual teachers; and learning
opportunities for teachers (Borko, et al., 2003).
Additionally, incorporation of an outside agency has been described as a
means to effective district level comprehensive school reform (Borman et al., 2003).
Programs such as Success for All and America’s Choice sustain that this component
is crucial. Outside entities provide the district with a fresh lens and guidance toward
solutions that may not be so readily apparent to those within the organization
(Borman, et al., 2003).
62
For RUSD, this step has been evident in their cooperation with the Ball
Foundation, in instituting many effective research-based strategies such as creating a
partnership with an outside organization (Ball), moving toward a decentralized
system to promote creating solutions and buy-in from those who do the work
(administrators, teachers and support staff) and allow for site-based decision-making
affording more local control and creating collaborative communities. Although these
efforts have been in place for a limited amount of time, it is obvious that the District
is moving toward improvement as would be expected given the short time since
implementation and the similarities as an “exemplar” effort rather than the outcome
measures. As Borko, et al. (2003) states, comprehensive school reform takes time
and it is best understood in terms of school capacity rather than outcome.
RUSD leadership has instituted a culture of decentralization in the District
and within this milieu had begun to implement District-level reforms efforts. The
movement toward decentralization has been adopted by many educational agencies
since the 1970s with highly debated discussion as to how to strike a balance between
decentralization and centralization and clearly defining what this means for the
particular organization (Meyer, 2006). This debate has resulted in findings indicating
that decentralization can mean different things for different organizations and that
whatever it means to a particular district must be clearly defined. Additionally,
effectiveness of effort toward reform, rest in a balance between centralization and
decentralization with fluctuation between the two, creating some points which must
63
be centralized and some that must be left to school-site control (Meyer, 2006;
Ostrom, 2009).
Given the current research findings as to maximizing effectiveness in
District-level reform implementation and the desire of RUSD leadership to work
with the “Essential Priorities,” our team of researchers, analyzing RUSD from the
District level, recommend a simplification or narrowing of solutions to address goal
alignment, focusing performance, and clearly defining the “non-negotiables” in a
decentralized organization in order to drive instructional reform at the classroom
level. The aim is to build on the current foundation and fine tuning the work already
in progress. Elmore (2002) and Collins (2001) support the honing of goals in an
environment of shared leadership, such as that in RUSD. While the reaching of
goals must be shared, the clear defining of goals and how they are measured must be
benchmarked (Dowd, 2005) in a manner that enables the entire organization to
understand the expectations, how, and when they have been met (Resnick & Hall,
2005).
These proposed solutions take into consideration the limitations of our
inquiry: limited number of interviewees, limited time to conduct interviews,
tumultuous timing of the inquiry process, and lack of representation of all
stakeholders in the interview process. Additionally, the team understands and has
taken into account the fact that reform efforts evolve over time and that current
findings capture a snapshot of where the District is at this particular moment.
64
The team also understands the current budgetary pressures and time
constraints and the need for time-limited progress especially while facing Program
Improvement status. Togneri (2003) suggests documenting paths for districts to
move away from islands of excellence and toward more consistent district-wide
reform. Togneri (2003) further indicates that traditional district structures do not
easily support these new approaches. She further alliterates the struggles district
leaders sometimes have with site-based personnel. “District leaders expected school
staff to take on multiple roles: to analyze data and to diagnose student needs, to
determine the efficacy of their own practices, to align their instruction to standards,
to research new practices, and to collaborate frequently with colleagues. Yet district
leaders had not created the full complement of support systems for teachers to meet
these new expectations” (Togneri, 2003, p. 9). In numerous ways these are the same
expectations placed on staff throughout Rowland Unified, despite the harsh impact
of the budget on resources. As a response, Rowland has sought to “flatten” its
leadership hierarchy via the work with the Ball Foundation to create leadership
capacity throughout the District. This may be a well intentioned and effective
response to the increased demands.
Togneri (2003) offers a solution to this dilemma by aligning professional
development opportunities to District goals and emerging themes based on data.
This effort, while somewhat supported through the District’s use of Communities of
Practice, may be more effective if linked more concretely to developing collective
efficacy throughout the District. A shared belief that the staff has the ability to
65
positively affect students (Goddard, Hoy & Hoy, 2004) is a belief in collective
efficacy that appears evident in pockets throughout RUSD. The transformational
leadership style employed by the highest level of leadership within RUSD is one of
dedication to fostering the professional growth of its members and to enhance their
commitment to elevate their goals (Burns, 1978), aligns with the collective efficacy
model. DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2006) further describe this model as educators
committed to working collaboratively in processes of action research and inquiry in
order to produce more effective results.
Styles of leadership have been explored by Bolman and Deal (2003) in their
Four-Frame Leadership Model.
• Political Frame: The political frame requires that leaders understand the
political climate of their organization. This involves the building and
maintaining of coalitions, negotiating, and finding acceptable
compromises. This frame must be mastered in climates of resource
scarcity or conflict over organizational direction.
• Symbolic Frame: The symbolic frame requires a visionary leadership
style that makes the work of individuals personal within the organization.
Cause and effect relationships become important and are clearly defined.
• Human Resource Frame: The human resource frame values people and
the work they do each day. The focus on people seeks to keep morale
high throughout the organization and can be effective during times of
relative calm.
66
• Structural Frame: This frame requires a clear definition of systems and
practices throughout the organization. In some ways it can be more
bureaucratic, but can be effective when alignment and clarification issues
permeate the organization.
In many ways the culture of RUSD lies heavily within the human resource
frame as evidenced by their decentralized nature and self efficacious beliefs in the
capacity of its members. Ball resources clearly believe flattening of the organization
will provide forward movement as teachers become instructional leaders. However,
despite the decentralized culture, a more structural approach may provide a frame for
creative solutions sought through the Communities of Practice. As Bolman and Deal
(2003) indicate, a structural approach allows for clarification and alignment of goals
which may narrow the organizational gap that currently exists within the District. As
a solution, RUSD leadership should develop a structural frame that can highlight,
define, and clarify its “Essential Priorities.” Providing a structure that does not
overreach will be essential for success and can bring clarity to expectations and
goals. Collins (2001) explores the transition of “good” companies to “great”
companies as a narrowing of focus. Companies that narrowed their focus and
directed their resources toward that focus far outgained companies that did not have
an organizational focus. RUSD may be able to make similar gains in an era of
declining resources. Rather than deploying multiple reform strategies, a narrowing
of focus, through a negotiated structural frame, may provide the “hybrid” type
67
solutions acceptable within the decentralized culture of RUSD. Simply adapting an
established model to such a culture seems counterintuitive for success.
Nevertheless, there are several areas from the findings which present an
