Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Resource use and instructional improvement strategies at the school-site level: case studies from ten southern California elementary schools
(USC Thesis Other)
Resource use and instructional improvement strategies at the school-site level: case studies from ten southern California elementary schools
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
RESOURCE USE AND INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
AT THE SCHOOL-SITE LEVEL: CASE STUDIES FROM TEN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
by
Alicia Marie Corulla
________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2009
Copyright 2009 Alicia M Corulla
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my mom, Lil Tuttle and the rest of my family.
Thank you for putting up with me throughout this grueling process. Thank you to Gryph,
Jacquie, Tanette, Morghan, Stephen, and Melanie. Thank you to my number one
godmother, Aunt Karen. You all continue to help me remember that anything is possible.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. John Nelson and Dr. Guilbert Hentschke for
agreeing to serve on my dissertation committee. Their generous offer of time and
professional expertise are greatly appreciated. I would like to offer a special thank you to
my committee chairperson, Dr Lawrence Picus who spent countless hours reading my
work and who provided me with suggestions and encouragement throughout this process.
I would also like to thank the members of my many friends and relatives who
helped me complete the doctorate program. I express a special thanks to Lila Jenkins,
Michael Keller, Eimi Garcia, Mark Nguyen, Debra Granger, Sheri McDonald, and Frank
Gomez. Finally, thank you Meghan Bryant. You kept up my spirits and humor
throughout the dissertation process.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 7
Importance of the Study 8
Limitations 10
Delimitations 10
Assumptions 10
Definitions of Terms 11
Organization of the Study 12
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14
School Finance in California 14
Educational Adequacy 20
Resource Use 32
Effective Practices for Improving Instruction at the School Level 49
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 59
Research Questions 60
Purposeful Sample and Population 60
Instrumentation and Data Collection 63
Data Analysis 67
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS 69
Overview of Districts and Schools 69
Introduction to Findings 77
Findings 77
Discussion of Findings 115
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS 122
Overview of Problem 122
Purpose of the Study 123
Methodology 124
Summary of Findings 128
Recommendations 145
v
Suggestions for Future Research 148
Concluding Remarks 149
REFERENCES 150
APPENDICES 159
A: Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol 159
B: Case Study Write-Up Format 162
C: Case Study: Cold Spring Elementary School 166
D: Case Study: Lakeside Elementary School 195
E: Case Study: Ocean View Elementary School 220
F: Case Study: Seaside Elementary School 245
G: Case Study: Bayshore Elementary School 269
H: Case Study: River View Elementary School 298
I: Case Study: Waterfall Elementary School 327
J: Case Study: Brookside Elementary School 355
K: Case Study: Rolling Waves Elementary School 376
L: Case Study: Creekside Elementary School 397
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 62
Sample Schools: 2005-2007 Similar Schools Rank
Table 3.2 63
Sample Schools: Enrollment, Percent Free and Reduced Meals,
Percent English Learner Population, Percent Hispanic, Percent Asian
Table 4.1 70
District Demographics
Table 4.2 71
Percent Proficient and Advanced in Language Arts and
Mathematics on 2008 CST and Program Improvement Status
Table 4.3 72
Districts with Schools Within the District
Table 4.4 73
Sample Schools: Enrollment, Percent Free and Reduced Meals,
Percent English Learner Population, Percent Hispanic, Percent Asian
Table 4.5 74
Growth API Scores for Years 2005-2008
Table 4.6 75
Percent Proficient or Advanced in Language Arts 2005-2008
Table 4.7 76
Percent Proficient or Advanced in Mathematics 2005-2008
Table 4.8 86
Instructional Minutes for Language Arts and Mathematics
Table 4.9 91
Years of Experience as a Principal and Years as
Principal at Site
vii
Table 4.10 95
Comparison of EBM Core Teachers to Actual Core Teachers
Table 4.11 97
Comparison of EBM Specialist Teachers to Actual Specialist
Teachers
Table 4.12 98
Comparison of EBM Certificated Tutors to Actual Tutors
And Number of Title I Instructional Aides at Each School
Table 4.13 99
Comparison of EMB Teachers for ELL to Actual ELL
Teachers and Number of ELL Aides at Each School
Table 4.14 100
Comparison of EBM Extended-Day Teachers to Actual
Extended-Day Teachers at Each School
Table 4.15 102
Comparison of EBM Special Education Teachers to Actual
Special Education Teachers at Each School
Table 4.16 103
Comparison of EBM Professional Development (PD) Days
To Actual PD Days at Each School
Table 4.17 104
Comparison of EBM Funds for PD to Actual Funds For
PD at Each School
Table 4.18 105
Comparison of EBM Instructional Coaches to Actual
Instructional Coaches at Each Site
Table 4.19 106
Comparison of EBM Library/Media Teachers to Actual
Library/Media Teachers and Number of Library/Media
Aides at Each School
viii
Table 4.20 107
Comparison of EBM Support Staff to Actual Support Staff
At Each School
Table 4.21 109
Comparison of EBM Assistant Principals to Actual Assistant
Principals at Each School
Table 4.22 110
Comparison of EBM Secretaries to Actual Secretaries and
Number of Clerks at Each School
Table 4.23 112
Elements of Additional Time Requests for Each School
Table 4.24 115
Type of Content Areas of Improved Curriculum Programs
Requested by Each Site
Table 4.25 116
Number of Instructional Improvement Strategies In Place
At the School Site with 2008 AYP Status
Table 5.1 133
Number of Instructional Improvement Strategies In Place
At the School Site with 2008 AYP Status
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 30
The Evidenced Based Model: A Research Driven Approach to
Linking Resources to Student Performance
Figure 2.2 39
School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators
Figure 3.1 65
School Expenditure Structure and Resource Indicators
x
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate resource use data from individual
schools to determine the connection between resource use and student achievement. Data
from elementary schools were compared to the evidenced-based adequacy model to
identify whether or not schools align resources to support the implementation of best
practices. School-level human resource data, expenditure data and qualitative data
collected were used to identify resource use patterns that can be used to inform decisions
related to school finance. The following four research questions guided this study: (1)
What are the current instructional improvement strategies observed at the school level?
(2) How the actual resource patterns at the school sites are aligned with or different from
the resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-Based Model? (3) How are
resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement plan?
(4) How does the availability of resources affect the development and implementation of
the instructional improvement plan?
A mixed-methods approach was used to collect data for this study. Quantitative
and qualitative data were collected to conduct an investigation of resource use at the
school level. Quantitative data were collected to identify how resources are allocated at
schools. Qualitative data were collected to tell the story of how resources are utilized at
the school sites to implement the instructional program.
The findings from this study suggest that schools that consistently implement
researched instructional improvement strategies tend to see consistent growth in student
xi
achievement. The findings further suggest that elementary schools in Southern California
are under-resourced as compared to the Evidence-Based Model, and school leaders
believe more resources are needed to continue meeting the state’s accountability
requirements.
Recommendations for practitioners and policy makers include:
(a) implementation of research-proven instructional improvement strategies; (b)
development of professional learning communities; and (c) restructure use of available
resources.
1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The standards-based reform movement that swept the nation during the 1990’s
changed the face of education finance. This reform movement catapulted individual
school accountability to the spotlight by publicly displaying school-level achievement
data on criterion referenced tests, and then ranked schools based on overall performance.
The Federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002 came on the heels of the
standards-based reform movement. This legislation requires each state to set minimum
performance standards that all students are expected to achieve by 2014. For the first
time, individual schools became truly accountable for ensuring all students perform at
high levels of achievement. At about the same time as school accountability shifted focus
to student performance outcomes, school finance litigation began to shift from equity
models to adequacy models (Clune, 1994).
Until the middle of the twentieth century, public schools relied heavily on local
property taxes for funding. Over time the argument emerged that this type of system led
to inequitable funding among school districts (Edsource, 2008). Students who lived in
poor communities had less access to resources than those who lived in more affluent
areas. A court case in California, Serrano v. Priest (1976), was one of the first lawsuits
to challenge the practice of locally funding schools and ultimately influenced the shape of
current funding models across the nation. Since the Serrano v. Priest ruling in 1976,
2
states have undertaken increasingly more responsibility for funding public education, and
have done so using a variety of approaches throughout the nation (Walter & Sweetland,
2003). Many of these approaches had some method designed to ensure equitable access
to resources in an effort to close the funding gap between wealthy and poor students.
However, a major concern with the equity approach to school funding is that it is based
mainly on input with little or no connection to what is produced (Clune, 1994). Though
legislation emerged that ensured equitable funding across states, clear articulation of
performance expectations were not articulated until the late 1990’s. Consequently, the
achievement gap between affluent students and poor students remained. Over time,
concern shifted from fiscal equity to differences in achievement between wealthy
students and those living in poverty. The failure to diminish the achievement gap led to
further lawsuits charging that state education finance systems were unconstitutional.
Seventy-five percent of these lawsuits were successful primarily because states had failed
to even attempt to determine what it costs to adequately educate all students. (Rebell,
2007).
The standards-based reform movement along with the abundance of judicial
rulings of unconstitutional funding practices at the state level paved the way for an
onslaught of adequacy studies conducted in more than thirty states (Rebell, 2007). State
policy makers now want evidence on what it costs to educate all students to high levels
(Odden, 2003). Unlike equity-based funding, adequacy models seek to determine what it
3
will cost to adequately educate all children to identified performance standards (Clune,
1994; Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007).
Across the nation, four main methods have been used to estimate adequate
funding levels needed to achieve state performance: 1) the successful district approach, 2)
the cost function approach, 3) the professional judgment approach, and 4) the evidence-
based approach (Guthrie & Rothstein, 1999; Odden & Picus, 2008). A limited description
of each approach follows with further detail provided in chapter two.
The successful district approach identifies districts that are successful in ensuring
high student performance on learning standards then determines the per-pupil spending
amounts in these districts (Odden, 2003). Odden (2003) suggests that this approach is
limited by the fact that it is difficult to apply to districts that are unlike the studied
district.
The cost function approach uses econometric modeling to attempt to estimate how
much a district needs to spend relative to the average district to ensure students perform
to an identified level (Rebell, 2007). Criticism of this approach focuses on the fact that
extensive data on per-pupil expenditures, student performance, and school characteristics
are needed across a given state in order to determine average models of spending.
Additionally, this model is restricted by the fact that it is a district level analysis tool
rather than a school level analysis tool. Further, the cost function model is difficult for
policy makers, educators and the general public to understand (Rebell, 2007).
4
The professional judgment approach uses the professional judgment of highly
qualified practitioners who are knowledgeable in both effective educational strategies and
resource use (Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007). While legislators easily understand the
recommendations of this approach, it is criticized due to its reliance on professional
opinion rather than research-based practices (Hanushek, 2006).
The evidence-based approach to educational adequacy identifies a set of
ingredients that are required to deliver high quality instruction to all students and applies
a cost to each ingredient (Odden & Picus, 2008). This approach is based on best practice
identified in literature for nearly all comprehensive school reform efforts (Odden, 2003).
Though Hanushek (2006) argues that no adequacy model is capable of
articulating the exact amount it would take ensure every student obtain a proficient level
when assessed on performance standards, the evidence-based model has been used in
several states due to its close alignment to research-proven strategies for school reform.
These states include Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, North
Dakota, and Kentucky (see for example, Odden, Picus, et al., 2008).
The State of California launched its first serious look at adequacy in education
funding when, in April 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger established The
Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence. This committee was assigned the task
of examining the K-12 education system in California and providing recommendations
for improving school performance. The goals of this committee focused on strengthening
teaching and leadership, ensuring fair funding, governance and accountability, data
5
systems, and creating a platform for continuous improvement (Governor’s Committee on
Education Excellence, 2007). In September 2005 the Governor’s Committee on
Education Excellence requested a research project known as the “Getting Down to Facts”
studies. The “Getting Down to Facts” project resulted in several adequacy studies
designed to identify the amount of funding California schools need to ensure all students
meet the state’s academic standards. Chambers, Levin, and DeLancey (2007) conducted
one of the three adequacy studies that estimated the costs for school districts to meet the
state’s achievement goals. Chambers, et al. (2007) concluded that California Schools
more than fifty percent than they are currently spending in order to meet state proficiency
targets. Sonstelie (2007) also estimated the costs for California Schools to meet
performance goals. Using a simulation approach, he found that schools serving low-
income populations need more resources than other schools. It is important to point out
that none of the researchers who conducted these adequacy studies collected genuine
school-site level expenditure data. While the “Getting Down to Facts” studies have
scratched the surface of determining what resources schools require to meet performance
standards; a deeper level of research is needed at the school level in order to better predict
the amount of funds schools really need.
While California adopted what some argue are the most rigorous performance
standards in the nation, this state currently ranks well below the national average in per
pupil expenditures (Edsource, 2007). Even as Mockler (2007) reports students in
California have made substantial gains, some fear that this trend will not continue in light
6
of the annual increase in achievement indicators as required by NCLB (2002) coupled
with an emerging budget crisis faced by schools in this state. In fact, the state governor
has proposed cutting $4.8 billion dollars for K-14 education effective the 2008-2009
school year (Edsource, 2008). California schools will need to utilize their resources in the
most effective and efficient way in order to ensure all students achieve proficiency on
state standards with very limited funds.
Statement of the Problem
In a time when resources are scarce for California schools and the achievement
bar is set high, it is important to determine what constitutes an adequate level of funding
required to deliver effective instruction to all students. Schools must be strategic in how
resources are allocated in order to ensure increased student learning. Though research on
the implementation of adequacy models has been conducted in other states, site level
adequacy research is limited (Hartman, et al., 2001). Due to the limited research on
school-level resource use, it is unclear whether or not schools in California implement
adequacy models that guide how resources are allocated.
The evidence-based approach to adequacy provided by Odden and Picus (2008)
provides a recipe for implementing research-based school reform practices at the site
level. However, studies on the implementation this model at the school-site level have
been limited to the states of Wyoming and Arkansas (Odden, et al., 2006; Odden, et al.
2008). A better school level analysis of how schools are utilizing their funds is needed to
help California’s policy makers determine what it costs to educate all children to
7
proficiency in the state’s rigorous standards and to help practitioners make informed
decisions about resource allocation at the school site level. Such an analysis entails
conducting interviews at school sites with principals and other key personnel to obtain
details about the school’s instructional improvement plan and resource allocation, as well
as close examination of existing documents such as a school’s single school plan for
student achievement, a school’s budget, the master schedule, and staff roster to gain
insight on how the school’s actual expenditure patterns align with its instructional
improvement plan.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to collect and evaluate resource use data on
individual schools to determine the connection between resource use and student
achievement. Data from individual schools was compared to the evidence-based
adequacy model in an effort to identify whether or not schools are aligning resources to
support best practices. The intent of this study was to provide state policy makers,
practitioners and researchers with school-level expenditure data and resource patterns that
can be used to inform decisions related to school finance.
Research Questions
1. What are the current instructional improvement strategies observed at the
school level?
8
2. How the actual resource patterns at the school sites are aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-
Based Model?
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
4. How does the availability of resources affect the development and
implementation of the instructional improvement plan?
Importance of the Study
This study contributed to the limited body of research on how funds are allocated
at the school-site level to increase student achievement. This study served to inform
policy makers in California of the adequate level of resources that are needed by schools
in order to provide an effective instructional program to all students. It also gives policy
makers detailed information on how schools utilize the funds they receive. This study
was useful to practitioners as the findings can be used as a guide to the reallocation of
resources in order to implement an evidenced-based instructional program that will meet
the needs of all students.
Summary of Methodology
This study provided an in-depth analysis of resource use at the school-site level.
Therefore, a purposeful sample of ten elementary schools was selected to participate in
this study. Schools were selected based on the California similar schools ranking system
and student demographic data. Schools that participated needed to show that they had
9
been successful compared to like schools by having achieved an eight or higher on the
California similar schools ranking system for each of the past three years: 2005, 2006 and
2007. In addition, schools needed to serve historically at-risk student populations. Thus,
at least fifty percent of each school’s population qualified for free or reduced lunch and at
least sixty percent of each school’s population was identified as English Learners.
Schools that meet these criteria were identified using the California Department of
Education’s Standardized Testing and Reporting website and the Ed-Data.org website.
All researchers who participated in this study attended a two-day training session
in June 2008. During this training, each researcher received data collection protocols and
codebooks, as well as comprehensive instruction in their use. Each researcher collected
and analyzed data using the same protocol and collection instruments in order to allow all
researchers to compare resource use patterns across the schools sampled by other
researchers.
Each school visit consisted of a four-hour interview with the school principal and
any other key personnel. Data on resource allocation and the instructional improvement
plan were collected at this time. Existing documents such as the school’s school vision
and mission statement, single school plan for student achievement, master schedule, staff
roster, and school budget were collected and examined. Quantitative school resource data
were collected, uploaded into a password protected on-line database and compared to the
level of resources the Evidence-Based Model would generate for the school. Qualitative
data were collected and used to generate a descriptive case study of each school that told
10
the story of how the school uses its resources to support the instructional improvement
plan. The case studies were analyzed and used to make comparisons regarding the
similarities and differences in resource use across all the schools in the study, and to
identify how each school’s resource use is aligned to the best practices that are detailed in
the Evidence-Based model.
Limitations
Data collection for this study were limited to a five month period at ten selected
elementary school sites within four school districts in Southern California. The researcher
was not able to control participants’ biases or willingness to participate in the interview.
Delimitations
A purposeful sample of ten schools that were considered high achieving
compared to similar schools was used for this study. Findings may only be generalizable
to schools of similar size with similar student demographics.
Assumptions
It was assumed that the participants in this study answered willingly and honestly
during the interviews. Additionally, all existing data that was collected and analyzed from
each school and district was assumed to be complete and accurate.
11
Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API): The State of California’s numerical indicator of
student achievement used as a basis for comparative ranking of schools statewide.
Accountability: Systems that hold students, schools, or districts responsible for academic
performance (Elmore, 2002).
Adequacy: The supply of sufficient resources from the federal and state government to
each school in order to ensure each student achieves mastery of identified performance
standards.
Average Daily Attendance (ADA): The number of students present on each school day
throughout the year, divided by the total number of school days in a year. A school
district’s revenue limit income is based on its ADA (Townley, Schmieder & Wehmeyer,
1998).
Categorical Funding: Restricted fund from the state or federal government granted to
qualifying school districts for specified purposes.
Equalization: Funds allocated by the legislature to raise districts with lower revenue
limits toward the statewide range (Townley, Schmieder & Wehmeyer, 1998).
Expenditure: Any resource of time, money or personnel expended to provide students
with instruction, facilities and services.
Fulltime Equivalent (FTE): The ratio derived by dividing the number of work hours
required in a part-time position by the number of work hours required in a corresponding
full-time position.
12
General Fund: The fund used to finance the ordinary operations of school districts.
General funds may be used for any legally authorized purpose (Townley, Schmieder &
Wehmeyer, 1998).
Mandated Costs: Expenditures that occur as a result of federal or state law, court
decisions, administrative regulations, or initiative measures. School districts may apply
for state funds to reimburse these costs.
Significant Subgroups: Any group of 100 or more students with valid scores or 50 or
more students with valid scores who make up at least 15 percent of the total valid test
scores. Groups are any ethnic/racial group, socioeconomically disadvantaged students,
English learner students, and students with disabilities
Organization of the Study
Chapter One of the study presented the introduction, the statement of the problem,
the purpose of the study, the questions to be answered, the importance of the study, a
summary of the methodology to be used, the limitations, delimitations, assumptions,
definition of terms, and the organization of the study.
Chapter Two of the study presents a review of the literature relevant to school
finance in California, the concept of adequacy, and best practices for improving student
performance.
Chapter Three of the study presents the research methodology to be used, the data
collection procedures, and the methods of analysis of the data.
13
Chapter Four reports the findings from the analysis of the data and the
interpretation of those finding in review of the literature.
Chapter Five provides a summary of the results of the study and suggest the
implications for future research.
14
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the literature pertaining to school finance
and the resource allocation patterns associated with implementing best practices for
instructional reform. The literature has been divided into the following four topics: (1)
school finance in California, (2) educational adequacy, (3) resource use, and (4) effective
practices for improving performance at the school level.
School Finance in California
The State of California has been one of the nation’s leaders in the development of
a system that aligns curriculum with student performance standards, yet the state has not
aligned its finance system to support this reform effort (Kirst et al, 2007). This section
will provide an overview of how schools are funded in California and discuss research
that lays out strategies for modifying the current finance system in this state.
How California Schools are Funded
The current school funding system in California was shaped by three independent
efforts; the Serrano v. Priest court ruling, Proposition 13 and Proposition 98 (Timar,
2003; Timar, 2004; Grubb et al., 2004; Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). The Serranov v.
Priest ruling called for equalization across school districts (Timar, 2004). Proposition 13
limits the local property tax rate thereby limiting the amount of local revenue available to
schools. As districts have no other major source of revenue, Proposition 13 led to district
15
reliance on state funding (Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). Proposition 98 was designed to
stabilize school funding by providing school districts with a minimum of about forty
percent of the state’s General Fund budget (Kirst et al., 2007). While Proposition 98 was
intended to provide a guaranteed funding based, it has also become a type of funding cap
for K-12 funding (Timar, 2004). Timar (2004) reports that state legislatures are reluctant
to give too much unrestricted money to school districts. He continues that during fiscally
sound years when there is an “abundance” of monies, the state allocates the extra money
to categorical programs so as not to include it in the General Fund budget.
The State of California has more categorical funding programs than any other
state in the nation (Kirst et al., 2007). In 2004-2005 the California Department of
Education listed just over two hundred state and federal categorical programs that
represent nearly forty percent of what California spends on its schools (Grubb et al.,
2004). Timar (2006) describes four main types of categorical programs that are prevalent
in California. These categorical programs include entitlement programs, incentive
programs, discretionary programs, and mandated cost reimbursement programs.
Entitlement programs typically derive from legal and political arenas. Programs for
English learner students, students identified as socio-economically disadvantaged and
students with special needs are typically funded through entitlement programs. Incentive
programs are designed to encourage districts to participate in an identified program or
practice by providing funds for it. An example of an incentive program in California is
the Class Size Reduction (CSR) program. Districts that participate in this categorical
16
program must maintain strict class size requirements or face state penalties (Timar,
2006). Discretionary programs typically require districts to apply for a grant in order to
be considered for extra funds that must be applied toward specific programs identified by
the state. Examples of discretionary programs include High Priority Schools Grants
Program (HPSGP) and Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID).
Discretionary programs are often funded for a specified time and districts are left to
figure out how to continue a program or service using other funding sources (Timar,
2006). Mandated cost reimbursement is called for by the California Constitution (Article
XIIIB, Section 6) that the state reimburse districts for the cost or increased cost of
program that is mandated by statute or executive order (Timar, 2006). Mandated cost
reimbursement includes reimbursing districts for the cost of development and
implementation of Safe School Plans, Accountability Report Cards and more. This is an
unpredictable source of funding for schools. Both the 2003 Budget Act and the 2004
Budget Act deferred reimbursements to school districts (Timar, 2006).
Categorical programs are major funding source for California schools, but these
programs do not necessarily work with one another to support school program
improvement. Timar (2006) suggests that these programs actually work to
compartmentalize schools rather than allow schools to build one unified effort toward
improving learning for all students. Grubb, Goe and Huerta (2004) agree. They assert that
categorical programs are developed in isolation from one another and are not conducive
to creating school programs that ensure all students learn.
17
The combination of Serrano v. Priest, Proposition 13, Proposition 98, and the
reliance on categorical funding has left California with a disconcerted system for
financing its schools. Koski and Weis (2004) state that California does not align school
funding with school improvement. These authors recommend that California align its
funding system with its accountability system in order to ensure schools will receive the
resources they need to ensure students meet performance standards.
Recent Research and Recommendations for Improving California School Finance
In April 2005 California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, established the
Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence. This committee was charged with
analyzing current impediments to excellence in education, explore ideas and best
practices relevant to California, and recommend changes and reforms to improve
education in this state (Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence, 2007). The
committee identified the following four areas on which to focus: teacher and
administrators, finance, governance and accountability, and data. In order to complete
these tasks, the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence, the California
Legislature, the Secretary of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction
together requested a research project known as “Getting Down to Facts” (IREPP, 2007).
This research project resulted in more than twenty studies that cover the areas of school
finance, governance and structure, personnel, data systems, and adequacy.
18
The finance studies report that California does not fund its schools in a systemic
manner that supports the state’s accountability system (Timar, 2007; Kirst, et al. 2007;
Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). One study that focuses on governance and structural issues
found that California’s governance system is complex and needs to be simplified (Brewer
et al., 2007). The authors recommend that this system should be changed overtime with
an emphasis placed on developing leadership at the local and giving districts greater
authority over decision-making and more flexibility with regards to resources. The
“Getting Down to Facts” personnel studies focus on high quality teachers and effective
school leaders. These studies report that schools with high numbers of struggling student
populations face difficulty in recruiting and retaining high quality teachers (Loeb &
Miller, 2007; Koski & Horng, 2007). Recommendations include adjusting salary
schedules to allow salary increases for participation in professional development for
teaching at schools located in “high need” areas. Darling-Hammond and Orphanos (2007)
recommend a state-wide implementation of a comprehensive professional development
program for principals that emphasizes teaching and learning, data analysis, change
management, and leadership skills. The “Getting Down to Facts” project includes two
studies that look at data and information systems. Both studies articulate a need for
making data systems comprehensive, accessible, track students over time, track teachers
over time, and link resource use with student performance (Hansen, 2007; Oberman et
al., 2007). The adequacy studies that comprise the “Getting Down to Facts” project will
be discussed at length in the next section. However, it should be noted that collectively
19
the adequacy studies suggest that the current finance system under funds districts and
schools that serve “high need” student populations (Imazeki, 2007; Chambers et al.,
2007; Sonstelie, 2007).
Overall, the “Getting Down to Facts” studies reveal that California falls short in
each of the four focus areas identified by the Governor’s Committee for Education
Excellence (GCEE): teacher and administrators, finance, governance and accountability,
and data (GCEE report, 2007). In November 2007 this committee released a technical
report, Students First: Renewing Hope for California’s Future, which makes detailed
recommendations to California leaders. These recommendations include: (1)
strengthening teaching and leadership by creating a students-first philosophy in schools,
enhancing leadership, creating incentive programs for teachers and principals, and taking
a proactive stance in the recruitment of quality teachers, (2) ensuring fair funding that
rewards results by transitioning to a student-centered funding model that provides
additional resources for students that need the most help, (3) streamlining governance and
strengthen accountability by deregulating the current system and promotes local
autonomy, (4) improving data systems and use them wisely by creating systems that link,
student, teacher, school, district, and state data, and (5) creating a foundation for
continuous improvement by adopting a universal preschool program and expanding full-
day kindergarten (GCEE report, 2007).
The recommendations highlighted in the Governor’s Committee for Education
Excellence report are both comprehensive and ambitious. It is unclear whether any of
20
these recommendations will be implemented in the near future. At this time, schools in
California will need to work within the current system to meet the needs of their students.
The question is: Do schools have an adequate amount of resources to ensure all students
achieve proficiency on state standards?
Educational Adequacy
The concept of adequate funding for education stems from the standards-based
education reform movement and the debate over whether differences in amounts of
resources lead to differences in educational outputs (Odden, 2003). Lee and Wong (2004)
state that standards-based reform movements have increased accountability for schools
without ensuring schools receive adequate support. In the context of education finance,
adequate funding is defined as the amount of funding schools need in order to ensure all
students achieve proficiency targets (Odden, 2003; Baker, 2005; Clune, 1994; Rebell,
2007). One fundamental difference between the concept of equity in school finance and
the concept of adequacy in school finance is the focus on all students rather than special
groups of students. Rice (2004) describes adequacy as the link between equality and
efficiency. She states that the premise of adequacy is to ensure fair distribution of
resources so that all students have the opportunity to learn specified standards.
Recognizing that differences in needs of students require differentiation of resources,
Baker (2005) contends that educational adequacy is made up of two components:
absolute standards of adequacy and relative standards of adequacy. Absolute standards
of adequacy relate to the overall level of funding associated with the overall level of
21
desired student outcomes. Relative standards of adequacy concern the differences in cost
associated with ensuring students with special or different needs meet proficiency targets.
Over the past decade several states have been mandated by court decisions to
utilize adequacy studies as tools to identify how much it costs to educate students to a
specified proficiency level (Clune 1994; Odden, 2003; Hanushek, 2006; Rebell, 2007).
Hanushek (2006) contends that the abundance of adequacy studies across the nation is
due to poor court decisions. He argues that courts are overstepping their boundaries by
creating policy rather than enforcing the constitution. Hanushek further argues that
adequacy studies are unreliable because it is impossible to identify what specific
combinations of resources will increase student achievement, the studies are political
rather than scientific, and the studies are based on the idea that more of the same will
result in improvement. Finally, Hanushek recommends fundamental changes in schools
such as: stronger accountability systems, incentives to improve performance and ensuring
that the operation of schools is transparent so that all stakeholders can easily see how
resources are utilized.
Baker (2005) holds a different opinion of adequacy models. He asserts that the
use of adequacy models to determine education funding is an improvement over existing
policies for funding schools. Further, Ladd and Hansen (1999) claim that the new
emphasis on adequacy represents a fundamental change as school finance now focuses on
how fiscal inputs are linked to outputs. Odden (2003) points out that a school finance
system will only meet adequacy requirements by identifying an appropriate expenditure
22
level for a typical student and requiring districts to manage resources in a way that
ensures student learning.
Four different methodologies have been used to estimate adequate funding levels
needed to achieve specified performance goals: 1) the successful district approach, 2) the
cost function approach, 3) the professional judgment approach, and 4) the evidence-based
approach (Guthrie & Rothstein, 1999; Loeb, 2007; Odden & Picus, 2008). Each approach
comes with a body of research that describes its strengths and weaknesses.
Successful District Approach
The successful district approach has also been referred to as the beating-the-odds
approach. The premise of this methodology is to identify districts that have achieved
identified goals then estimate the cost of providing those services to all schools across the
state. Proponents of the successful districts method assert that it is an approach policy
makers can easily understand. For this approach to work, analysts must account for
differences across districts and for differences across schools within districts (Loeb,
2007). Loeb (2007) states that researchers must identify the differences in student
populations and make adjustments for these variations. The successful district approach
has been implemented in several states including Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio (Loeb, 2007).
A beating-the-odds adequacy study was conducted in California as part of the
Getting Down to Facts project. Perez et al., (2007) identified sixty-one elementary
schools, seven middle schools and thirty-five high schools as beating-the-odds (BTO)
23
with regard to student achievement based on California Standards Test (CST) scores in
English language arts and math. They compared these schools to that were identified as
low-performing (LP) using the same measure. Researchers then used financial data from
the 2004-2005 Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS) to analyze spending and
2004-2005 CST data to analyze achievement. The authors found no relationship between
school resources and academic success except when comparing high-poverty BTO
schools to high-poverty LP schools. In this case, the authors found that the BTO schools
spent about $266 more per student than the LP schools. This study is weakened by the
fact that district level financial data rather than school level financial data was analyzed;
and it is unknown whether the researchers made adjustments for variations in student
populations across schools.
Quite a few shortcomings are associated with the successful districts approach to
determining adequacy. Odden (2003) reports that it is difficult to relate the financial
needs of large, urban districts to those of small, rural districts even after adjustments are
made to account for their differences. Loeb (2007) believes that it is not easy to identify
effective schools. Schools may serve populations that have needs that are not easy to
identify with available data and their populations may change from year to year.
Addonizio (2003) feels analysts who employ the successful districts approach do not
control enough for variations across schools and districts. Finally, how success is defined
may vary from one study to the next and often schools and districts that are doing well
have few high-need students (Verstegen, 2007).
24
The Cost Function Approach
The cost function approach uses data on district spending and student
achievement data to determine costs for reaching standards (Loeb, 2007). A cost function
study would attempt to uncover how much an identified school district would need to
spend relative to the average district to ensure students achieve a set performance target
(Rebell, 2007). Cost function studies require an immense amount of data on per-pupil
expenditures, student performance and the characteristics of school districts in order to
produce an accurate estimate of the relationship between resources and educational
outputs (Verstegan, 2007; Rebell, 2007; Loeb, 2007).
Imazeki (2007) employed the econometric cost function approach for a study that
was part of the Getting Down to Facts project in California. Imazeki collected district
level spending data based on the general fund for the 2004-2005 school year, student
demographic data, the number of students enrolled in high school for each district,
enrollment data for each district, 2004-2005 student performance data for each district.
Imazeki’s cost function analysis of the data estimates that California school districts will
need up to $1.7 billion dollars more to achieve state API goals. Imazeki concludes that
the cost function analysis indicates that schools with the highest needs in California are
under-funded by the current system of school finance.
There is much criticism of the cost-function approach to adequacy. The widely
varying cost estimates that cost-function analyses produce weaken confidence in study
findings (Verstegen, 2007). Cost-function studies can only work when they are linked to
25
one or two performance targets (Addonizio, 2003; Hanushek, 2006). This approach
provides district-level rather than school-level analysis (Odden, 2003; Loeb 2007).
Finally, this method is very hard for policy makers, practitioners and the general public to
understand (Loeb, 2007).
The Professional Judgment Approach
The professional judgment approach is one of the most common adequacy models
for estimating educational costs. This approach calls for input from qualified practitioners
who hold knowledge in the areas of effective educational strategies and resource use in
order to identify a set of resources needed to educate students to a specified standard.
Analysts then assign costs to each resource or strategy, adjust for variation in school size
and student population and calculate the expenditure level needed to ensure all students
reach the identified performance target (Odden, 2003; Loeb, 2007; Rebell, 2007). Studies
using the professional judgment approach may collect data using professional panels,
randomized surveys or a combination of both (Loeb, 2007). Experts in the field of
education are given a predetermined achievement target, and then asked to lay out all the
resources they believe are needed in order to reach that target. The costs associated with
the identified resources are calculated and adjusted using geographic price indices to
ensure that the expenditure level is adequate for various types of schools across the state
(Odden, 2003). One distinct advantage to using the professional judgment approach for
estimating costs is the identification of effective educational strategies needed at the
school-site level to produce student achievement (Odden, 2003).
26
Chambers, Levin and Parrish (2006) conducted a professional judgment adequacy
study in New York in order to estimate what it costs to provide all New York public
school children with a full opportunity to meet the state’s learning standards. This
research team identified schools that were considered beating-the-odds and recruited their
panel members from these schools. The study involved fifty-six educators who worked
for over a period of fifteen months to estimate the cost to provide an adequate level of
resources. Based on the findings from this study, the researchers determined that most
districts in New York were not receiving an adequate level of funding. In fact, they
estimated that the State of New York would need to increase education funding from
$31.71 billion to almost $40 billion in order to achieve adequacy (Chambers et al., 2006).