opportunity for refinement. One area has to do with goal alignment. Guhn (2008)
indicates that along with District support, an important process that facilitated goal
implementation was goal alignment. While global and intermediate goals for RUSD
have been developed, goal implementation at the performance level was found to be
inconsistent. Clark and Estes (2002) indicate there is solid research-based evidence
that work motivation depends largely on the availability and quality of performance
(work) goals. According to Clark and Estes, the best work goals are C
3
goals that are:
1) concrete – clear, can be easily understood and measured, 2) challenging – difficult
but can be accomplished, and 3) current – short term goals (daily, weekly) which
tend to be more motivating than long-term goals. In some instances, lack of clarity of
the performance goals in Rowland may be the culprit. One solution to mitigate this
problem rests in creating C
3
performance (work) goals.
Lack of clarity and specificity of performance (work) goals can be frustrating
for those on the “front-lines” (teaching staff) as evidenced by interviewees’
responses where reform strategies were not clearly articulated at the classroom level.
These findings are commensurate with other organizational research which indicates
that in a decentralized organization for which bottom-up solutions and creativity are
highly valued, those on the “front-lines” such as teaching staff, may feel confused
and experience a sense of chaos while attempting to create solutions to meet
68
instructional and curricular mandates (Meyer, 2006). Such confusion, although more
pronounced in the initial stages of implementation, may need to be addressed as
increased pressures and time constraints may not afford extended time for
development without intervention; sustained engagement from those involved may
wane without increased pressures or incentives (Meyer, 2006).
One recommendation to expedite and possibly create a sense of direction,
while still allowing for site autonomy, would be for the executive leadership to
identify and clarify which reform efforts are non-negotiable and become more
centralized in these particular areas. It is recommended that the District leadership
team decide which instructional needs or expectations they consider to be “non-
negotiable” throughout the District. As RUSD values the creativity stemming from
the decentralized culture embraced throughout the District, the leadership team can
honor this by making concrete decisions regarding the non-negotiables, while
leaving the pathway to addressing these non-negotiables open to local school site
determination.
Much of the current efforts have been carried out within a collaborative and
supportive structure involving RUSD and the Ball Foundation. Research indicates,
issues with professional development in school systems generally arise when trying
to get such practices rooted into the very systems the professional development is
designed to affect (Elmore, 2002). According to Elmore (2002), the dilemma that
surfaces is the district’s ability to connect the ideal prescriptions of the consensus
model with real problems of large-scale improvement and accountability. RUSD has
69
embarked on the challenge of instituting more enlightened, less prescriptive,
professional development strategies centered on shared leadership and
accountability. However, research again indicates that this is an approach which
requires that more explicit guidance and attention be given to the practice of
improvement (Elmore, 2002).
O’Day (2002) discusses the use of a focus, or targets, as being a motivation
for change. RUSD’s status as a program improvement district indicates it has not
met proficiency mandates under the federal accountability measure. Theorists
(Levitt & March, 1988) indicate organizations generally orient themselves toward a
target while reacting to feedback. This outcome-based feedback can be problematic
as proficiency scores become available only once a year. However; the theory of
orienting toward a target may be effective for RUSD if the target is defined as a non-
negotiable within the District as it relates to instructional practice. As Elmore (2002)
explains, everything must lead back to instructional practice. Establishing a district-
wide goal or focus, known as a non-negotiable, may allow for more usable and
consistent feedback than an annual exam.
Along with a balance between centralization and decentralization or
recentralization is the need for an accountability structure to ensure system-wide
success (Wong, 2000). Organizations with outcome-based accountability systems in
place tend to demonstrate better implementation of reform efforts when leadership
has the capacity to implement such systems (Wong, 2000). Accountability structures
70
therefore assist in providing for a system of evaluation and use of data for decision-
making both at the District and site level to measure performance.
Since the pathway to achievement will remain a school site determinant at
RUSD, the District-level staff should also require some form of accountability
system from each school site which takes into account the established non-
negotiables. As stated previously, the decentralized nature of RUSD can be of
tremendous value if sites are required to address District determined non-negotiables
and expected outcomes in their own creative ways. This structure will assist in the
alignment of District-level goals with the school site goals, continuing on through
classroom instruction and student performance goals.
Given that one of the key limitations of decentralization is that organizational
change at the school level is not a sufficient condition for academic improvement
throughout the system (Wong, 2000), one recommendation of a non-negotiable, as
determined by RUSD literature, is the use of efficacious instruction to drive the
reform movement into the classroom. This term appears to be of significance
throughout RUSD as evidenced by its placement as an “Essential Priority”. Clearly
defining this term as a District, requiring each site to provide examples of how they
deliver efficacious instruction will further unite the District without becoming
prescriptive. Clearly defining what efficacious instruction looks like at each level
within the District can provide clarity in expectations for teachers, thus providing
more effective use of their chosen model of staff collaboration which exists in the
Communities of Practice. These examples of efficacious instruction may then link to
71
the professional development opportunities hosted by Ball as “best practices” to be
shared throughout the District.
In order for professional development to be most effective it must move away
from one-time workshops for individuals and toward the linking of development
through many levels within the organization. These “principles” for professional
development use research-based methods to guide practice. These include
connecting site leadership training with teacher training based on District goals and
student needs (Togneri, 2003). RUSD’s chosen professional development approach,
through the Ball Foundation, has touched on some of these processes, but falls short
on others. Connecting principals with teachers through site instructional teams can
be further strengthened, when provided guidance via clearly stated District goals.
The “Essential Priorities” document provides an excellent opportunity to fill this
void. However, it must be clearly set forth, supreme to all other reform documents
currently in place and should align with the District’s Local Educational Agency
(LEA) plan and its program improvement addendum.
The Ball principles and driving documents may serve as an excellent vehicle
by which to arrive at successful implementation of the “Essential Priorities.”
Communication must occur throughout the District to define Ball as a professional
development facilitator as opposed to a professional development destination in
order for the “Essential Priorities” and the Ball Foundation initiatives to work
effectively toward a common goal. Interview data and Ball survey results indicate
confusion amongst staff as to the Ball Foundation’s purpose within the District. “I
72
know Ball is here to assist the District, but I don’t know exactly what they [District]
want me to do. Sometimes I wish they [District] would just tell me what they
[District] want and what I am supposed to do with Ball” (RUSD Interview, 5-7-10).
Leithwood et al. (2002), describe successful professional development as a situation
where the teacher is respected as a professional. Leadership can provide
opportunities for teachers to come together as a community to share in decision
making and best practices. This in turn may increase teacher motivation to
participate in such forums.
In the sharing of instructional practices, collaborative efforts can be more