The Getting Down to Facts project in California included two studies that used
the professional judgment approach for estimating an adequate level of resources. The
first study was conducted by Chambers, Levin and DeLancey (2007) using a panel
approach. The researchers created two expert panels made up of nine educators. Each
panel included a superintendent, principals from each level (elementary, middle and
high), a classroom teacher, a special educator, a business specialist, and an English
learner specialist (Chambers et al., 2007). The panels had three days to design an
instructional program for average schools that would ensure all students have the
opportunity to meet the learning outcomes identified by the State of California. The
researchers found that both panels would substantially change the instructional program
currently implemented in most schools. Examples of program modifications include
27
lengthening the instructional year, reducing class size, implementing preschool programs
and more. Based on their findings, Chambers. Levin and DeLancey report California
would need to spend and additional $24.14 to $32.01 billion to ensure all students have
the opportunity to meet California’s rigorous content standards.
The second professional judgment study surveyed over five hundred randomly
selected California public school teachers, principals and superintendents (Sonstelie,
2007). The researcher presented participants with a hypothetical school that was based on
the actual where the participant was employed at the time. Participants were asked to use
an online budget simulator to indicate how they would allocate resources within a given
budget. They were also asked to state what educational outcomes they would expect
given the way resources they allocated their resources. Sonstelie used the data collected
from this study to estimate that a funding increase of at least forty percent is needed for
California schools to meet current achievement expectations.
Professional judgment studies are not without criticism. Loeb (2007) contends
that the studies rely solely on the opinions of people who come with different
backgrounds, experiences and agendas. She goes on to assert that when given unlimited
budgets, panels may allocate resources based on what they want rather than what is
needed. Addonizio (2003) finds that educators often disagree on what it takes to educate
students to certain levels. Hanushek (2006) believes that some educators lack the
expertise to be qualified participants in professional judgment panels. Other researchers
28
argue that professional judgment needs to be validated by combining the opinions of
expert panel members with what research identifies as best practice (Verstegen, 2007).
The Evidence-based Approach
The evidence-based approach to determining adequate school funding is a
model that identifies a set of school-level components that are needed to deliver a high
quality education program (Odden, 2003; Odden et al., 2006). Odden (2003) reports this
approach to more directly identify the educational strategies that produce high
achievement than other adequacy models. He also states that this particular model can
help guide schools to use resources in effective ways (Odden, 2003). Picus (2004) reports
a major advantage of the evidence-based approach to be its reliance on the growing
research base about what strategies and programs have been successful in schools to
improve student learning. According to Loeb (2007) and Verstegen (2007) the evidence-
based approach allows analysts to identify a set of strategies that lead to increased student
achievement and aggregate the costs of implementing the strategies to determine
adequate levels of funding.
The evidence-based approach draws research from randomized trials, quasi-
experimental designs and meta-analyses to identify effective practices that lead to high
levels of student performance (Odden & Picus, 2008). Researchers who employ the
evidence-based model articulate ten key components for improving performance: (1)
conduct a needs assessment, (2) set high goals for student performance, (3) adopt a
rigorous, standards-based curriculum, (4) commit data-driven decision making, (5) invest
29
in on-going and effective professional development, (6) focus instructional time
efficiently, (7) provide multiple interventions for struggling students, (8) create
professional learning communities, (9) empower leaders to support instructional
improvement, and (10) family engagement (Odden et al., 2008). The researchers who
developed and use this approach to conduct adequacy studies in various states set up
prototypical elementary, middle and high schools to identify the educational staffing and
other resources that would be adequate for schools to educate their students to
performance standards (Odden & Picus, 2008). Figure 2.1 displays an example of the
resources the evidence-based school funding model deems necessary to ensure students
achieve to high levels.
30
Figure 2.1
As Figure 2.1 shows, the evidence-based funding model calls for every school to
have access to core resources such as smaller class size in core-academic classes, teacher
specialists, administration, technology, and instructional materials. The model then
adjusts to provide struggling students support via certified tutors, teacher specialists, and
extended learning opportunities. Continuous instructional improvement is supported by
In stru c tio n a l
M a te ria ls
P u p il S u p p o rt:
P a re n t/C o m m un ity
O u tre a c h/
In vo lve m e n t
G ifte d
T uto rs and p up il support:
1 per 10 0 at risk
E le m
2 0 %
M id d le
2 0 %
H ig h S c h o o l 3 3 %
T h e E vide n c e B a se d M o d e l: T h e E vide n c e B a se d M o d e l: T h e E vide n c e B a se d M o d e l: T h e E vide n c e B a se d M o d e l:
A R es earc h D riv en A p p ro ac h to L in kin g R e so u rc es to S tu d en t P e rfo rm a n ce
K -3 : 1 5 to 1
4 -12 : 2 5 to 1
S ta te a n d C E S A s
D istric t A d m in
S ite -b a se d L ea d e rsh ip
T e a c h e r
C o m pe n sa tio n
E L L
1 per
10 0
T e c h n o lo g y
Modified from Picus, L.O, Odden, A., Aportela, A Mangan, M.T. and Goetz, M.
(2008).
31
the provision for ten extra duty days to allow teachers to attend professional
development, and the provision of instructional coaches to support professional
development throughout the school year.
The evidence-based adequacy model has been used in several states including
Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Kentucky
(Odden et al., 2008). Recently, the State of Wyoming adopted the evidence-based model
as the basis for financing its schools. Under this formula, schools in Wyoming receive an
adequate amount of resources to implement the strategies outlined in the evidence-based
model. After allocating the money as recommended by the evidence-based model, the
Wyoming legislature requested a report on how schools are actually using the funds
(Picus et al. 2008). Picus, Odden, Aportela, Mangan, andGoertz (2008) conducted a study
about one year after the State of Wyoming recalibrated its school finance program in
order to provide Wyoming schools the level of resources required to implement the
strategies detailed in the evidence-based model. These authors found overall that schools
in Wyoming were using resources in a considerably different manner than called for by
the funding model (Picus et al, 2008). Specifically, they found fewer core teachers, fewer
certified tutors, more instructional aides, and less pupil support (Picus et al. 2008). While
these findings show that overall schools in Wyoming are not using funds as prescribed by
the evidence-based model, it should be considered that the study was conducted only a
year after a fundamental change in the state’s school finance system. In education, it
32
typically takes more than one year to implement deep and fundamental change in practice
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
Hanushek (2006) criticizes the evidence-based model stating that it does not
consider all research and therefore cannot be generalized across all schools. Loeb (2007)
and Verstegen (2007) state that while the evidence-based model is one of the only
adequacy models that costs out resources at the school level, its research base is not
strong enough to support it. They believe that not enough conclusive evidence exists
about education strategies, interventions and reforms. This premise is disputed by the
growing body of research on effective practices for improving instructional programs at
the school level.
In terms of educational adequacy, it is important to consider not just what
resources and funds are available to schools, but how schools use the resources that are
available to them (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Resource Use
Even after accounting for inflation, revenues for education have increased
consistently each decade over the past one hundred years (Odden & Picus, 2008). Odden
and Picus report that though money for education increased, most new monies have not
been used to strengthen the instructional program in the regular classroom. In order to
provide a context for resource use in education, this section will open with an overview
of the theory of fiscal federalism, and then will cover how education resource use has
33
changed over time, how resources have been tracked at the school level, and how
resources have been allocated following school reform efforts.
Fiscal Federalism
The theory of fiscal federalism addresses the notion of how resources are used at
the local level when funds are received through block grant (unrestricted) programs
(Oates, 1999). The concept behind this theory suggests that no predication can be made
for how local school districts will utilize educational dollars unless usage restrictions
come with the funds (Picus et al., 2008). Consequently, legislatures should not expect
educational dollars to be used in a common, systematic manner when school funding is
provided through block grant programs (Picus et al., 2008). The theory of fiscal
federalism could be one reason why schools in California receive almost one-third of
their monies through categorical programs (Grubb, et al., 2004).
Educational Resource Use Over Time
Education expenditures are categorized into a set of functions (Odden & Picus,
2008). According to Odden and Picus the most common expenditure functions are:
instruction, instructional staff services, administration (school site and central office),
student support, operation and maintenance, transportation, food services, and other.
Odden and Picus report that the expenditure function for instruction includes all resources
that are used for providing instruction to students. According to the authors, these include
teacher and instructional aide salary and benefits, instructional materials and supplies,
books, purchased services and more. The authors further indicate that this function often
34
includes teachers for non-core classes, instructional coaches and services for special
needs students (Odden & Picus, 2008). The wide range of instructional components that
are included within this function has the potential to give misleading information about
school expenditures. Using these expenditure categories, Odden and Picus analyzed
expenditures by function across the nation and found that while overall revenues
increased over time, the proportion of funds spent in each expenditure function remained
about the same.
In an effort to understand growth in educational spending over time, Hanushek
and Rivkin (1997) conducted a study that looked back over the past one hundred years of
educational resource use. These authors found that dollars per pupil increased by about
3.5% each year from 1980 to 1990. Factors that explain this increase include increasing
costs of instructional staff, declining pupil-teacher ratios and rising costs of non-
instructional staff (Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997).
Picus (1991) investigated the use of resources that resulted from incentive funding
programs in California. His study focused on indirect incentives offered to school
districts in California between 1980 and 1986. These incentives were designed to
encourage districts to implement longer instructional days and increase salaries received
by beginning teachers. Picus found that almost every district provided the number of
instructional minutes called for by the incentive legislations, but only about half the
districts increased beginning teacher salaries. A key finding by reported by Picus (1991)
35
was that after the first year the State of California rolled incentive monies back into the
general revenue limit and districts reverted back to their previous spending patterns.
Studies conducted during the 1990’s have shown common patterns for how
districts and schools have been using educational funds (Picus, 1994; Lankford &
Wyckoff, 1995; Odden et al., 1995; Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997). These studies reveal that
new monies have consistently been used for increasing teacher salaries, paying for
employee health benefits, and supporting special education programs. One study
examined spending patterns across districts in the United States and found that across the
board schools were not using educational dollars in effective ways to support student
learning (Odden et al., 1995). Additional research shows an increase in the numbers of
non-core instructional staff following increases in revenues (Odden & Massy, 1992).
While the much of the increase in school expenditures over time fell within the
expenditure function of instruction, a small proportion of the money was spent on
improving instruction in core-academic areas such as language arts, mathematics,
science, social science, and world languages (Odden & Picus, 2008). The authors
conclude that this could by why increases in education funding over the years have not
led to substantial increases in student achievement.
Tracking Resource Use at the School Level
As concern over how educational dollars were being used to support student
achievement grew, interest in how expenditures are reported at the school-site level
increased (Odden et al., 2003). Hartman, Bolton and Monk (2001) identify two systems
36
for reporting expenditures and the school level. The first system is labeled as the
accounting approach. The accounting approach uses the present district accounting
system to report expenditures by individual schools (Hartman et al., 2001). According to
the authors, this approach focuses on expenditures rather than student or staff data, and
expenditures are often reported by function codes that are numerical. The second system
for reporting expenditures at the site level is labeled as the resource cost model (RCM)
approach (Hartman et al., 2001). The RCM approach uses an economic base to establish
costs for providing resources and uses a formal method for transforming physical
resources into appropriate costs (Hartman et al., 2001). Hartman, Bolton and Monk
(2001) identify the following steps that are needed to implement the RCM approach:
1. Specify the structure of the service delivery system and types of individual
ingredients that will be required (teachers, books, etc.).
2. Quantify these resources (full-time, part-time, etc.).
3. Assign a price to each ingredient.
4. Use the price data to aggregate resources across the entire program to
determine its overall cost.
The RCM approach requires data to be collected on each component of the delivery
system. For example, to measure the cost of an intervention program, data must be
collected on costs of teachers, materials, facilities, and any other component that makes
up the intervention (Hartman et al., 2001).
37
Goertz and Stiefel (1998) argue for using an accounting approach to track
resources at the site level, while others (Chambers & Parrish, 1994) argue for the RCM
approach. Chambers and Parrish (1994) believe the RCM approach to offer more
information on how schools are staffed, what materials are used to support learning, and
what interventions are provided to students than the expenditure-based accounting
approach.
Hartman, Bolton and Monk (2001) recommend combining the accounting
approach with the RCM approach to report school-level expenditure. These authors
believe this is the most effective way to obtain accurate information of school-level data.
Hartman, Bolton and Monk report this can be accomplished by:
1. Using the accounting approach to report school-level expenditures and the
RCM approach to report spending on direct staff resources.
2. Applying the accounting approach to report student-level expenditures and
the RCM approach to report numbers and demographics of students who
participate in various programs.
The authors admit that this synthesis has not been tested in schools at the time the article
was written, and most states continue to use an accounting approach for reporting school
expenditures (Hartman et al, 2001).
Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) present a third way to report
expenditures at the school-site level. These authors propose an expenditure structure that
(1) identifies a set of resource indicators that provide insight into a school’s priorities and
38
instructional strategies, and (2) classifies the school expenditure data according to nine
elements that are categorized as either instructional or non-instructional. Odden et al.
identify the nine elements as core academic teachers, specialists and elective teachers,
extra help, professional development, other non- classroom instructional staff,
instructional materials and equipment, student support, administration, and operations
and maintenance. A visual of the Odden et al. expenditure structure can be seen in Figure
2.2.
39
Figure 2.2
SCHOOL EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE AND RESOURCE INDICATORS
School Building Size
School Unit Size
Percent Low Income
Percent Special Education
Percent ESL/LEP
Expenditures Per Pupil
Professional Development
Expenditures Per Teacher
Special Academic Focus of
School/Unit
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods
Length of Reading Class (Elementary)
Length of Mathematics Class (Elementary)
Reading Class Size (Elementary)
Mathematics Class Size (Elementary)
Regular Class Size (Elementary)
Length of Core* Class Periods (Secondary)
Core Class Size (Secondary)
Percent Core Teachers
*Math, English/LA, Science, & Social Studies
School Expenditure Structure
Instructional 1. Core Academic Teachers
- English/ Reading/ Language Arts
- Math
2. Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Preparation
- Art, music, physical education. etc.
- Academic Focus with or without Special Funding
- Librarians
3. Extra Help
- Tutors
- Resource Rooms (Title 1. special education or other part-day pullout
programs)
- Inclusion Teachers
- Special Education self-contained classes for severely disabled students
(Including aides)
- Extended Day and Summer School
- District-Initiated Alternative Programs
4. Professional Development
- Teacher Time - Substitutes and Stipends
- Trainers and Coaches
- Administration
- Materials, Equipment and Facilities
- Travel & Transportation
- Tuition and Conference Fees
5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff
- Coordinators and Teachers on Special Assignment
- Building Substitutes and Other Substitutes
- Instructional Aides
6. Instructional Materials and Equipment
- Supplies, Materials and Equipment
- Computers (hardware, software, peripherals)
7. Student Support
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social Workers
- Extra-Curricular and Athletics
Non-Instructional 8. Administration
Figure reprinted from Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003)
40
Odden and his colleagues provide a detailed description of each element as follows:
1. Core academic teachers: Core academic teachers are licensed classroom
teachers primarily responsible for teaching a schools’ academic subjects of
reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science, social science, and
world languages. At the secondary level, core teachers also include
teachers of ESL/bilingual programs and special education teachers.
2. Specialists and elective teachers: Specialists and elective teachers are
licensed teachers who teach non-core academic classes, and may provide
planning and preparation time for core academic teachers. Examples on
non-core teachers include:
a. Specialists teachers, such as art, music, and physical education
teachers who usually provide regular classroom teachers with planning
and preparation time.
b. Teachers who provide instruction in a subject area that represent the
special academic focus of a school. For examples, if a school offers a
foreign language magnet program, the foreign language teachers
would fall into this category.
c. Vocational education teachers such as graphic design teachers and
auto mechanics teachers.
d. Drivers education teachers.
e. Licensed librarians and media specialists.
41
3. Extra help: Extra help is included in one of the seven instructional
elements in the expenditure structure. Odden et al. (2003) define extra
help as licensed teachers who draw from a wide variety of strategies to
assist struggling students, or students with special needs, to learn a
school’s regular curriculum. In this case, the educational strategies these
teachers provide are supplemental to the instruction in the regular
classroom. Extra help strategies include:
a. Tutors who are licensed teachers and provide one-on-one help to
students. Tutoring is most often used in elementary schools.
b. Extra help laboratories, which typically provide extra help in reading
and mathematics for student struggling to meet academic performance
standards through additional classes. These types of extra help classes
are usually found in secondary schools.
c. Resource rooms that provide small groups of students with extra help,
usually remedial reading or remedial mathematics that are not directly
related to the school’s regular curriculum or standards. Resource
rooms have been the typical use of compensatory, English learner and
special education funds.
d. Inclusion teachers who assist regular classroom teachers with
mainstreamed students who have physical or mental disabilities, or
42
some learning problem. Typically these students have less severe
disabilities.
e. Teachers of English as a second language who work with non-English
speaking students to teach them English.
f. Self-contained special education classrooms in which teachers and
instructional aides work with severely disabled students for most or all
of the day.
g. Extended day or summer programs that provide students with
additional instructional time to achieve the standards in the regular
curriculum.
h. District alternative programs that are located in a school. These
programs serve students who have trouble learning in traditional
classrooms. While these programs are often administratively and
instructionally separate from the host school, they may be located in
the school building or reported as a part of the school’s operating
budget.
4. Professional development: The professional development expenditure
element includes spending on the professional development of a school’s
staff. The expenditures include the costs of teacher time for professional
development; trainers and coaches; professional development
administration; materials; equipment and facilities; travel and
43
transportation; and tuition and conferences fees (see Odden, Archibald,
Fermanich, and Gallagher, 2002 for more information on the details of the
expenditure elements of professional development).