clearly focused so that performance goals are driven from the global and
intermediate goals. Focused and directed collaboration through professional
development can drive program implementation success through the use of best
practices as the focus of collaborative efforts. Such structure creates a foundation
which will still allow for creative solutions at the school site level.
Summary of Proposed Solutions
The inquiry project process identified three proposed solutions to effectively
implement the comprehensive reform efforts currently in place in the District. The
three proposed solutions are to 1) strengthen the understanding of the goals of the
four initiatives currently in place in the District; 2) align or clarify the goals of the
four current initiatives; and 3) strengthen the accountability component to include
those expectations that are non-negotiable (Essential Priorities for Teaching and
Learning). It is essential to the effective implementation of the reforms to align or
73
clarify goals and roles of district structures: executive cabinet, instructional cabinet,
and communities of practice. Based on the literature review conducted, the team
believes that these three solutions will maximize the District’s ability to effectively
implement its current Comprehensive School Reform initiatives.
Effective performance improvement must begin with clearly understood
performance goals (Bandura, 1997) and an understanding of the gaps between
current and desired performance (Gilbert, 1996; Rummler & Brache, 1995; and
Locke & Latham, 1990). According to Clark and Estes (2002), many organizations
fail to make the connection between global organizational goals and specific
performance or work goals. Without clear and specific goals, people within the
organization tend to focus on tasks that are not conducive to assisting the
organization achieve its goals. The performance goals should be concretely defined
as clear, easily understandable, and measurable; challenging in a manner that is
difficult but attainable; and currently defined as short-term. Daily or weekly goals
are more motivating than long term monthly or annual goals (Clark & Estes, 2002).
Clarification of the roles and the goals of the four reform initiatives, the Strategic
Plan, the Ball Foundation work, Program Improvement, and the Three Essential
Priorities, and how they are related is the overarching solution to the systemic issues
identified during the inquiry process. Clarification and simplification of multiple
reform strategies and/or policies can reduce teacher overload and increase capacity
for reform implementation. Therefore creating an environment where energy is
focused on implementing agreed upon reforms as opposed to trying to understand
74
which reform effort has current priority and how it should effect daily instruction.
Visual representations can assist key players understand their role within the reform
movement, as well as strategize prospective interaction that could drive
implementation (Meyer, 2006; Ghun, 2008; and Johnston, 2002). Using visuals that
are simplistic enough for transference throughout every level of the organization is
vital. Complex visual representations may limit the depth of understanding
throughout the organization.
Collaboration between the District and its school-site personnel begins with
compatible goal structures (Clark & Estes, 2002). In absence of this component, all
other attempts to improve performance are like sailing at sea without a compass. The
ultimate objective for performance improvement is that it must support the larger
goals of the organization. Every member of the organization should have a clear and
concise description of their performance goals and know how they align with the
District global goals. There is a lack of goal alignment across the District, especially
at the site level. The team recommends goal alignment to support goal
implementation. Activities such as priority-setting to provide authority to the reform
initiatives should be designed. The team suggests that the Three Essential Priorities
which are to strengthen first, best instruction, EL instruction and RTI (squared);
implement district-wide agreements about efficacious instruction and support for
teaching and learning; and build cultural proficiency across the system to improve
teaching and learning serve as the global District goals that will be aligned with the
strategic plan, program improvement, and the Ball Foundation initiatives. The
75
alignment of these goals with an aligned accountability component will drive
effective implementation from the District-level to classroom instruction and student
performance goals.
Continuing with the theme of alignment, the roles and goals of district
structures should be more clearly communicated. The role of the newly developed
Instructional Cabinet should be clear in its interactions with the Executive Cabinet.
Furthermore, the diverse interests of the Communities of Practice groups could be
further defined and standardized within the District. How these smaller groups
influence instruction within the District and the Instructional Cabinet could be
clarified by identifying tangible instructional priorities within RUSD, such as The
Essential Priorities for Teaching and Learning.
Last but most important is the need to identify the non-negotiables in a
decentralized organizational culture, define efficacious instruction, and develop an
effective accountability system to monitor all levels of school reform
implementation. Benchmarks and standards related to the reform serve as resources
that allow a school site to track its progress, evaluate fidelity of implementation, and
develop the capacity to self-monitor (Elmore, 2002; O’Day, 2002; Meyer, 2006;
Ostrom, 2009; Wong, 2002; Johnson, 2002).
A reduction or narrowing of District reform initiatives has a higher
probability for greater success in attaining reform goals. Foley (2001) believes
government mandates create a reform bureaucracy forcing organizations to take on
too many reforms. This seems evident in RUSD as interview data indicates
76
confusion over, “which reform are we on now?” (RUSD Interview, 5-9-10). As the
multiple reforms receive superficial implementation, they become less and less
effective. This effort is further hampered by a lack of effective feedback throughout
the organization. Timely and specific feedback can increase understanding,
therefore, increasing the speed and effectiveness of the reform (Mayer, 2008).
Furthermore, the use of a multitude of reform movements can have the unintended
effect of dispersing scarce resources. As the budgetary woes of RUSD, and the state
as a whole persist, the incorporation of multiple reform movements within a district
can lead to an unintended, but tangible consequence of draining valuable resources
whether it be time or money (Au & Valencia, 2010). Studies indicate a narrow and
consistent focus is maintained at schools that demonstrate success in raising student
achievement levels (Cambone, 1995; Lipson, Mosenthal, Mekkelson, & Russ, 2004).
The aim is to build on the current foundation while fine-tuning the work
already in progress. These proposed solutions take into consideration the limitations
of our inquiry: limited number of interviewees, limited time to conduct interviews,
tumultuous timing of the inquiry process, and lack of representation of all
stakeholders in the interview process. Additionally, the team understands and has
taken into account the fact that reform efforts evolve over time and that current
findings capture a snapshot of where the District is at this particular moment. The
team also understands the current budgetary pressures and time constraints and the
need for time-limited progress especially while facing Program Improvement status.
77
In conclusion, clearly defining non-negotiables within RUSD, while
respecting the decentralized nature of school-site reform implementation, may
support the alignment of RUSD goals without mandating prescriptive solutions. This
structure is conducive to garnering support from school-site personnel as sites will
have autonomy in determining their pathway to address the District non-negotiables
in a manner that will meet accountability standards of progress toward the goals.
Furthermore, the practice of efficacious instruction seems to be a priority within
RUSD, yet remains undefined in practice. Clearly defining this term as a District,
while requiring sites to determine concrete examples of how their instruction
addresses the definition can assist in forming deeper connections to the work the Ball
Foundation is currently performing in Rowland Unified School District.
(See the three tables on the following pages (78-80), as a visual summary of the
discussions above):
78
Table 1: Tier I Solutions (Immediate issues)