5. Other non-classroom instructional staff: This expenditure element includes
licensed and non-licensed instructional staffs that support a school’s
instructional program. These include program coordinators, curriculum
and technology coordinators, substitutes, and instructional aides other than
those working in self-contained special education classrooms
6. Instructional materials and equipment: This category includes books,
instructional supplies, materials, equipment, and computer hardware and
software for all instructional programs, including regular education and all
extra help programs.
7. Student support: Student support is the final instructional element of the
expenditure structure. Student support consists of school-based support
staff such as counselors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, attendance
monitors, community liaisons, as well as school expenditures for extra-
curricular activities and athletics.
8. Administration: Administration is the first non-instructional expenditure
element. Administration consists of all the expenditures pertaining to the
administration of a school, including the principal, assistant principal(s),
44
clerical staff, administrative office supplies, equipment and technology,
and school reserve funds.
9. Operations and maintenance: This is the second non-instructional
expenditure element. Operation and maintenance includes the cost of staff,
supplies, and equipment for custodial services, food services, and security,
as well as utilities and building and grounds maintenance that is charged to
a school.
According to Odden et al. (2003) the costs of core academic teachers and other
staff costs are estimated by multiplying the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers
or staff in the expenditure element by the salary plus fringe benefits for their personnel
category.
Odden et al. (2003) conducted a study that tested this expenditure model in
selection of elementary and secondary schools that provided a variety of size, expenditure
level, educational strategies, and student demographics. The researchers concluded that
use of this expenditure model provided deep insight into how resources were actually
used at the site level for both instructional and non-instructional practices. Further, Odden
and his colleagues report the resource indicators that are included in this expenditure
structure to provide in-depth detail about a school’s core class size, percent core teachers,
length of the instructional day and length of core classes which together tell a story about
a school’s instructional practices that would not be available from fiscal data alone.
45
This school expenditure and resource indicator model has been used in conjunction with
the evidence-based model in several states to report how schools are using educational
funds (Picus et al., 2008).
Resource Allocation Following School Reform Initiatives
Have education reform efforts impacted the way schools allocate resources?
Adams (1994) studied four districts in Kentucky following school finance reform and
found minimal change. He found that per-pupil spending increased in all four districts
with a profound increase in high-poverty districts. However, a study of expenditure
patterns across the districts showed only slight increases in spending in the area of
instruction. Adams also found that each district increased salaries, increased spending in
the area of professional development and more money was used for supplies, equipment
and facilities than prior to reform.
Firestone, Goertz, Nagle, and Smelkinson (1994) found similar results in a study
of how expenditures changed following school finance reform in New Jersey. This
particular finance reform came with requirement for schools to implement an educational
improvement plan. Firestone et al. examined spending patterns in eleven districts. They
found that additional funds were used to pay personnel expenses, purchase materials and
supplies, pay for facilities, and fund program changes. These researchers found that high-
poverty districts received substantially more funds than they previously had and used
these funds to improve facilities and restore programs that had been cut.
46
Miles and Darling-Hammond (1997) looked at how high-performing schools were
allocating their resources after reform efforts were implemented in Boston. These
researchers studied five schools and found that resources were being allocated in
innovative ways to improve instruction. At the elementary level, Miles and Darling-
Hammond report monies were allocated to support flexible student groupings during core
academic instruction. They also found that structures were created to support the creation
of personal relationships and provide for common planning time. At the elementary level,
funds were utilized to support the redefinition of employee roles and their workday
(Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1997). The authors report similar findings for resource
allocation at the secondary level. A key difference reported at the secondary level was the
use of resources to support longer and more varied blocks of instructional time for core
classes. Miles and Darling-Hammond concluded that all schools in the study redesigned
the way they allocate resources to meet the needs of their students and to create time for
teachers to meet together for collaborative purposes. Further, these authors found a
connection between resource allocation and the instructional vision at each school site.
Hannaway, McKay and Nakib (2002) also questioned how allocation of resources
changed after education reform. These authors first looked at spending patterns across the
nation. They found a steady increase of expenditure between 1992 and 1997, but only
slight increases in spending for instructional purposes. These researchers found the most
increases for instructional programs in areas with high-poverty populations and for to
47
support special education programs. Overall, Hannaway et al. found little correlation
between resource use and education reform.
Goe (2006) studied schools in California that received additional funds as part of
the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II-USP). These
additional funds were to be allocated in order to improve the instructional program of
schools participating in II/USP. Goe selected schools and studied them for several years.
She reports using interview data, observation data and expenditure data to determine how
the schools allocated their resources to improve instruction. Goe found that every school
in the case study had difficulty spending the additional funds as intended. She asserts that
the additional money may have made a difference if the funds came with a road map on
how to allocate resources to support improvement. She further argues that in some cases,
state and district policies hindered school administration from utilizing the funds in an
effective manner at their school site.
Loeb, Grissom and Strunk (2007) used California’s Standardized Account Code
Structure (SACS) to examine expenditure patterns in districts across the State. These
authors found the types of expenditures made across districts to be similar. Loeb et al.
report personnel expenditures are by far the largest spending category for every district.
They also found that districts spend a substantial amount of money on special education
programs. Other expenditure patterns that were similar across all the districts had to do
with per-pupil spending on services that are not directly related to instruction such as
transportation, guidance and counseling and health services. Further, Loeb et al. found
48
that urban districts and high-poverty districts have hire expenditure levels overall,
especially in the areas of employee salaries and special education. The authors found
substantial differences in spending patterns in the urban and high-poverty districts, but
report that the differences are not readily apparent. Finally, Loeb et al. found that per-
pupil spending is considerably lower in California as compared to other states. This
results in higher student-teacher ratios, lower teacher salary (when cost of living has been
computed) and fewer administrators at the school-site level.
Loeb’s (2007) findings raise the question of whether or not more money would
make a difference for California schools. The question: Does money matter? has been the
center of an on-going debate and controversy among researchers and academics
(Jefferson, 2005). For example, Hedges, Laine and Greenwald (1994) and Hanushek
(1994) engaged in a dialogue regarding money and student achievement. Hedges et al.
(1994) challenged Hanushek’s (1989) conclusion that “there is no strong or systematic
relationship between school expenditures and student performance” (p. 47). Therefore,
these authors reanalyzed Hanushek’s work and reported problems with his methodology.
In their analysis of the literature, Hedges et al. found that a relationship exists between
educational input (money) and output (student achievement). Thus, these authors
concluded that money does matter. Hanushek (1994) in response to Hedges et al. claimed
that Hedges, Laine and Greenwald’s findings were misleading. Hanushek argued that
Hedges et al. focused on weaker studies in the collection rather than the studies that
focused on individual students and individual classroom teachers. Hanushek stated that
49
these were the studies that focused on accurate descriptions of the resource expenditures
for each student. Hanushek (1994) further argued that the work of Hedges et al. could
confuse policymakers into “believing that throwing more money at schools is effective”
(p. 8). Hanushek concluded his response to Hedges et al. by indicating that more serious
reform efforts are needed to improve public schools. Picus (2000) adds a different aspect
to the debate by suggesting that schools need to look into how current resources can be
restructured to support reform before seeking additional funds. Odden and Archibald
(2000) concur with Picus. These authors propose that current resources can and should be
used more effectively to support implementation of best practices for school reform
(Odden & Archibald, 2000). While the debate over whether more money matters in terms
of education reform may never be resolved, researchers and academics agree schools
need to allocate current resources in ways that support practices and programs research
has shown to be effective (Jefferson, 2005).
Effective Practices for Improving Performance at the School Level
Improving performance at the school levels involves implementing a number of
strategies in a strategic and systematic manner (Duke, 2006). These strategies include
structuring schools to allow for focused, instructional time and collaboration, providing
support for struggling students, providing teachers with effective and on-going
professional development, and engaging families and communities in the educational
process.
50
In order for these strategies to be implemented successfully, strong, effective,
instructional leadership must be in place at the school level (Spillane, Halverson &
Diamond, 2001; DuFour & Burnette, 2002; Fullan, 2003; Fullan, 2005; Marzano, Waters
& McNulty, 2005).
Instructional Leadership
School reform efforts and instructional improvement require fundamental change
within the school organization. Fullan (2005) suggests that this fundamental change at the
organizational level can only take place with an effective leader at the helm. Fullan
address the notion that sustainable change requires the following eight elements:
1. The belief at all level that the organization provides a public service with a
moral purpose.
2. A commitment to changing context at all levels; site, community, district,
and state.
3. Capacity building at all levels through strong networks.
4. Intelligent accountability through self-reflection and external evaluations.
5. All members of the organization engage in opportunities for deep learning.
6. A commitment to both short-term and long-term goals across the
organization.
7. A system for keeping the organization energized.
8. Opportunities for leadership building across the organization.
51
Fullan continues by emphasizing the need for numerous leaders within the organization
to interact with all members at all levels in order to bring about deep reform. He asserts
that it is the leader’s responsibility to build learning communities that are able to put
thinking into practice.
DuFour and Burnette (2002) concur with Fullan. These authors expressly point
out the responsibility principals hold for cultivating their school’s culture. DuFour and
Burnette suggest principals foster professional learning communities that value a
common vision and goals. These authors also advocate giving teachers the tools they
need to monitor every student’s learning and time to collaborate with one another
regarding student data and effective instructional strategies.
Beyond cultivating a school’s instructional culture Carter (2001) asserts the need
for principals to implement effective spending practices when doling out a school’s
limited resources. Carter argues that principals must focus spending on instruction and
teachers. Instruction, according to Carter, includes incorporating strategies that make
curriculum accessible to students including extra help programs. Carter explains that
money spent on teachers includes costs of recruiting and retaining quality teachers and
providing teachers with effective and on-going professional development.
Taking into account this profound responsibility school principals hold, it is no
surprise that Darling-Hammond and Orphanos (2007) recommend professional
development for California’s school leaders. Their recommendations include developing
52
each leader’s knowledge in the areas of teaching and learning, the development of
effective professional development programs, data analysis, and overall leadership skills.
Structuring Schools to Support Improvement and Supporting Struggling Students
In an effort to identify how low-performing school became high-performing
schools, Duke (2006) reviewed five studies that focused on characteristics of successful
schools. His analysis of these studies revealed the following eleven structural elements
that turned once low-performing schools into successful schools:
1. Timely student assistance: Students who were not showing mastery of
content standards were given immediate assistance through tutors and
extra support staff.
2. Teacher Collaboration: All teachers were expected to participate in on-
going collaboration within and across grade levels to plan instruction,
review student data, and discuss strategies to support struggling students.
3. Data-Driven Decision Making: Student data were used on a continuous
basis to inform decisions regarding resource use, student needs, teacher
needs, and more.
4. Effective Leadership: The actions of principals and other school leaders
set a tone for continuous improvement.
5. Curriculum Alignment: Instruction aligned to district-adopted curriculum
and assessment aligned to instruction.
53
6. Professional Development: On-going professional development was
provided based on teacher need as identified by data.
7. School Organizational Structure: Roles of staff members were redefined to
support the instructional improvement effort.
8. Assessment: Students were assessed on a regular basis to identify their
progress and determine their learning needs.
9. High Expectation: Principals held high expectations for teachers and
teachers held high expectations for student learning.
10. Parent Outreach: Systems were developed for school personnel to
communicate with parents to keep them informed about their children’s
needs and to involve parents in the school improvement process.
11. Instructional Scheduling: Schedules were adjusted during the day to allow
for an increase in instructional time for language arts and mathematics.
The educational improvement strategies reported by Duke (2006) are consistent with
those found in other literature (Schmoker; 1999; Resnick & Zurawsky, 2005; Darling-
Hammond, 2007).
An additional structural element that schools have implemented to improve the
instructional program is class size reduction in kindergarten to grade three and in core
academic classes. Odden and Picus (2008) reviewed the literature surrounding class size
reduction, then made expenditure recommendations that would allow schools to employ a
sufficient amount of core teachers to keep class sizes low through high school. Though
54
there is not a substantial amount of research that supports class size reduction in grades
four through twelve, Finn, Pannozzo and Achilles (2008) recommend implementing the
practice. These authors assert that when the student to teacher ratio is smaller, students
display an increase in academic engagement.
Effective and On-going Professional Development
The educational reform movement has changed pre-existing notions of what
students should know and be able to do (Garet, Porter, Desimore, Birman, & Yoon,
2001). As the classroom teacher is the most critical component for implementing
effective instruction the competence and the professional growth of the teacher must be at
the forefront of school reform efforts (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Marzano, Pickering &
Pollock, 2001). Every child has an educational right to expect instruction and this cannot
happen with sustained and focused efforts to improve teacher expertise (Resnick & Hall,
1998; Darling-Hammond, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2006).
Birman, Desimone, Porter, and Garet (2000) identify three essential
characteristics of professional development. The first characteristic refers to the form of
the professional development; whether it is a reform activity or a traditional activity. An
example of a traditional activity is teacher participation in a conference or workshop
while reform activities include use of study groups, mentorship relationships, teacher
networks, and teacher resource centers. The second characteristic Birman et al. describe
relates to the duration or length of the professional development activity. The third
component involves collective participation described by the authors as participation of
55
all teachers within a department, grade or subject (Birman, et al., 2000). The authors used
these three components as the basis for study designed to determine the relationship
between the components and teacher outcomes. The study used survey data from over
1000 teacher as well as data from sixteen case studies. The authors found that the form of
the activity was not vital as long as the activity included sufficient duration, focused on
subject matter content, and included opportunities for active learning. The authors also
found that professional development of longer duration included more subject matter
focus and connected well with teachers’ prior experience. Lastly, the authors found that
active learning increased when participation included all teachers in the grade level or
department.
A three –year longitudinal study on professional development conducted by
Densimone, Porter, Garet, Yeon, and Birman (2002) looked at the effects different forms
of professional development had on teaching and learning. This study examined the
relationships between non-traditional features of professional development and change in
teaching practice. The findings indicated that teacher instruction changed when training
promoted active participation and teacher collaboration. The authors also reported that
professional development is most effective when specific strategies are connected to
learning content and assessments. Densimone et al. went on to report that overall schools
do not have coherent professional development plans and teachers do not receive high
quality professional development. Finally, they admit that quality professional
development programs require a substantial amount of resources.
56
Family and Community Engagement
Developing partnerships with families and the community is a component
researchers recommend be included in education reform efforts (Williams, 2003;
Marzano, 2003; Duke, 2006). Marzano (2003) identifies three factors that lead to
effective parental involvement: communication, participation and governance. Marzano
describes good communication to involve two-way correspondence between the school
and home. Marzano expresses that it is the school’s responsibility to create a system for
effective and open communication by providing an inviting atmosphere in which parents
feel comfortable participating. Marzano also recommends parents participate in the day-
to-day operation of the school. He points out that this can be accomplished by inviting
parents to work as teacher aides and guest lecturers so that parents gain the sense that the
school values what they have to offer. Finally, Marzano expresses the critical need for
parents to be involved in the governance of the school. Including parents in the
governance of the school helps parents learn more about the instructional programs and
practices taking place at the school.
Benard (2003) expresses the critical need for involving community organizations
in the school improvement process. This author states that “turnaround” schools actively
seek support from organizations within the community to help with tutoring, health and
student support programs, and mentoring programs. Manning and Kovach (2003) also
recognize the need for support from community organizations. These authors report that
effective principals continuously reach out to leaders in the community for help with
57
student supports and to employ additional services that will help sustain students’
learning and development. Community organizations have the potential to add another
level of resources that can be used to improve the overall educational programs public
schools provide.
Summary
The literature related to school finance and its relationship to student performance
includes a wide range of topics. For the purposes of this study the literature review
focused on school finance in California, the concept of funding schools to adequate
levels, how educational dollars have been spent historically, methods for school-level
expenditure reporting, and effective strategies for improving performance at the school-
site level.
The purpose of this study was to identify how elementary schools are using their
resources to improve the instructional program and to identify if this use of resources is
aligned with what research calls for in the way of best practice. An additional purpose of
this study was to determine whether these California schools receive an adequate level of
resources to ensure all students learn the State’s challenging content standards. The
evidence-based adequacy model is the most appropriate model to apply in making this
determination for two reasons:
1. The evidence-based model encompasses the effective practices that the
research calls for in order to educate all students to high levels and,
58
2. The evidence-based model incorporates a school expenditure structure and
resource indicator that provides both school-level fiscal data and in-depth
data on the strategies and practices schools implement to provide
instruction.
As this study was designed to identify how individual schools allocate their resources to
support their instructional improvement plan, each school was examined through the lens
of the evidence-based model. The methodology that was used in this study is provided in
the following chapter.
59
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the design, sample, instrumentation, and data analysis
process of this study. The purpose of this study was to provide new knowledge to
researchers, policy makers and practitioners on how resources are allocated in California
schools to affect student achievement, and how resource patterns at schools compare to
the strategies outlined in the evidence-based adequacy model. As previously noted, an in-
depth analysis of resource use at the school level is needed in order to identify practices
that are working toward improved student achievement as well as to identify practices
that are not working. Though many argue that California Schools do not receive an
adequate amount of resources for ensuring student success, a number of schools are
performing higher than predicted based on the Academic Performance Index (API).
This study investigated how schools that are performing better than expected are
using their resources to support instructional improvement. Further, the resource
allocation pattern at the school site level was compared to the Evidence-Based Model to
ascertain whether schools are using resources in a manner that aligns with what research
has identified as best practice. The methodology used for this study was mixed methods;
quantitative and qualitative data were collected from ten elementary schools that are
located in Southern California. This mixed method approach was used to allow the
researcher to (1) gather quantitative data that shows how funds and personnel are
60
allocated at the schools site; and (2) gather qualitative data that will tell the story of how
resources are utilized at the school site to drive the instructional program.