Type of Root Cause
Area of Growth K/S Mot Org Proposed Solution(s)
Site-level staff did not seem to
understand the direct relationship
the reform strategies and the eight
pillars of the strategic plan as
related to their site/classrooms.
X X • Cross-strand connections
• Systems to capture and link
learning
• Clearly define how each pillar
relates to classroom instruction
Although the most of teachers felt
they were doing the work necessary
to meet the organizational goal of
moving out of PI status, they could
not articulate the alignment to the
intermediate level goals.
X • Cross-strand connections
• Drive indicators toward
efficacious instruction toward
classroom
• Include examples of what
efficacious instruction looks like
Executive Cabinet, Instructional
Cabinet, and Communities of
Practice’s goals not clearly defined
at the site level.
X • Schedule P.D. time with Ball for
top level management.
• Negotiating bottom up and top
down to create a coherent system
There is the belief that district level
reform efforts are non-enduring
resulting in lack of commitment to
implementation.
X • Plan for sustaining structures/
functions and communicate to all
role groups
• Value collaborative professional
learning.
• Lean on “Essential Priorities for
Teaching and Learning”. Use this
as a structure or lens for all other
reforms.
Decentralization efforts have given
way to decreased accountability
and communication of best
practices as the site level.
X X X • Create accountability mechanism
• Communicate to all participants
and non-participants
• Executive leaders owning
• Decide on and clearly
communicate “non-negotiables”.
• Suggest using Essential Priorities
as a start for this discussion.
79
Table 2: Tier II Solutions (Issues to be addressed within the next 1-2 years)

Type of Root Cause
Area of Growth K/S Mot Org Proposed Solution(s)
The pervasiveness of the reform effort
tended to differ based on the
stakeholder level – higher with district
and administrative staff and lesser
within teaching staff.
X X • Systems to capture and link
learning
• Cross-cultural strand
connections
• Clarify what is expected and
“non-negotiables”
Teachers not directly involved with
the district-wide reform efforts could
they identify the work that led to
achievement of performance goals.
They understood that efforts were
aimed at improving student
achievement and moving out of PI
status, but not sure how their own
work related to these tenets.
X • Systems to capture and link
learning
• Communication to all
participants and non-
participants
• Cross-cultural strand
connections
• Define efficacious instruction
for RUSD
Not all teachers are engaged in the
reform efforts nor are they
knowledgeable of the strategic plan,
its pillars, and how it is directly linked
to the work they are doing in the
classroom. Some teachers have even
elected to not participate.
X X • Systems to capture and link
learning
• Communication to all
participants and non-
participants
• Cross-cultural strand
connections
• Value professional
collaboration
Across the organization, the feedback
loop is not consistent with regard to
implementation of reform efforts at
the site and classroom level.
• Lack of consistent monitoring by
district personnel and
administrators to ensure changes
to instructional practices.
• Lack of specific feedback to
teachers from administrators on
how to modify their instruction
based on the knowledge and skills
they received in training.
X • Systems to capture and link
learning
• Communicate to all role
groups
• Sustainability of functions, not
structures
• Deepen definition of rigor
• Simplify loop and reform
efforts.
• Use Essential Priorities as lens
through which everything else
must pass through. This will
help staff see reform as unified
rather than piece meal.
80
Table 3: Tier III Solutions (Issues to address within the next 3-5 years)