Research Questions
The following four research questions will address the purpose of this study:
1. What are the current instructional improvement strategies observed
at the school level?
2. How the actual resource patterns at the school sites aligned with or
are different from the resource use strategies that are used in the
Evidence-Based Model?
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
4. How does the availability of resources affect the development and
implementation of the instructional improvement plan?
Purposeful Sample and Population
This study focused on schools that have been successful despite the funding
challenges they face in the context of California’s school finance system. For this study,
successful schools were identified as those schools that have consistently ranked high on
the similar schools ranking system. The similar schools ranking system allows schools to
compare their performance to that of schools with similar demographics, similar
opportunities and similar challenges (California Department of Education, 2007). The
California Department of Education suggests that schools may improve their performance
61
by studying the strategies that higher- ranking schools with similar demographics are
implementing. Therefore, a purposeful sample of ten elementary schools with a similar
schools ranking of eight or higher for the past three years (2005-2007) were selected to
participate in this study.
As the Evidence-Based model specifies strategies for supporting at-risk students,
this sample also included schools that serve student groups that have historically been at-
risk of not achieving proficiency on state standards: students who qualify for Title I
services and students who are identified as English Learner students. To ensure that each
school is serving students who may need extra support, the following demographic
criteria were used to select the schools that will be invited to participate:
1. Each school serves four hundred to eleven hundred students in
kindergarten to fifth and/or sixth grades.
2. Each school has been identified as a Title I school with at lease
fifty percent of the student population entitled to free or reduced
price meals.
3. At least sixty percent of each school’s population is identified as
English Learner students.
Identifying Schools
The California Department of Education’s Standardized Testing and Reporting
website were used to identify schools that have a similar schools ranking of eight or
higher for three consecutive reporting years: 2005, 2006 and 2007. Once schools were
62
identified using the similar schools criteria, their demographic data were reviewed using
the data available for the 2006-2007 school year on the Ed-Data.org website. Schools that
met both criteria are displayed with their similar schools rankings for each of the three
identified years in Table3.1.
Table 3.1: Sample Schools: 2005-2007 Similar Schools Rank
School
2005 Similar
Schools Rank
2006 Similar
Schools Rank
2007 Similar
Schools Rank
Cold Spring
10 10
8
Lakeside
10 10
10
Ocean View
10 10
10
Seaside
10 10
10
Bayshore
9 9
9
River View
10 10
10
Waterfall
10 9
10
Brookside
10 9
10
Rolling Waves
10 10
10
Creekside
10 9
10
63
Demographic data retrieved from Ed-data.org for each of the ten schools are
displayed in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Sample Schools: Enrollment, Percent Free and Reduced Meals, Percent
English Learner Population, Percent Hispanic, Percent Asian
School
Total
Enrollment
Percent Free
and Reduced
Meals
Percent
English
Learner
Percent
Hispanic
Percent
Asian
Cold Spring
680 82.7 78.1 89.3 10.8
Lakeside
569 69.1 69.9 62.8 31.3
Ocean View
495 92.2 74.7 84.1 11.7
Seaside
689 64.9 69.7 71.1 26.8
Bayshore
545 54.7 62.3 41.8 50.7
River View
856 89.8 71.5 95.1 3.3
Waterfall
497 85.9 77.7 97.8 0.9
Brookside
512 91.3 86.0 99.2 0.0
Rolling Waves
660 87.9 70.7 93.2 2.7
Creekside
1059 83.4 62.0 86.1 5.6
Instrumentation and Data Collection
All researchers who participated in this study attended a two-day training session
in June 2008. Data collection protocols and codebooks were distributed at that time and
researchers received comprehensive instruction in their use. All researchers collected and
analyzed data using the same protocol and collection instruments to allow researchers to
compare resource use patterns across the schools sampled by other researchers.
Following completion of the training session each researcher was responsible for
contacting the principals of the schools included in his or her sample via telephone, email
64
and letters. Initial contact was made to obtain consent to participate, schedule an
appointment to conduct an in-person interview and to explain the types of existing
documents and information that need to be obtained before the interview is held.
Existing documents that were examined included: (1) School Vision and Mission
Statement, (2) Single School Plan for Academic Achievement (used to discuss
instructional improvement plan), (3) Master Schedule (used to determine instructional
minutes), (4) Staff Roster (used to determine quantity of staff members), and (5) School
Budget (used to discuss how resources are allocated).
Each school visit consisted of a four-hour semi-structured interview with the
school principal and any other key personnel the principal deems necessary. Interviews
were conducted in pre-determined format as described by the interview protocol (see
appendix A). Data on resource allocation and the instructional improvement plan were
collected during the interview. The quantitative data collected from the interviews were
based on a school expenditure structure and resource indicators developed by Odden et
al. (2003). This framework was the foundation for the data collection protocol that was
used to generate a comparison between actual resources each site has and the level of
resources the Evidence-Based Model would generate for each school in this study.
Figure 3.1 includes all elements of the school expenditure structure and resources
indicators.
65
Figure 3.1
SCHOOL EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE AND RESOURCE INDICATORS
School Building Size
School Unit Size
Percent Low Income
Percent Special Education
Percent ESL/LEP
Expenditures Per Pupil
Professional Development
Expenditures Per Teacher
Special Academic Focus of
School/Unit
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods
Length of Reading Class (Elementary)
Length of Mathematics Class (Elementary)
Reading Class Size (Elementary)
Mathematics Class Size (Elementary)
Regular Class Size (Elementary)
Length of Core* Class Periods (Secondary)
Core Class Size (Secondary)
Percent Core Teachers
*Math, English/LA, Science, & Social Studies
School Expenditure Structure
Instructional 1. Core Academic Teachers
- English/ Reading/ Language Arts
- Math
2. Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Preparation
- Art, music, physical education. etc.
- Academic Focus with or without Special Funding
- Librarians
3. Extra Help
- Tutors
- Resource Rooms (Title 1. special education or other part-day pullout
programs)
- Inclusion Teachers
- Special Education self-contained classes for severely disabled students
(Including aides)
- Extended Day and Summer School
- District-Initiated Alternative Programs
4. Professional Development
- Teacher Time - Substitutes and Stipends
- Trainers and Coaches
- Administration
- Materials, Equipment and Facilities
- Travel & Transportation
- Tuition and Conference Fees
5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff
- Coordinators and Teachers on Special Assignment
- Building Substitutes and Other Substitutes
- Instructional Aides
6. Instructional Materials and Equipment
- Supplies, Materials and Equipment
- Computers (hardware, software, peripherals)
7. Student Support
- Counselors
- Nurses
- Psychologists
- Social Workers
- Extra-Curricular and Athletics
Non-Instructional 8. Administration
Figure reprinted from Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003)
66
In addition to collecting quantitative data and existing documents, qualitative data
were collected from each interview. Qualitative data were used to generate a descriptive
case study of each site that will tell a story of how resources are used at the school level
to implement and support the school’s instructional improvement plan. The general
categories of qualitative data collection on the school’s instructional improvement plan
included: (a) curriculum and content focus, (b) definition of effective teaching, (c)
instructional vision, (d) assessments, (e) instructional implementation, (f) professional
development, (g) interventions, (h) community involvement, (i) technology, (j)
instructional leadership, and (k) accountability (Picus et al., 2008).
Immediately following each school visit, the researcher entered the quantitative
data into a password protected, online database. The researcher also wrote a qualitative
case study of each school using a pre-determined case study protocol (see appendix B).
Each case study write-up includes a description of the school and district, longitudinal
test scores for the school, other school achievement data, key elements of the school’s
improvement process, overall themes of the improvement process, a comparison of the
actual resource use in the school to that provided in the Evidence-Based Model, lessons
learned, and additional resources the school needs to continue and expand improvement
efforts. Each written case study was uploaded to a password protected on-line database.
This enabled all researchers associated with this study to have access to data from all the
sample schools.
67
Data Analysis
Each case study includes a section entitled “lessons learned” that was used to
summarize how the school’s resource use and instructional practices compare to those
prescribed by the Evidence-Based model. This section of the case study covers the
following eight areas that have been adopted from Odden et al., (2006): (1) focus on
educating all students, (2) data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned
to state standards, (4) effective professional development, (5) restructure the learning
environment, (6) support for struggling students, (7) effective instructional leadership,
and (8) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration. A
comprehensive analysis of what the school is actually doing in each of the areas above is
discussed in each case study. This information was used to determine if and how each
school’s use of resources aligns with the Evidence Based model.
Case study data were also used to make comparisons across all the schools that
were sampled in this study. Similarities and differences among the schools’ use of
resources were identified and the implications of these commonalities and differences
were discussed. These findings were used to draw conclusions regarding what schools are
actually doing with their resources, and to discuss the implications for practitioners and
policy makers.
68
Summary
This chapter described the methodology that was used to carry out this study.
Sufficient information is provided on the population and sample, instrumentation and
collection tools, and data analysis process to allow future researchers to replicate this
study in other California schools. The next chapter presents the findings related to the
research questions addressed in this study.
69
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION OF FINDINS
The findings of this study are presented in this chapter. The first section of this
chapter presents an overview of the districts and schools that participated in this study.
The second section of this chapter presents the findings as they relate to each of the
following four research questions:
5. What are the current instructional improvement strategies observed
at the school level?
6. How the actual resource patterns at the school sites are aligned
with or different from the resource use strategies that are used in
the Evidence-Based Model?
7. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
8. How does the availability of resources affect the development and
implementation of the instructional improvement plan?
The final section of this chapter presents a discussion of the findings.
Overview of Districts and Schools
This section provides an overview of the districts and schools that participated in
this study. Case studies have been written for each of the schools and are located in
Appendix C. The individual school case studies provide a more in-depth profile of each
70
school and its district. Each case study also provides a detailed view of school
achievement data, instructional improvement strategies, and resource use.
The ten elementary schools that participated in this study were drawn from four
districts that are all located with thirty miles of one another in Southern California. The
names of the participating districts and schools have been coded to protect their
confidentiality. The four school districts are named as follows: Grape Vine Unified
School District, Apple Tree Unified School District, Tangerine Grove Unified School
District, and Cherry Valley Unified School District. Each of the four districts operates
pre-kindergarten through adulthood instructional programs. The districts range in size
from an enrollment of approximately 22,000 students to an enrollment of approximately
90,000 students. Table 4.1 displays a demographic comparison of the districts.
Table 4.1 District Demographics
District Free/Reduced
Price Meals
English
Learners
Hispanic Asian White
Grape Vine Unified
School District
64.0% 45.8% 53.6% 29.8% 13.2%
Apple Tree Unified
School District
78.1% 55.9% 92.3% 3.3% 2.7%
Tangerine Grove
Unified School District
33.3% 24.3% 42% 14.6% 34.6%
Cherry Valley Unified
School District
67.0% 24.7% 51.2% 8.3% 16.4%
71
All districts with the exception of Tangerine Grove Unified School Districts are
considered large, urban school districts. As Table 4.1 indicates, each district serves a
diverse student population.
Each of the four districts participates in the California Standards, Testing and
Accountability program. Table 4.2 shows the percentage of students who scored
proficient or advanced on the 2008 California Standards Test (CST) in language arts and
mathematics for each district. Table 4.2 also shows each district’s program improvement
status.
Table 4.2: Percent Proficient and Advanced in language arts and mathematics on
2008 CST and Program Improvement Status
District Language
Arts
Math Program
Improvement (PI)
Status
Grape Vine Unified School District 50.8 56.8 Year 1
Apple Tree Unified School District 34.3 42.5 Year 3
Tangerine Grove Unified School District 64.2 64.9 Not in PI
Cherry Valley Unified School District 46.5 53.8 Year 2
Grape Vine Unified School District is in the first year of program improvement due its
failure to make adequate yearly progress in the subgroup of students with disabilities.
Apple Tree Unified School District is in year three of program improvement due to its
failure to make adequate yearly progress in the subgroups of Hispanic students, English
Learner students, and students with disabilities. Cherry Valley Unified School District is
in year two of program improvement due to its failure to make adequate yearly progress
in the subgroups of English Learner students and students with disabilities.
72
Ten elementary schools in total participated in this study. Five of the elementary
schools that participated in this study are from Grape Vine Unified School District. Two
schools each from Apple Tree Unified School District and Tangerine Grove Unified
School District participated in this study. One school from Cherry Valley Unified School
District participated in this study. Table 4.3 displays each district with the schools that are
from that district.
Table 4.3: Districts with schools within the district
District Schools Within the District
Grape Vine Unified School District Cold Spring
Lakeside
Ocean View
Seaside
Bayshore
Apple Tree Unified School District River View
Waterfall
Tangerine Grove Unified School District Brookside
Rolling Waves
Cherry Valley Unified School District Creekside
The significant subgroups that represent each school include: socio-economically
disadvantaged (as identified by Free/Reduced Meals program), English Learner, Hispanic
ethnicity, and Asian ethnicity.
73
Table 4.4 displays each school’s enrollment figures and percentage enrollment of each of
the subgroups identified above.
Table 4.4: Sample Schools: Enrollment, Percent Free and Reduced Meals, Percent
English Learner Population, Percent Hispanic, Percent Asian
School
Total
Enrollment
Percent Free
and Reduced
Meals
Percent
English
Learner
Percent
Hispanic
Percent
Asian
Cold Spring 700 82.7 78.1 89.3 10.8
Lakeside 602 69.1 69.9 62.8 31.3
Ocean View 561 92.2 74.7 84.1 11.7
Seaside 661 64.9 69.7 71.1 26.8
Bayshore 567 54.7 62.3 41.8 50.7
River View 889 89.8 71.5 95.1 3.3
Waterfall 497 85.9 77.7 97.8 0.9
Brookside 549 91.3 86.0 99.2 0.0
Rolling Waves 663 87.9 70.7 93.2 2.7
Creekside 1,074 83.4 62.0 86.1 5.6
The ten elementary schools were selected to participate in this study because each
school had a similar schools ranking of eight, nine or ten for three consecutive years:
2005, 2006 and 2007. The similar schools ranking system compares Academic
Performance Index (API) scores of like schools and ranks the schools accordingly. Table
4.5 displays the growth API scores of the schools that participated in the study for the
years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
74
Table 4.5: Growth API Scores for Years 2005-2008
School 2005 2006 2007 2008
Cold Spring 711 748 778 808
Lakeside 807 832 830 836
Ocean View 725 740 764 758
Seaside 792 782 787 757
Bayshore 793 810 827 846
River View 686 741 784 798
Waterfall 744 709 759 782
Brookside 684 701 734 734
Rolling Waves 745 765 748 745
Creekside 763 752 768 768
The data in Table 4.5 show that three schools: Cold Spring, Bayshore and River View
made continuous growth from year to year. All schools with the exception of Seaside had
a growth API in 2008 that was higher than their growth API score in 2005.
Another way to view a school’s academic achievement is to look at how many of
its students scored percent proficient or advanced on the California Standards Test (CST).
Table 4.6 shows each school’s percent proficient or advanced in the area of language arts
for the years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
75
Table 4.6: Percent Proficient or Advanced in Language Arts 2005-2008
School 2005 2006 2007 2008
Cold Spring 25 36 38 50
Lakeside 52 53 52 54
Ocean View 27 34 36 36
Seaside 46 47 46 39
Bayshore 38 35 43 60
River View 25 30 38 42
Waterfall 26 27 35 38
Brookside 22 28 31 34
Rolling Waves 32 40 36 31
Creekside 36 36 36 39
The data in table 4.6 show that four schools made steady growth in increasing the
numbers of students scoring proficient or advanced in language arts. Cold Spring,
Bayshore and River View each made significant growth when comparing 2008 data to
2005 data. Seaside and Rolling Waves were the only schools that show a decrease in
percent proficient or advanced when comparing 2008 data to 2005 data. Table 4.7 shows
each school’s percent proficient or advanced in the area of mathematics for the years
2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.
76
Table 4.7: Percent Proficient or Advanced in Mathematics 2005-2008
School 2005 2006 2007 2008
Cold Spring 51 53 57 62
Lakeside 67 71 65 70
Ocean View 52 54 57 58
Seaside 63 61 62 56
Bayshore 39 40 42 75
River View 54 58 68 72
Waterfall 49 48 55 61
Brookside 36 38 52 48
Rolling Waves 53 56 52 50
Creekside 56 52 60 54
In the area of mathematics only two schools made considerable growth from 2005 to
2008. Cold Spring, Ocean View, Bayshore, River View, and Brookside all made steady
progress in the area of mathematics from 2005 to 2008. Seaside, Rolling Waves and
Creekside saw a decline in students who scored proficient or advanced in mathematics
when comparing 2005 to 2008.
Possible explanations for why some schools saw steady growth in student
achievement and other schools saw decline in student achievement may be identified in
the next section of this chapter where instructional improvement strategies and school
resource use will be discussed.
77
Introduction to the Findings
This section will provide a discussion of the study findings as they relate to each
of the four research questions. The research questions will be answered using data found
in the ten case studies in Appendix C. The information found in the case studies is a
result of individual school interviews conducted in the fall of 2008.
Findings
Current Instructional Improvement Strategies Observed at the School Level
Data for Research Question One
The instructional improvement strategies observed at the school level have been
grouped into the following eight areas that have been adopted from Odden et al., (2006):
(1) focus on educating all students, (2) data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum
that is aligned to state standards, (4) effective professional development, (5) restructure
the learning environment, (6) support for struggling students, (7) effective instructional
leadership, and (8) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration.