Type of Root Cause
Area of Growth K/S Mot Org Proposed Solution(s)
Comments such as “we were doing
what we know” and “this is too shall
pass”, made by a several teachers gave
a sense of lack of interest.
X • Cross-strand connections
• Support functions
• Accountability mechanism
• Deepen definition of rigor
• Commitment to Essential
Priorities demonstrates a
commitment to practice rather
than a reform “program”. This
will create “buy in” for
sustainable change.
Because of the anxiety created by the
perceived lack of resources and need
to do “more with less” some teachers
do not attribute task value to the
reform efforts.
X • Value collaborative
professional
• Learning
• Mechanisms for capturing and
sharing learning from different
strands
81
REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Berends, M. B. (2002). Looking Back over the Decade of Whole-School reform: The
Experience of New American Schools. The Phi Delta Kappan , 84 (2), 168-
175.

Boan, D. (2006). Cognitive-Behavioral Modification and Organizational Culture.
Consulting Pshchology Journal, 58(1) 51.

Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (2003) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008.

Borko, H., Wolf, S. A., Simone, G. & Uchiyama, K. P. (2003). Schools in
Transition: Reform Efforts and School Capacity in Washington State.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25 (2), 171-201.

Borman, G. D. (2009). National Efforts to Bring Reform to Scale in America's High-
Poverty Elementary and Secondary Schools: Outcomes and Implications.
Washington, D.C.: Center of Education Policy.

Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive
school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 73, 125-230.

Bowen, R. (2001). The battle between political and academic cultures. Chronical of
Higher Education, 14-15.

Brownell, Mary T., Adams, A., Sindelar, P., & Waldron, N. (2006). Learning From
Collaboration: The Role of Teacher Qualities. Exceptional Children, 72 (2),
169-185

California Department of Education (CDE). Retrieved from
www.cde.ca.gov.dataquest on December 1, 2010.

Cambone, J. (1995). Time for teachers in school restructuring. Teachers College
Record, 96(3): 511-540.

Camburn, E. R. (2003). Distributed Leadership in Schools: The Case of Elementary
Schools Adopting Comprehensive School Reform Models. Education
Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 25 (4), 347-373.

82
Childress, S., Elmore, R., Grossman, A. (2006). How to Manage Urban School
Districts. Harvard Business Review, Nov.

Clark, R. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.

Coburn, C. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate
reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 23 (2), 145-170.

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.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies make The Leap…and
Others Don’t. Harper Business.

Desimore, L. (2002). How Can Comprehensive School Reform Models Be
Successfully Implemented? Review of Educational Research , 72 (3), 433-
479.

Dowd, A. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry
to assess community college performance. Lumina Foundation for
Education Research Report, University of Massachusettes.

DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work. Best
practices for enhancing student chievement. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

DuFour, R., DuFour R., & Eaker, R. (2006). Professional learning communities at
work plan book. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., DuFour R., Eaker, R., & Karhanek, G. (2010). Raising The Bar and
Closing The Gap. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree

Edmonds, R. R. (1981). Search for effective schools. Institute for Research on
Teaching. East Lansing, MI. Michigan State University, The College of
Education.

Elmore, Richard F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement.
Albert Shanker Institute. 10-20.

83
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.

Gopalakrishnan, S. C. (2010). Embracing the "Gift Story". OD Practitioner , 42 (1),
1-9.

Gordon, T. (2003) A Nation Reformed: American Education 20 Years After A Nation
at Risk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Gorey, K. (2009). Comprehensive school reform: Meta-analytic evidence of black-
white achievement gap narrowing. Education Policy Analysis Archives :
College of Education; University of South Florida, 17 (25), 1-14.

Guhn, M. (2009). Insights from successful and unsuccessful implementations of
school reform programs. Journal of Education Change , 10, 337-363.

Guskey, T. R. (1989). Attitude and perceptual change in teachers. International
Journal of Educational Research, 13(4), 444

Hamilton, L.S., Mccaffrey, D. F., Stecher, B.M., Klein, S. P., Robyn, A., Bugliari, D.
(2003). Studying Large-Scale Reforms of Instructional Practices: An
Example from Mathematics and Science. Educational Evaluation and
Policy, 25 (1), 1-20.

Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state
standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289-318.

Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous
inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory. Retrieved September, 5, 2010 from
http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/2.html

Johnston, B. J. (2002). Absent from school: Educational policy and comprehensive
reform. The Urban Review, 34(3), 205-230.

Kim, J.S., Sunderman, G.L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the no
child left behind act: implications for educational equity. Educational
Researcher, 34(8), 3-12.

Levin, B. (2003). There is Another Way: A Different Approach to Education
Reform. Phi DeltaKappan , 84 (2), 658-664.

84
Lezotte, L (2003). Revolutionary and evolutionary: The effective schools movement.
Retrieved April 10, 2010, from
http://www.cascade.k12.mt.us/pages/administration/jsprout/Pages/EffectiveS
chools/RevEv.pdf

Lin, A. (2000). Reform in the making: The implementation of social policy in
prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lipson, M.L., Mosenthal, J. H., Mekkelsen, J., & Russ, B. (2004). Building
knowledege and fashining success one school at a time. The Reading
Teacher, 57 (6) 534-542.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., McNulty, B. (2005). School Leadership that works: from
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and
Development.

Mayer, R. (2008). Learning and Instruction, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson
Merrill Prentice Hall.

McCombs, Barbara L.; Quait, Linda. (2002). What makes a comprehensive school
reform model learner centered? Urban Education, 3(4), 476-496.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform.
Stanford, CA.: National Academy of Education.

Meyer, H.D. (2006, February 27). Saying what we mean, and meaning what we say
–unpacking the contingencies of decentralization, 223-224. New York, New
York, Albany.

Moessinger, P. (2000). The paradox of social order: Linking psychology and
sociology. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). Retrieved February 5, 2010, from
http://www.nclb.gov.

Northouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership: theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage
Publications.

O'Day, Jennifer. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement.
Harvard Educational Review. 72 (3) 293-313.

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
85
Pintrich, P.R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning
components of classroom academic performance. Journal if Educational
Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 4, 667-686.

Purkey, C. S. & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary
School Journal, (83) 4, 426-452.

Resnick, L. & Hall, M. (2005). Principles of learning for effort-based education.
Institute for Learning: Learning Research and Development Center,
University of Pittsburgh (pp. 20-26).

Santrock, J. W. (2009) Lifespan development, 12th ed. New York: McGraw Hill

Shiefele, U., Krapp, A. & Winteler, A. (1992) In K.A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A.
Krapp, The role of interst in learning and development (pp. 183-212).

Sipple, J. W. (2004). Adoption and Adpatation: School District Responses to State
Imposed Learning and Graudation Requirements. Education Evaluation and
Policy Analysis , 3(2), 143-168.

Spillane, J. R. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policy-makers
and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2),
141-179.

Spillane, J. R. (2002). Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and
Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research , 72
(3), 387-431.

Togneri, W., (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: what districts can do to improve
instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington D.C: The Learning
First Allianceand The Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Develelopment.

Tushnet, N. C. (2004). Longitudinal Assessment of Comprehensive School Reform
Program Implementation and Outcomes: First-Year Report. Los Alamitos,
CA: WestEd.

Wenger, E. & Snyder, W. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational
frontier. Harvard Business Review (Jan-Feb) 139-145.
86
Wolf, S., Borko, H., Elliott, R., & Melver, M. (2000). “That dog won’t hurt!”
Exemplary school change efforts within the Kentucky reform. American
Educational Research Journal, 3(2), 349-393.

Wong, K. K. (2000). Big change questions: Chicago school reform: from
centralization to integrated governance. Journal of Educational Change , 97-
105.

Zembylas, M. (2002). Constructing genealogies of teachers’ emotions in science
teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 79-103.
87
APPENDIX A
INQUIRY PROJECT PROPOSAL

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95
APPENDIX B
SCANNING INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Please give me an overview of (topic)?
What is the current situation?
What is being done about it?
Is the situation a “problem”—in what sense?

Now, I’d like to get some historical perspective on this situation.
1. Over the past 5 or 10 years, what has changed regarding (topic)?
2. Has the district tried to address the (topic) in specific ways? Please
describe.
3. Was there any success with these efforts?
4. Do they continue to this day—or what happened to the efforts?

Regarding the (topic), are there any formal or informal goals for what you or the
district are trying to accomplish?
• What is the goal(s) of this effort?
• What do you aspire to? In what time frame?
• How will you/the district know if it is successful?
• Do different role groups have different goals for this effort? (Get details)
• How big is the gap between where you are now and where you aspire to
be?

Let’s talk some more about the gap between where you are now and perfect success
on this topic. I’d like your perspective here. What is keeping the district from
achieving perfect success on (topic)? Is the problem linked to many role groups or
one? Is the problem one of lack of knowledge/skill, of motivation, of culture, of
politics or what?
1. Probe using knowledge/skill, motivation, organizational culture/structure
2. Probe by role group

Finally, we hope you can help us by suggesting what our team could do to better
understand the (topic) here in the district—any suggestions?
96
APPENDIX C
STAGES OF CONCERN QUESTIONNAIRE (ABOUT RUSD’S REFORM
STRATEGIES)
Name (optional)______________________________ ID#____(please leave blank)
Note: Identifying data is confidential and will not be shared as part of this inquiry
project.

The purpose of the attached questionnaire is to determine what people who are
implementing or thinking about implementing RUSD’s District reform strategies are
concerned about at various times during the innovation adoption process. Some of
the items on this questionnaire may appear to be of little relevance or irrelevant to
you at this time. For completely irrelevant items, please circle “0” on the scale.
Other items will represent those concerns you do have, in varying degrees of
intensity and should be marked higher on the scale.

For example:

This statement is very true of me at this time 01234567
This statement is somewhat true of me now 01234567
This statement is not at all true of me at this time 01234567
This statement seems irrelevant to me 01234567

Please respond to the items in terms of your present concerns, or how you feel about
your involvement or potential involvement with RUSD’s reform strategies. We do
not hold any one definition or this innovation, so please think in terms of your own
perceptions of what it involves. Remember to respond to each item in terms of your
present concerns about your involvement or potential involvement in the reform
strategies.