Focus On Educating All Students
While all ten schools focus on educating all students, some of the schools in this
study are farther along than others in carrying out techniques that support this strategy.
Cold Spring and Bayshore Elementary Schools stand out in particular. Staff and each of
these sites report spending considerable time developing a shared vision that incorporates
the belief that all students can and will master state content standards. The expectation at
Cold Spring Elementary School that each year all students will move up at least one
78
proficiency level on the California Standards Test has kept the staff focused on every
student. Bayshore Elementary School holds a similar expectation for students. Staff at
this school believes that what they do during school hours makes a difference for children
regardless of the students’ home environment, income level or English language
proficiency. The number of students at both schools who scored proficient or advanced
on the CST nearly doubled from the 2005 test results to the 2008 test results.
Five other sites report a growing belief among staff members that all students can
learn no matter the environmental challenge the students may face. The teacher
leadership teams at Lakeside and River View Elementary Schools are reinforcing this
belief as they meet in grade levels to plan lessons, discuss student data and develop
strategies for meeting the needs of all students. Waterfall, Brookside and Ocean View
staff members are currently revisiting their schools’ vision and goal statements. Waterfall
Elementary School is also looking at students who are succeeding despite the challenges
they face to see how the school can help those students who are not making progress.
The principals at Seaside, Rolling Waves and Creekside report that it is time to
reinforce the concept that all students can and will learn. Only some teachers at these
schools take total responsibility for student learning. Several staff members at Seaside
Elementary School express their frustration to the principal on issues regarding parent
involvement and use this as an excuse for why their students are not learning. This
principal believes it will take quite a while before all staff members take full ownership
over student learning at Seaside School.
79
Use of Data to Drive Instruction
There is quite a spectrum in how these ten schools are using data to drive and
inform instruction. All ten school use data in one form or another, yet a gap exists in the
variety of data that are used, who is analyzing the data, the frequency of data analysis,
and how instruction is different due to what the data show.
Teachers, parents and students use data at Cold Spring Elementary School. At the
beginning of each school year, teachers at this school examine prior year CST and district
benchmark data for students on their incoming roster. These data are used to determine
initial levels of instructional support each student will receive. Early in the school year all
students are administered a comprehensive literacy assessment with their parents present.
Following the test, data are discussed with the parent and the students and instructional
goals are established. Students in grades three through six graph their CST scores and
district benchmark scores throughout the year. Teachers perform an item analysis with
their students following each of the four district benchmark exams. Teachers meet
regularly to examine student work data, on-demand writing prompt data, base program
assessment data, and bi-weekly phonics data for those students who need support in
phonemic awareness. These data are used to determine what content will be pre-taught,
re-taught and visited regularly for distributive practice. The data are also used to identify
how instruction will be differentiated based on the needs of students.
Bayshore Elementary School uses data in many of the same ways as Cold Spring
Elementary School. The main difference between the schools in data use is the parent
80
component. While parents are kept informed of how their children are performing at
school throughout the year, they do not participate in the student goal setting process.
Teachers at Bayshore Elementary School use data to adjust their instructional pacing
throughout the school year. So while all schools and teachers in this district have pacing
guides, the teachers at Bayshore Elementary School have permission to make changes to
this pacing in order to meet the needs of their students from year to year.
The remaining eight schools report using both summative and formative data as
well. State test data and district benchmark data are used to evaluate instructional
programs offered at each school and district, and to place students in leveled classes.
Base program assessment data, teacher created assessment data and student work data are
used to assign students grades throughout the school year. Principals at these schools
express the need for teachers to take a deeper look at data in order to determine how
instruction should be modified to meet the needs of students. To facilitate this process,
the principals at Lakeside, Ocean View, Seaside, and Creekside plan to hold individual
and grade level data discussions with their teachers this school year.
Rigorous Curriculum that is aligned to State Standards
The two main core content areas examined in this study are language arts and
mathematics. Seven schools adopted Houghton Mifflin Reading for their language arts
program while three schools use Open Court Reading for language arts. Hartcourt
Mathematics is the program of choice for seven schools, Sadlier-Oxford Progress in
Mathematics is used by two schools and one school adopted Houghton Mifflin
81
Mathematics. Though all ten elementary schools have adopted state-approved textbook
programs for these content areas, implementation of these programs varies from site to
site. Differences in use occurred in the following three areas: (1) the level of training
teachers received in each program, (2) expectation for faithful replication of each
program and (3) the level of attention given to the rigor of the standards covered by each
program.
Level of Training
The level of training in the use of the textbook program use refers to the number
of training days teachers received as well as follow-up training over the life of the
textbook adoption period. The teachers at all ten elementary schools participated in five
full days of training in the textbook program for language arts within the first two years
of the adoption. On-going follow-up training took place at Cold Spring, Bayshore, River
View, Waterfall, and Brookside Elementary Schools. Follow-up training included an
emphasis on the universal access components of the language arts program, lesson
sequence and design, use of curriculum-embedded assessments, and making the
connection between reading and writing.
Teachers at Cold Spring, Lakeside, Ocean View, Seaside, and Bayshore initially
received two days of training in the adopted mathematics program. Teachers at the other
five elementary schools received one day of training upon the adoption of the
mathematics program. Follow-up mathematics training in the adopted mathematics
program did not occur at any of the ten elementary schools that participated in this study.
82
Expectation of Faithful Replication
Faithful replication of the program is the idea that teachers are using the adopted
textbooks as instructional tools to teach state standards rather than using materials from
programs that have not been adopted or approved by their respective districts. Teachers at
each of the ten elementary sites are expected to faithfully replicate the adopted
curriculum. The principals at Cold Spring, Bayshore, River View, Waterfall, Brookside
and Creekside have confidence that their teachers are faithfully implementing the base
programs. The principals at the remaining four sites express a concern that teachers are
occasionally presenting students with worksheets that are not standards-based.
Attention to the Rigor of the State Standards
Identifying the level of rigor of the standards covered within the textbook calls
upon teachers to use their knowledge of the content to determine if the lessons provided
by the textbook publisher truly reach the rigorous level of the California Content
Standards. Only two elementary schools (Cold Spring and Bayshore) report conducting
work in this area. Teachers at these schools meet regularly in grade level teams to plan
lessons using an approach known as “unpacking the standards.” This approach to lesson
planning and design begins with the standard. Teachers identify the state standard that
will be taught. Next the articulate the prior knowledge students need in order to access
the standard. Finally, teachers examine the lesson the base program provides and make
adjustments to the lesson to ensure the rigor of the standard is being met.
83
The principals at Cold Spring and Bayshore state that a strong professional development
emphasis on “unpacking the standards” had to take place before teachers were able to
internalize the process.
Effective Professional Development
Effective professional development combines training in research-based
instructional strategies with content area instruction. Meaningful professional
development also includes on-going coaching, opportunities for co-planning and co-
teaching, and a structure for holding teachers accountable for implementing the strategies
they are learning.
Teachers in eight out of the ten schools that participated in the study receive
training in research-based instructional strategies while receiving core content area
training. In most cases this professional development focuses on the strategy Direct
Instruction through the language arts curriculum. Teachers also receive training in the use
of Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) strategies to support English learners
during core content area instruction.
Teachers at Rolling Waves and Brookside Elementary Schools participate in
professional development opportunities that focus on technology rather than instructional
strategy. These teachers have received training in the use of SMART boards and in the
use of Discovery Streaming (a video clip website). Beginning this year, teachers at
Rolling Waves are learning to use Thinking Maps (strategies for organizing content)
while teachers at Brookside are learning to use Diebels Deep (an assessment and early
84
intervention program for reading). It should be noted that both Rolling Waves and
Brookside Elementary Schools failed to make adequate yearly progress based on the
2008 state test results.
Professional development is supported throughout the school year via the use of
instructional coaches at Cold Spring, Lakeside, Ocean View, Bayshore, and Creekside
Elementary Schools. These coaches provide demonstration lessons, engage teachers in
co-plan/co-teach activities, and facilitate professional dialogue during collaboration
meetings. Teachers at Seaside Elementary School have access to an instructional coach
for one day a week. This support is new to the school this year and the coach’s role at the
site is still being defined. On-going support is provided to teachers at River View and
Waterfall Elementary Schools by the site principal and lead teachers. The principals at
these schools present demonstration lessons to teachers and co-plan/co-teach with
teachers. A system for on-going support is not evident at Brookside and Rolling Waves
Elementary Schools.
The principals at half of the elementary schools (Cold Spring, Bayshore, River
View, Waterfall, and Creekside) indicate that teachers are held accountable for
implementing the strategies they learn during professional development. This message
comes across in the way the principals describe holding goal setting conferences with
teachers, how they conduct focused classroom visits and observations, and how staff
meetings are aligned to professional development topics. The principals at the remaining
85
schools all believe that the teachers at their sites need to be held more accountable for
using the strategies that they learn during professional development.
Restructure of the Learning Environment
Restructure of the learning environment speaks to how the instructional day has
been organized to provide opportunities for collaboration, to allow an increase in
instructional time for core content areas and to support team-teaching practices.
Cold Spring, Lakeside, Ocean View, Seaside, and Bayshore Schools have all
added instructional minutes four days per week in order to “bank” minutes that are used
for collaboration. Each of these schools begin their instructional day ten to fifteen
minutes early each morning in order to release students early one day a week. This gives
each school fifty to seventy-five minutes of collaboration time each week. Teachers at
River View, Waterfall and Creekside Schools participate in collaboration regularly
during their staff meetings. Brookside and Rolling Waves teachers collaborate during
monthly grade level meetings.
Eight of the ten schools restructured their day to allow for longer blocks of
language arts instruction while four of the ten schools increased instructional time for
mathematics. In order to increase instructional time in these areas, instructional time was
decreased from science, social studies, art, and music. Table 4.8 shows the amount of
instructional minutes each school allocates for language arts and mathematics instruction.
86
Table 4.8: Instructional minutes for language arts and mathematics
School Instructional Minutes for
Language Arts
Instructional Minutes for
Mathematics
Cold Spring 140 80
Lakeside 140 60
Ocean View 150 80
Seaside 140 60
Bayshore 140 80
River View 150 70
Waterfall 150 70
Brookside 120 60
Rolling Waves 120 60
Creekside 150 60
As the table above shows, instructional time for language arts instruction ranges
from two hours to two and half hours per day. The extra twenty to thirty minutes is used
to provide students with universal access time. This is a time when students work in
flexible groups so that teachers may work with small groups of students. Seven of the
eight schools that allocate extra minutes for language arts made steady growth in the
number of students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST in this area. Seaside
Elementary School is the only school that allocates extra time for language arts
instruction and saw a decrease in the amount of students scoring proficient or advanced
on the CST. Both Brookside and Rolling Waves schools do not allocate extra time for
language arts. Each of these schools did not make AYP in 2008. Some schools allocate
one hour for math while others allocate up to an hour and twenty minutes.
87
Schools that have the extra ten to twenty minutes for math use this time to provide
students with math facts instruction. All five schools that allocate extra time for
mathematics have increased the number of students who score proficient or advanced on
the CST mathematics test. Four of the five schools that do not allocate extra time for
mathematics saw a decrease in the number of students scoring proficient or advanced on
the CST mathematics test. Lakeside Elementary School is the only school that does not
allocate extra time for mathematics instruction and increased the number of students
scoring proficient or advanced in math on the CST.
Cold Spring, Lakeside, Ocean View, Seaside, Bayshore, River View, Waterfall,
and Creekside Elementary Schools have all structured their instructional day so that
teachers within grade levels teach language arts and mathematics at the same time. This
allows the teachers to set up team-teaching structures with one another. Each of these
eight schools uses a Title I teacher or a resource specialist teacher to within the teaming
system to lower class size during language arts instruction. While the teaming structures
are implemented differently at each site, they are all set up in a manner that allows
students to attend the language arts class or mathematics class that is most appropriate
based on student need. At the team-teaching sites, this structure is the first line of support
for struggling students.
88
Support for Struggling Students
Support for students who are struggling includes providing extra help during the
school day and offering extended-day intervention and summer school programs. All ten
schools offer some form of help for struggling students during the school day, eight of the
schools offer extended-day intervention programs and nine of the schools send students
to summer school programs that are offered by their respective districts.
Cold Spring, Bayshore and Waterfall Elementary Schools all incorporate
components of the Response To Intervention (RTI) model to provide students with extra
help during the school day. The RTI model is a system of leveled intervention that
increase in intensity based on the needs of students. The first level of intervention occurs
within the regular classroom. Teachers at Cold Spring, Bayshore and Waterfall provide
extra support within the regular classroom by providing small group instruction to those
students who did not understand the content during initial instruction. If this intervention
is not enough to get students back on track they are provided with the next level of
support. This is short-term support that may involve receiving instruction in a classroom
that is designed to provide more scaffolds. This support may also involve working with
instructional aides. When this level of intervention does not meet a student’s needs, the
student will receive more intensive intervention by working with a resource specialist
program teacher.
All ten elementary schools employ instructional aides to provide extra help to at-
risk students and to English learner students. Extra help programs that incorporate
89
instructional aides are developed and monitored by the schools’ principal at Cold Spring,
Bayshore, Waterfall, River View, Creekside, and Seaside Schools. Instructional aides at
these schools are trained by the principals and lead teachers to provide support in phonics
and phonemic awareness, reading fluency, English language development, math facts
fluency, and math problem-solving strategies. Beginning the 2008-2009 school year the
work hours for the half of the instructional aides at Seaside Elementary School were
adjusted to enable the aides to work during non-core content area instruction times. These
instructional aides pull students from physical education, music and art instruction to
provide them with extra support.
The instructional aides at Lakeside, Ocean View, Brookside, and Rolling Waves
Elementary Schools are assigned to classroom teachers throughout the day. Teachers at
these schools decide how the aides will support the students who are struggling in their
classrooms.
All schools with the exception of Ocean View and Creekside provide an
extended-day program to students who are struggling in the areas of language arts,
English language development or mathematics. The principal at Ocean View reports that
teachers there do not wish to take on the added workload that comes with providing after
school instruction. Creekside Elementary School is not providing extended-day
instruction reportedly due to budget constraints. It should be noted that Creekside uses
categorical funding to pay instructional salaries for twelve part-time instructional aides
90
who support at-risk students and fifteen part-time instructional aides who support English
learner students.
A small portion of struggling students at nine of the ten elementary schools are
able to attend summer school programs that are centralized at the district level. Creekside
Elementary School is a year-round school therefore students from this school do not
participate in the district’s summer school program. The school is not able to offer inter
session programs for students due to limited space at the school site.
The summer school programs offered by the other districts during the summer of
2008 were limited to students who were beginning English learner students or who were
being retained for the 2008-2009 school year. An average of twenty-five students from
each school were identified to participate in summer school programs based on criteria
outlined by their districts. Data on whether or not the students actually attended the
programs are currently unavailable.
Effective Instructional Leadership
Effective instructional leadership includes both the instructional guidance
provided by the school principal and the capacity of teachers to lead their peers. The
principals at each school have varying years of experience as principals and have been
leaders at their respective sites for different amounts of time. Table 4.9 displays the years
of experience each leader has as a principal and the number of years the principal has
been at the school site.
91
Table 4.9: Years of Experience as a Principal and Years as Principal at Site
School Years of Experience as a
Principal
Years as a Principal at
this Site
Cold Spring 17 5
Lakeside 5 1
Ocean View 14 7
Seaside 2 2
Bayshore 12 4
River View 8 4
Waterfall 10 4
Brookside 11 1
Rolling Waves 8 1
Creekside 16 5
The principals at Cold Spring, Bayshore, River View, and Waterfall Elementary
Schools have been able to develop leadership capacity in teachers at their sites. The
leadership teams at these schools include teacher leaders from each grade level as well as
teacher leaders for content areas and instructional strategies. The depth in instructional
leadership at these sites has enabled the schools to make systemic changes in the
instructional programs they provide to children and their families.
The leadership team at Creekside Elementary School includes the assistant
principal, on-site coaches and Title I teachers, but it does not include teacher leaders for
each grade level. The principal at Creekside is currently in the process of identifying
teachers at each grade level who have the potential to be effective leaders. Ocean View
Elementary School currently has a leadership team that includes teachers from each grade
92
level. The same leadership team has been in place at this school for the past seven years.
The principal at site believes that the team may have become complacent and it is time to
make some changes in the membership of the leadership team. The principals at
Lakeside, Brookside, and Rolling Waves schools are all new to their respective schools
this year. Each site has a leadership team in place that includes teachers from each grade
level. The principals at these schools are currently evaluating the effectiveness of their
leadership teams and are planning to make some changes to the make up of the teams.
Seaside Elementary School is going through a different situation with regard to
instructional leadership and the leadership team. The school has had three different
principals in the past four years. This constant change in leadership has led to a situation
where a small group of teachers have taken control and pointed the school in a direction
chosen by these teachers. The current principal has been at Seaside Elementary School
since the 2007-2008 school year. This principal is working toward shifting power away
from some “negative” minded teachers. The principal hopes to build an effective
leadership team that is made up of teachers who can help lead an instructional
improvement process at the site.
Professional Learning Communities
Professional learning communities provide opportunities for teachers to
collaborate, to learn together and grow as professionals. All ten schools that participated
in this study have some approach to professional learning communities in place. Half of
the schools “bank” minutes to provide a standard time for teacher collaboration each
93
week. The other half of the schools build collaboration time into staff meetings and grade
level meetings.
Cold Spring, Bayshore and Ocean View Elementary Schools began banking
minutes during the 2006-2007 school year in order to provide weekly collaboration.