Thank you for taking time to complete this task. The questionnaire is attached to this
cover sheet.
97
RUSD District Level School Reform
Concerns Questionnaire about RUSD School Reform Strategies

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Irrelevant Not true of me now Somewhat true of me now Very true of me now

Question Rating
1. I am very interested in knowing other teacher’s attitudes about
District School Reform

2. I now know of some other approaches that might work better than
current reform strategies

3. I don’t even know what RUSD’s reform strategies are
4. I am concerned that I don’t have enough time to organize myself
each day (in relation to reform strategies)

5. I would like to help other colleagues in my use of reform strategies
6. I have very limited knowledge about reform strategies
7. I would like to know the effect of reform strategies on my
professional status

8. I am concerned about conflict between my interests and
responsibilities in relation to reform strategies

9. I am concerned about revising my use of reform strategies
10. I would like to develop working relationships with others
colleagues using reform strategies

11. I am concerned how reform strategies are helping students
12. I am concerned about how reform strategies are helping teachers
13. I am not concerned about reform strategies
14. I would like to know who will make decisions about reform
strategies

15. I would like to know what resources are available to assist in
implementing reform strategies

98
APPENDIX D
ONE MONTH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Since our last meeting about one month ago, how have RUSD reform
strategies impacted your work in the last month?

2. What are the pros and cons of implementing or not implementing reforms
strategies?

3. How do you see sustaining reform efforts after Ball Foundation funding
ends?
99
APPENDIX E
RUSD STRATEGIC PLAN

100
APPENDIX F
BALL FOUNDATION PARTNERSHIP GRAPHIC

101
APPENDIX G
COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM – SOLUTIONS SUMMARY CHART
General Issue Recommendations Rationale Evidence/Literature
Some lack of
clarity of overall
District goals
Clarify the roles
of the four
reform initiatives
and how they
relate to each
other.
• Clarification and
simplification of multiple
reform strategies/policies
can create “teacher
overload” reducing the
capacity for reform
implementation
• Visual representations
can help key players
understand their role
within the reform
movement, as well as
strategize prospective
interactions that could
drive implementation.
• Meyer (2006)
• Ghun (2008)
• Johnston (2002)
Some lack of
goal alignment
across the
District,
especially at the
site level.
• Cleary defining
“non-
negotiables”
within a
decentralized
structure and
ensure buy-in
from all
stakeholders.
• Create
accountability
structures at site
level to ensure
system-wide
success
• Goal alignment to
support goal
implementation –
activities such as priority-
setting to provide
authority to the reform
• Drive instructional
reform at classroom level
• Benchmarks and
standards related to the
reform effort allow sites
to track their progress,
evaluate faithfulness of
implementation and
develop the capacity to
self-monitor.
• Elmore (2002)
• O’Day (2002)
• Meyer (2006)
• Ostrom (2009)
• Wong (2002)
• Johnston (2002)
102
APPENDIX H
PRESENTATION TO ROWLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Over the past half century school reform efforts have largely been driven as a response to the biting indictment of public education enumerated in the Coleman Report of 1966. The latest national directive, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, sought to further focus the efforts of American schools on the achievement gaps persistent within minority and impoverished school children when compared to their non-minority and wealthier peers. This Capstone Inquiry Project analyzed the effectiveness of Rowland Unified School District (RUSD), in a consultative manner, in implementing their chosen reforms. The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis Model served as the analytic tool to uncover root causes of gaps in the areas of knowledge/skill, motivation, and organizational culture. While Rowland has experienced some success, they currently incorporate up to four reform initiatives.The project team found that a narrowing and clarifying of goals and initiatives using their “Three Priorities of Teaching and Learning” as a lens through which all current and future initiatives must be viewed would allow for more effective implementation. This narrowing of focus was supported within the literature and via data collection as a means to address the root causes of gaps within RUSD.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A gap analysis inquiry project on district-level reform implementation for Rowland Unified School District

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools

PDF

Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project

PDF

Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district

PDF

Comprehensive school reform: Effective implementation

PDF

An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model

PDF

An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results

PDF

An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...

PDF

Improving college participation success in Glendale Unified School District: An application of the gap analysis model

PDF

Increasing college matriculation rate for minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students by utilizing a gap analysis model

PDF

An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement

PDF

An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school

PDF

An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school

PDF

The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies

PDF

Increasing Latino access to higher education: A suburban district's design and implementation

Asset Metadata

Creator Forsee, Brent Alan (author)

Core Title Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/11/2011

Defense Date 01/19/2011

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

Tag gap analysis,inquiry project,OAI-PMH Harvest,school reform

Place Name California (states), Los Angeles (counties), school districts: Rowland Unified School District (geographic subject), USA (countries), valleys: San Gabriel Valley (geographic subject)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rueda, Robert S. (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member)

Creator Email brent4c@hotmail.com,forsee@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3733

Unique identifier UC1130832

Identifier etd-Forsee-4342 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-444475 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3733 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Forsee-4342.pdf

Dmrecord 444475

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Forsee, Brent Alan

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