Lakeside and Seaside Schools began banking minutes this school year (2008-2009).
Teachers at these five schools have fifty to seventy-five minutes each week to meet with
one another. The teachers at Cold Spring and Bayshore Elementary Schools drive
collaboration topics. Topics for collaboration include lesson planning, data analysis,
curriculum mapping, calibrating rubrics, and discussing professional literature. Teachers
at the school meet in grade level teams or in vertical teams depending on the topic.
The principals drive collaboration topics at Lakeside, Ocean View and Seaside
Schools. The subject matter is the same as those listed above, however the principals still
need to direct the teachers to discuss the topics. The principal at Seaside School is just
beginning to bring in professional literature for the teachers to read and discuss.
Teachers at River View, Waterfall and Creekside Schools participate in
collaborative experiences twice each month; during staff meetings and grade level
meetings. Staff meetings are set up to allow for vertical collaboration and data analysis.
Grade level meetings are set up to allow time for lesson planning and curriculum
mapping. Professional literature is brought and discussed during staff meetings and River
View School. Time is allocated for sharing instructional success stories during staff
meetings at Waterfall School.
94
Staff members at Brookside and Rolling Waves Schools attended training in
professional learning communities during the 2005-2006 school year. The principals at
these schools report that there is little evidence to show collaboration is taking place. To
remedy this, the principal at Brookside School is facilitating grade levels meetings with
the teachers. This principal meets with one grade level each week to guide discussions
toward student performance data, support for English learner students, and instructional
strategies. The principal at Brookside Elementary School is providing similar support.
This principal chooses a grade level each month and visits that grade level’s meeting. The
principal collects the notes from all the grade levels that are not visited that month and
provides the teachers with feedback on their meeting topics to let them know that the
work they do is critical to the success of their students.
Alignment of resource patterns used at the school sites for the implementation of
the instructional improvement plan to the resource strategies that are used in the
Evidence Based Model
Data for Research Questions Two and Three
This section illustrates how resources that the school sites use for implementation
of the instructional improvement plan compares to the resource strategies that are used in
the Evidence Based Model (EBM). The resource indicators are broken down into six
categories: (1) core and specialist teachers, (2) resources for extra help, (3) professional
development with instructional coaches, (4) library/media, (5) support staff, and (6)
school administration.
95
Core and Specialist Teachers
The number of core teachers at a school site refers to the number of language arts,
mathematics, science, social science, and world language teachers who are assigned to
the site. Typically, teachers at the elementary level teach all the subjects listed above so
the number of core teachers refers to the number of regular, grade-level teacher at the
site. Table 4.10 shows the number of core teachers the EBM would provide for each
school site, the actual number of core teachers at the site and the difference between the
two.
Table 4.10: Comparison of EBM Core Teachers to Actual Core Teachers
School EBM Core Teachers Actual Core Teachers at
Site
Difference
Cold Spring 38 28 -10
Lakeside 30 22 -8
Ocean View 27 20 -7
Seaside 39 27 -12
Bayshore 26 21 -5
River View 49 33 -16
Waterfall 29 20 -9
Brookside 30 22 -6
Rolling Waves 38 25 -13
Creekside 62 45 -17
As Table 4.10 indicates, each of the school sites employs fewer core teachers than the
EBM recommends. Two factors explain this difference: (1) length of kindergarten day
and (2) class size. The EBM provides schools with the teachers they need to provide a
96
full-day kindergarten program for students. None of the schools that participated in this
study offers a full-day kindergarten program, thus the schools have fewer teachers.
The EBM recommends classes to be staffed at a ratio of fifteen to one
kindergarten through third grade and twenty-five to one in fourth through sixth grade.
The average class size for kindergarten and grades four, five and six is thirty-two to one
in the participating schools. Class size is about twenty to one in first, second and third
grades. While the average class size is much higher in these schools than recommended
by the EBM, eight of the schools use categorical funds to pay for a Title I teacher.
Though the EBM does not allocate funds for Title I teachers, these teachers are used by
the school sites to reduce class size during language arts instruction.
The EBM allocates resources to provide specialist teachers for each school site.
Specialist teachers provide instruction in disciplines such as the music, fine arts and
physical education. Core teachers are free to plan and work collaboratively while the
specialist teachers provide instruction to students. The EBM recommends that elementary
sites receive twenty percent of the number of core teachers for specialist teachers. Table
4.11 shows the comparison between the EBM recommendation for specialist teachers and
the actual allocation of specialist teachers at the study sites.
97
Table 4.11: Comparison of EBM Specialist Teachers to Actual Specialist Teachers
School EBM Specialist
Teachers
Actual Specialist
Teachers at Site
Difference
Cold Spring 7.6 0.5 -7.1
Lakeside 6 0.4 -5.6
Ocean View 5.4 0.3 -5.1
Seaside 8 0.6 -7.4
Bayshore 5.2 0.4 -4.8
River View 10 0.5 -9.5
Waterfall 5.8 0.4 -5.4
Brookside 6 0 -6
Rolling Waves 7 0 -7
Creekside 12 3 -9
Table 4.11 shows that eight of the ten schools have a small allocation of specialist
teachers. The schools do not have enough specialist teachers to release teams of core
teachers for collaborative meetings, so the specialist teachers provide core teachers with
individual preparation time.
Resources for Extra Help
Resources for providing extra help to struggling students include (1) certificated
tutors, (2) teachers for English learner students, (3) services for gifted students, (4)
extended-day programs, (5) summer school programs, and (6) services for special
education students.
Certificated tutors are recommended by the EBM to provide support for students
who are identified as being at-risk of not mastering state standards. Participation in the
98
free or reduced lunch program is used to identify at-risk students. The number of
certificated tutors that are allocated to a school is determined by identifying the number
of at-risk students the school serves. Table 4.12 below shows the number of certificated
tutors the EBM recommends for each site, the actual number of certificated tutors and the
number of Title I instructional aides that are employed at each site. It is important to note
that the EBM does not recommend the use of instructional aides and it does not allocate
resources to provide instructional aides.
Table 4.12: Comparison of EBM Certificated Tutors to Actual Tutors and Number
Of Title I Instructional Aides at Each School
School Certificated Tutors
(EBM)
Actual Difference Title I
Aides
Cold Spring 7 0 -7 4
Lakeside 5 0 -5 1
Ocean View 4 0 -4 2.5
Seaside 6.5 0 -6.5 .5
Bayshore 4 0 -4 2.5
River View 8 0 -8 3
Waterfall 5.3 0 -5.3 .5
Brookside 5.8 0 -5.8 1
Rolling Waves 7 0 -4 1
Creekside 8 0 -8 6
The data in Table 4.12 show that none of the ten schools employ certificated tutors;
however, all ten schools employ Title I instructional aides. Title I monies are designated
to provide services to at-risk students and could be used to pay the salaries of certificated
tutors instead instructional aides if the schools choose to use Title I funds differently.
99
The EBM allocates one teacher for every hundred English language learner (ELL)
students that schools serve. The schools that participated in this study do not have
teachers for ELL students. They all use instructional aides to help ELL students. These
instructional aides are funded by Economic Impact Aid (EIA) funds and English
Language Acquisition Program (ELAP) funds. Table 4.13 displays the number of
teachers for ELL students the EBM recommends for each site, the number of actual ELL
teachers at each site and the number of ELL instructional aides at each site.
Table 4.13: Comparison of EBM Teachers for ELL to Actual ELL Teachers and
Number of ELL Aides at Each School
School Teachers for ELL
(EBM)
Actual Difference ELL
Aides
Cold Spring 5 0 -5 4
Lakeside 4 0 -4 1
Ocean View 4 0 -4 3
Seaside 5 0 -5 4
Bayshore 3.5 0 -3.5 3
River View 6.5 0 -6.5 3
Waterfall 4 0 -4 1
Brookside 5 0 -5 1.5
Rolling Waves 5 0 -5 1
Creekside 7 0 -5 7.5
Again, the EBM does not recommend the use of instructional aides and it does not
allocate resources to provide instructional aides. Schools do have some choice in how the
EIA and ELAP funds are used. It is possible for schools to use these funds to hire
teachers for ELL students rather than pay instructional aide salaries. It should be noted
100
that the cost to employ certificated tutors and certificated teachers is substantially higher
than the cost to employ instructional aides.
Extended-day learning programs for at-risk students are supported by the EBM.
The EBM allocates enough teachers to provide two hours of extra instruction each day to
fifty percent of the at-risk students who attend a school. This is another area where the
schools in the study fall well below the EBM recommendations. Table 4.14 illustrates the
comparison between the number of extended-day teachers the EBM would fund and the
actual number of extended-day teachers at each school site.
Table 4.14: Comparison of EBM Extended-Day Teachers to Actual Extended-Day
Teachers at Each School
School EBM Extended-Day
Teacher
Actual Extended-Day
Teachers at Site
Difference
Cold Spring 5 1 -4
Lakeside 3.5 .5 -3
Ocean View 2.6 0 -2.6
Seaside 4.5 .5 -4
Bayshore 2.75 .5 -2.25
River View 7 1 -6
Waterfall 3.5 .5 -3
Brookside 4 .25 -3.75
Rolling Waves 5 .5 -4.5
Creekside 6 0 -6
The schools shown above provide an average of one hundred minutes per week of
extended-day instruction to about twenty percent of their students. Ocean View and
Creekside Schools do not provide any extended-day instruction to students. Principals at
101
all of the sites express concern about funding extended-day programs. They also report
that is difficult to find teachers who want to work the extra duty hours to provide
instruction to students in need.
No schools in the study provide local summer school programs to their students.
All summer school programs are centralized at the district level. Consequently, data are
not available to show how many students and teachers from each site participated in the
2008 summer school programs. The EBM funds summer school programs the same way
it funds extended-day programs. The number of at-risk students who attend each site
determines the summer school teacher allocation.
One of the current practices in providing services to special education students is
taking a proactive approach. This type of approach calls for providing early intervention
as soon as students begin to struggle in order to help prevent them from falling behind.
With this approach in mind, the EBM recommends funding special education teachers
and instructional aides based on the total number of students who attend a school. These
supporters are able to intervene before students are identified with a learning disability
and hopefully prevent the students’ need for special education in the future. Table 4.15
shows the allocation of special education teacher the EBM provides to the actual special
education teacher allocation at the schools in this study.
102
Table 4.15: Comparison of EBM Special Education Teachers to Actual Special
Education Teachers at Each School
School EBM Special
Education Teacher
Actual Special Education
Teachers at Site
Difference
Cold Spring 4.5 1 -4.5
Lakeside 4 1 -3
Ocean View 2 2 0
Seaside 4.5 1 -3.5
Bayshore 3.5 1 -2.5
River View 5.5 3 -2.5
Waterfall 3.5 1 -2.5
Brookside 3.5 1 -2.5
Rolling Waves 4.5 1 -3.5
Creekside 7.5 1 -6.5
Only one school (Ocean View) has no difference between the number of special
education teachers the EBM funds and the actual number of special education teachers at
the site. The special education teachers at this site work only with students who have
been identified with learning disabilities. Lakeside and Bayshore Elementary Schools
have fewer special education teachers than the EBM recommends. The special education
teachers at these schools are able to work with both special education students and
students who have not been identified as learning disabled.
Professional Development and Instructional Coaches
The EBM provides all teachers with ten days for professional development prior
to the beginning of each school year. This funding model also allocates funds to pay for
instructional coaches who provide on-going instructional support to teachers during the
103
school year. Table 4.16 shows the difference in professional development days between
the EBM and the actual school sites.
Table 4.16: Comparison of EBM Professional Development (PD) Days
To Actual PD Days at Each School
Schools EBM
Number of
P.D. Days
Schools Actual
Number of P.D. Days
Difference
Cold Spring 10 5.5 -4.5
Lakeside 10 5.5 -4.5
Ocean View 10 5.5 -4.5
Seaside 10 5.5 -4.5
Bayshore 10 5.5 -4.5
River View 10 1 -9
Waterfall 10 1 -9
Brookside 10 3 -7
Rolling Waves 10 3 -7
Creekside 10 2 -8
All school sites have substantially fewer professional development days than the EBM
recommends. The days that the teachers do receive for professional development take
place during the school year rather than before the school year begins.
Each of the ten school sites allocates professional development funds to pay for
teacher stipends, substitutes who release teachers for professional development, and
materials and supplies for professional development. The EBM also provides funds for
materials and supplies to support professional development. This may include actual
materials and/or consultants, conference fees and more. The EBM does not provide extra
104
funds for teacher stipends or substitutes because teachers receive training before the
school year begins. Table 4.17 displays the amount of funding each school would receive
according to the EBM and the funds the schools actually allocate to pay for personnel
(FTE) and materials to support professional development
Table 4.17: Comparison of EBM Funds for PD to Actual Funds for PD at
Each School
Schools EBM
Funds for P,D.
Materials
Schools Actual
Funds for P.D. (FTE
and Materials)
Difference
Cold Spring $68.000.00 $28,400.0 -$39,600.00
Lakeside $56,900.00 $25,500.00 -$31,400.00
Ocean View $49,500.00 $19,000.00 -$30,500.00
Seaside $68,900.00 $24,700.00 -$44,200.00
Bayshore $54,500.00 $18,200.00 -$36,300.00
River View $85,600.00 $23,000.00 -$62,600.00
Waterfall $49,700.00 $15,000.00 -$34,700.00
Brookside $51,200.00 $16,000.00 -$35,200.00
Rolling Waves $66,000.00 $26,500.00 -$39,500.00
Creekside $105,900.00 $29,500.00 -$76,400.00
The final component of professional development that is suggested by the EBM is
the use of instructional coaches. The EBM funds a specified number of instructional
coaches for each school site based on the number of students each schools serves. Table
4.18 shows the EBM recommended allocation of instructional coaches for each site with
the actual allocation of coaches at each school.
105
Table 4.18 Comparison of EBM Instructional Coaches to Actual Instructional
Coaches at Each Site
School EBM Instructional
Coaches
Actual Instructional
Coaches at Site
Difference
Cold Spring 3.5 0.3 -3.2
Lakeside 3 0.3 -2.7
Ocean View 2 0.4 -1.6
Seaside 3.5 0.2 -3.3
Bayshore 2.7 0.2 -2.5
River View 4 0 -4
Waterfall 2.5 0 -2.5
Brookside 2.5 0 -2.5
Rolling Waves 3.3 0 -3.3
Creekside 5 3 -2
Each of the schools have fewer instructional coaches than recommended by the EBM.
The schools that have the services of instructional coaches use their support to provide
direct, instructional coaching to teachers. The five schools that have instructional coaches
for just one or two days a week report an inconsistency in their services due to short
amount of time the coaches are actually on campus.
Library/Media
Library/media teachers are funded by the EBM to provide instruction in research
materials, technology and research. The EBM supports the use of library/media teachers
but does not fund library/media aides. The comparison between EBM and schools for
library/media teachers, and the allocation of library/media aides at the sites is displayed
below in Table 4.19.
106
Table 4.19: Comparison of EBM Library/Media Teachers to Actual
Library/Media Teachers and Number of Library/Media Aides at Each School
Schools EBM
Library/Media
Teacher
Schools Actual
Library/Media
Teacher
Difference Schools
Library/Media
Aide
Cold Spring 1 0 -1 1.5
Lakeside 1 0 -1 0.9
Ocean View 1 0 -1 1
Seaside 1 0 -1 1
Bayshore 1 0 -1 0.5
River View 1 0 -1 0.5
Waterfall 1 0 -1 0.5
Brookside 1 0.5 -0.5 0
Rolling Waves 1 0 -1 0.5
Creekside 1 1 0 0.5
Creekside and Brookside are the only schools that retain the services of library/media
teachers. These teachers are used at the schools to provide direct instruction to students
and to support core teachers’ use of library/media resources for instruction. The
remaining eight schools simply retain the use of library/media aides. These individuals
are used for clerical and technical support rather than instructional support.
Pupil Support Staff
The Evidence-Based Model allocates resources to provide support services to
students and families through counselors, nurses, psychologists, and other service
providers. This allocation is based on the number of at-risk students each site serves.
107
Table 4.20 provides a comparison of the support personnel the EBM allocates to the
actual number of support personnel who are providing services at each site.
Table 4.20: Comparison of EBM Support Staff to Actual Support
Staff at Each School
Schools EBM
Support Staff
Schools Actual
Support Staff
Difference
Cold Spring 6 2 -4
Lakeside 4.5 1 -3.5
Ocean View 3.5 1.5 -2
Seaside 5.5 1.25 -4.25
Bayshore 3.5 1.5 -2
River View 8 1 -7
Waterfall 4.5 1 -3.5
Brookside 5 2 -3
Rolling Waves 6 2.5 -3.5
Creekside 7 3.5 -3.5
In every case, the number of support person actually in place at the schools sites is fewer
than the number recommended by the EBM. The sites have counselors, nurses and
psychologists available to them, but only Creekside has full-time support from such
personnel.
108
School Administration
Resources for school administration include site administrators such as principals
and assistant principals as well as school secretaries. While the EBM does not provide an
assistant principal for the prototype elementary school, some of the schools in this study
would receive the services of an assistant principal due to their student enrollment
figures.
Assistant Principals
Assistant principals are allocated to the sites based on the number of students
enrolled at each school. The allocation of assistant principal time is prorated by
comparing the enrollment at the school sites to the enrollment of the prototype school.
Table 4.21 displays the each school’s allocation of assistant principal time based on the
EBM recommendations and the actual assistant principal time retained by each site.
109
Table 4.21: Comparison of EBM Assistant Principals to Actual
Assistant Principals at Each School
Schools EBM
Assistant Principal
Schools Actual
Assistant Principal
Difference
Cold Spring .6 0 -0.6
Lakeside .3 0 -0.3
Ocean View 0 0 0
Seaside .6 0 -0.6
Bayshore .3 0 -0.3
River View 1 0 -1
Waterfall 0 0 0
Brookside .2 0 -0.2
Rolling Waves .5 0 -0.5
Creekside 1.5 1 -.5
As the Table 4.21 shows, Waterfall Elementary School is the only school that would not
receive support from an assistant principal based on the Evidence-Based Model.
School Secretaries
The Evidence-Based Model calls for at least one, twelve-month secretary be allocated to
a school site for every two hundred students. The EBM does not provide other clerical
support to school sites. Table 4.22 shows the comparison between the EBM allocation of
secretaries to the actual allocation of secretaries at each site. It also shows the number of
school clerks each site employs.
110
Table 4.22: Comparison of EBM Secretaries to Actual Secretaries and Number
Of Clerks at Each School
Schools EBM
Secretary
Schools Actual
Secretary
Difference School
Clerks
Cold Spring 3 0.84 -2.16 1.5
Lakeside 2.5 0.84 -1.66 1.5
Ocean View 2 0.84 -1.16 .5
Seaside 3 0.84 2.16 1
Bayshore 2.5 0.84 -1.66 0.5
River View 4 0.92 -3.08 1
Waterfall 2 0.92 -1.08 1
Brookside 2 0.92 -1.08 1.5
Rolling Waves 3 0.92 -1.08 1.5
Creekside 5 1 -1 3
Creekside School is the only school that retains the services of a secretary for twelve
months. Creekside is also the only school that operates on a year-round schedule. While
the remaining schools have fewer secretaries than recommended by the EBM, they have
additional office support via the use of clerks. It may be possible for the schools to
reallocate their funds to acquire more secretary time by employing fewer school clerks.
Effect of Availability of Resources on the Development and Implementation of the
Instructional Improvement Plan
Data for Research Question Four
Principals at all ten elementary schools that participated in this study observe that
the availability of resources plays a role in the development and implementation of the
111
instructional improvement plan at the site. All ten principals offer suggestions for
additional resources they would need to provide an instructional program that would get
students to higher levels of learning. Six resource themes emerged from discussions with
all principals: (1) time, (2) instructional coaches, (3) number of core teachers, (4)
resources for parents, (5) support personnel, and (6) curriculum programs.
Time
The resource of time came up in three ways: (1) instructional time for students,
(2) time for principals to meet with individual teachers, and (3) time for professional
development. Some of the principals expressed a need to provide more instructional
minutes to all students by lengthening each school day and each school year. A few of the
principals request more time to meet with individual teachers to discuss lesson planning,
student data and instructional strategies. All of the principals request more time for
professional development outside of the regular school year. In other words, the
principals do not want to use substitutes to release teachers for professional development
because they feel this practice is not good for students. Table 4.23 shows which school
principal requests each element of additional time.
112
Table 4.23: Elements of Additional Time Requests for Each School
School Additional
Instructional
Minutes
Time to Meet With
Teachers
Time for
Professional
Development
Cold Spring X X X
Lakeside X X
Ocean View X
Seaside X X
Bayshore X X X
River View X X
Waterfall X
Brookside X
Rolling Waves X
Creekside X X
Instructional Coaches
Principals at each school cite a need for instructional coaches to be on campus and
working with teachers everyday. Instructional coaches would be responsible for
providing follow-up support for all professional development that teachers receive.
Instructional coaches would also be used to help teachers learn how to support struggling
students before the students get too far behind.
Number of Core Teachers
Every principal that was interviewed for this study believes that class size in
upper grade classrooms needs to be reduced. Class sizes in grades four, five and six range
from thirty-one students to thirty-nine students. The principals feel that this high number
of students makes it difficult for teachers to differentiate instruction and for teachers to
113
make connections with students. More core teachers are needed in order to decrease class
size in these grades.
Resources for Parents
All ten elementary schools currently have some form of parent advocate or
community liaison worker on staff. The main responsibility of these employees is to
translate written documents and provide oral interpretation for parents who do not read or
speak English. The principals at Cold Spring, Seaside, Bayshore, and Rolling Waves
Schools all request parent liaison workers who are trained to build a connection between
families, community organizations and the schools. These principals suggest training
liaisons to provide parent education in the areas of healthy eating and sleeping habits, the
importance of school attendance, early literacy activities for home, parents role in student
behavior, effective communication during parent conferences.
Support Personnel
Every principal made the request for additional support personnel. Types of
support personnel desired include assistant principals, school nurses and counselors.
Principals at nine of the elementary schools (not Creekside) would like the support of an
assistant principal. The assistant principal would support the principal with instructional
and managerial tasks. Principals feel that if they share the managerial tasks they would
have more time to focus on instructional needs at their sites.
Staff at Lakeside, Ocean View, Seaside, and Rolling Waves Elementary Schools
site the need for school nurses at the elementary school level. Students come to school
114
with health needs in the areas of vision, hearing, dental, and weight management. Staff
members at the schools listed above feel that having an on-site nurse to address these
needs would improve the instructional success of students.
Finally, principals at eight of the schools (excluding Cold Spring and Creekside)
express the need for on-site counselors at their schools. The principals believe that the
counselors can work with students to help them build self-esteem, increase self-efficacy,
manage anger, make friends, and promote positive behavior.
Curriculum Programs
Principals at nine of the schools (excluding Cold Spring) mention the need for
new curriculum programs or supplemental curriculum programs to support standards-
based instruction. Table 4.24 displays each school with the content area need for a
different curriculum program.
115
Table 4.24: Type of Content Areas of Improved Curriculum Programs
Requested by Each Site
School English Language
Arts
Mathematics English Language
Development
Cold Spring
Lakeside X X
Ocean View X
Seaside X X
Bayshore X
River View X
Waterfall X X
Brookside X X X
Rolling Waves X X X
Creekside X X X
The request for an improved English language arts program stems from the need for
explicit phonics and phonemic awareness instruction in kindergarten through grade three.
Principals wanting a new program for language arts want a curriculum that will guarantee
children read by the time they leave third grade. Principals state that students need a
mathematics curriculum that provides clear instruction in math facts and problem-
solving. Finally, nine principals request and English language development program that
meets the needs of students in the intermediate level of English language proficiency.
Discussion of Findings
The level of implementation of the following eight areas that have been adopted
from Odden et al., (2006): (1) focus on educating all students, (2) data driven instruction,
(3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state standards, (4) effective professional
116
development, (5) restructure the learning environment, (6) support for struggling
students, (7) effective instructional leadership, and (8) professional learning communities
and opportunities for collaboration varies from school site to school site. Table 4.25
shows each school with the number of instructional improvement strategies that are
consistently implemented at the site. This table also shows whether or not the school
made adequate yearly progress (AYP) based on 2008 state test results.
Table 4.25: Number of Instructional Improvement Strategies In Place at the
School Site with 2008 AYP Status
School Instructional Improvement
Strategies
Made 2008 AYP
Yes/No
Cold Spring 8 Yes
Lakeside 5 Yes
Ocean View 4 No
Seaside 5 Yes
Bayshore 8 Yes
River View 6 Yes
Waterfall 6 Yes
Brookside 2 No
Rolling Waves 3 No
Creekside 5 Yes
Only two sites (Cold Spring and Bayshore) consistently implement all eight strategies.
Brookside and Rolling Waves Elementary Schools conistently implement the fewest of
the eight instructional improvement strategies. It should be noted that both of these
schools did not make adequate yearly progress based on 2008 state test results.
117
All ten elementary schools provide use data in some ways to inform instruction.
All schools also provide some form of extra help for struggling students. Most schools
are lacking in the areas of focusing on educating all students and professional learning
communities. The other instructional improvement strategy that about half of the schools
struggle with is providing rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state standards.
The comparison between the resources recommended by the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) and the actual resource use at the ten school sites show that the sites
consistently retain fewer resources than recommended by the EBM. The differences
occur in number of core and specialist teachers, resources for extra help, resources for
professional development, and number of library/media teachers, support staff, and
administrative support.
All ten schools employ fewer core teachers than recommended by the EBM. This
is mainly due to the lack of full-day kindergarten programs and larger class sizes in
kindergarten and fourth through sixth grades. Several of the schools use Title I funds to
supply teachers to lower class size during language arts instruction. This brings the
average class size for this subject to twenty-eight students; only three more students than
recommended by the EBM. The average class size for kindergarten is about thirty
students; fifteen more than what the EBM recommends.
The eight schools that have specialist teachers are staffed with fewer specialist
teachers than the EBM suggests. Specialist teachers at these schools provide teachers
with preparation time rather than collaborative planning time. The EBM recommends
118
specialist teachers release core teachers in teams to provide time for collaboration and
professional development.
All ten schools provide struggling students with some type of extra support, but
none of the ten schools provide the support in the manner proposed by the EBM.
Certificated tutors are not used any of schools; however the schools employ instructional
aides. Instructional aides are not part of the resource allocation in the EBM. All but two
schools (Ocean View and Creekside) provide extended-day learning programs for
struggling students. The schools’ practices regarding extended-day programs differ from
the EBM in that the school programs serve few students for less time each day. Finally,
none of the schools offer a summer school program that reflects the components of the
summer school program recommended by the EBM. Summer school for students who
attend these schools is centralized their district offices. This results in low student
attendance from each site.
The professional development for teachers that takes place at the school sites is
very different than how professional development is supported through the EBM.
Teachers at all school sites have fewer days allocated for professional development and
these days are distributed throughout the school year. The EBM allocates ten days for
professional development before the school year begins. Further, schools have less
money allocated for materials than the EBM allocates for materials and supplies. The
EBM funds full-time, on-site instructional coaches for each school site who provide on-
going instructional support to teachers through the school year. In actuality, only
119
Creekside School has full-time instructional coaches. The other schools either have part-
time coaches who are at the sites up to two days per week or no coach at all.
Eight of the schools allocate library and media staff differently than the EBM
suggests. The EBM recommends employing the service of a library/media teacher for
every school. Creekside School retains the use of a full-time library/media teacher and
Brookside School employs a part-time library/media teacher. The eight remaining
schools use library and technology aides to support library and media instruction.
Use of support personnel such as counselors, nurses, psychologists, and health
assistants differs greatly between the EBM and actual resource allocations for this area at
the school sites. All of the sites are staffed at a much lower level than supported by the
EBM for this area. Creekside School comes the closest to actual allocations as this school
retains a full-time counselor, a full-time nurse and a full-time psychologist. The other
schools retain the services of such support providers, but this service is on a part-time
basis.
Finally, administrative support in all of the schools is below the level
recommended by the EBM. The number of students at each school suggests that all but
one school (Ocean View) receive the services of at least a part-time assistant principal.
The only school that has an assistant principal is Creekside. The EBM also recommends
that each school receive one twelve-month secretary for every two hundred students. All
ten schools only have one secretary. In each school the secretary works for only ten to
eleven months out of the year. While the schools are understaffed in secretary positions
120
according to the EBM, they all are overstaffed in extra clerical support compared to the
EBM.
Principals at all ten sites express the need for additional resources in order to
ensure that all students in their schools achieve mastery of the state standards. The
additional resources that are being requested by the principals fall into the following six
categories: (1) additional time, (2) instructional coaches, (3) additional core teachers, (4)
resources for parents, (5) support personnel, and (6) curriculum programs. All of these
resource categories are included in the Evidence-Based Model.
The EBM recommends additional time for professional development,
collaboration and student learning (through extended-day and summer school programs).
This funding model also provides instructional coaches at every school to support on-
going instructional improvement.
Additional core teachers are funded by the EBM based on the implementation of a
full-day kindergarten program and by reducing class size in all grades. This funding
model staffs a school with one teacher for every fifteen students in kindergarten through
grade three and one teacher for every twenty-five students in fourth through sixth grade.
Resources for parents are included in the EBM through the additional resources
schools would receive for support personnel. The counselors, psychologists, nurses and
other support personnel would be able to provide support to students and their families.
Lastly, providing students with a rigorous, standards-based curriculum is a key
component of the instructional improvement process. It is important to keep in mind that
121
curriculum programs support instruction, but they do not replace effective instruction.
The implementation of a well-designed, research-based curriculum program is supported
by the EBM. The implementation of an additional curriculum program in exchange for
good teaching is not supported by the EBM.
Summary
This chapter presented the findings for each of the four research questions
addressed by this study. The researcher presented the data collected from the ten case
studies to describe the instructional improvement strategies used in the schools. Eight
instructional improvement strategies were presented along with a description of how the
schools allocated various resources to support these strategies. Actual school-level
resource use was compared to the resource use strategies found in the Evidence-Based
Model and additional resource needs the schools have to educate students to high levels
were presented. The study is summarized in Chapter Five with conclusions,
recommendations and implications for further research.
122
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Overview of the Problem
Standards-based reform of the 1990’s and the NCLB Act of 2002 brought
individual school accountability to the spotlight by publicly displaying school
achievement data and ranking schools based on overall performance. This legislation
marked the first time that schools would be held accountable for ensuring that all students
perform to high levels of achievement. Around the same time as school accountability
systems shifted to focus on student learning outcomes, school finance litigation began to
shift from equity models to adequacy models for funding schools (Clune, 1994). Unlike
equity-based funding, adequacy models seek to determine what it will cost to adequately
educate all students to identified performance standards (Clune, 1994; Odden, 2003;
Rebell, 2007).
Four main methods to determine adequacy emerged as states across the nation
sought to estimate what it would take to ensure their students perform to high levels.
These methods are: 1) the successful district approach, 2) the cost function approach, 3)
the professional judgment approach, and 4) the evidence-based approach. These methods
were described in detail in chapter two.
The State of California launched a series of adequacy studies in 2005. These
studies incorporated elements of the successful district approach, the cost function
approach and the professional judgment approach to adequacy. None of the adequacy
123
studies that took place at this time used the Evidence-Based approach. While these
studies were the first of their kind for this state, they scratched the surface of determining
what resources schools need to meet performance standards. Furthermore, none of these
adequacy studies represented a collection of genuine school-level expenditure data.
With resources scarce in California and the achievement bar set high, it is
important to determine what constitutes an adequate level of funding required to deliver
effective instruction to all students. Due to the limited research on school-level resource
use in California, it is unclear whether or not schools implement adequacy models that
guide how resources are allocated. A better school level analysis of how schoolS utilize
their funds is needed to help California’s legislators determine what it costs to educate all
students to proficiency in the state standards and to help practitioners make informed
decisions about resource allocation at the school level.
The researcher chose to use the Evidence-Based Model for determining an
adequate level of funding required to educate students to high levels. This approach to
school adequacy was chosen because the Evidence-Based Model is the only approach
that incorporates professional judgment with research proven strategies for instructional
improvement.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate resource use data from individual
schools to determine the connection between resource use and student achievement. Site-
level data from elementary schools were compared to the evidenced-based adequacy
124
model to identify whether or not schools align resources to support the implementation of
best practices. School-level human resource data, expenditure data and qualitative data
collected from interviews were used to identify resource use patterns that can be used to
inform decisions related to school finance.
Research questions guiding this study were:
1. What are the current instructional improvement strategies observed at the
school level?
2. How the actual resource patterns at the school sites are aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies that are used in the Evidence-Based
Model?
3. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional improvement
plan?
4. How does the availability of resources affect the development and
implementation of the instructional improvement plan?
Methodology
A mixed-methods approach was used to collect data for this study. Quantitative
and qualitative data were collected to accomplish an in-depth investigation of resource
use at the school level. Quantitative data were collected to identify how funds and
personnel are allocated at the school sites. Qualitative data were collected to tell the story
of how resources are utilized at the school sites to implement the instructional program.
125
Sample and Population
This study focused on schools that have been successful despite the funding
challenges they face in the context of California’s school finance systems. The state of
California’s similar schools ranking system was used to identify successful schools. The
California Department of Education (2007) suggests that schools may improve their
performance by studying the strategies that higher-ranking schools with similar
demographics are implementing. Therefore, a purposeful sample of ten elementary
schools with a similar schools ranking of eight or higher for the years 2005, 2006 and
2007 were selected to participate in this study.
The Evidence-Based Model specifies strategies for supporting at-risk students.
Therefore, schools that serve student groups that have historically been at-risk of not
achieving proficiency on state standards were selected for participation in this study.
These student groups include students who qualify for Title I services and students who
are identified as English learner students. To ensure that each school serves students who
may need extra support, the following demographic data were used to select the schools
that participated in the study:
1. Each school serves four hundred to eleven hundred students in kindergarten to
fifth or sixth grades.
2. Each school has been identified as a Title I school with at least fifty percent of
the population entitled to free or reduced price meals.
126
3. At least sixty percent of each school’s population is made up of English
learner students.
Instrumentation
A data collection codebook and a data collection protocol were selected to gather
and analyze data for this study. The researcher attended a two-day training session in
June 2008. The data collection codebook and the data collection protocol were distributed
during this training session and the researcher received instruction in their use.
The data collection codebook was used to identify quantitative resource use data.
This codebook was based on a school expenditure structure and resource indicators that
were developed by Odden et al. (2003). Examples of quantitative data that were collected
include length of instructional day, class size, number of core teachers, number of support
personnel, funds for professional development, and more. Once collected, quantitative
data were entered into a password protected, on-line database.
The data collection protocol consisted of open-ended questions intended to
capture each school’s strategies for improving student performance. Questions were
designed to draw out the key elements of the school’s instructional program (see
Appendix A). The open-ended question protocol also served to extract the reasoning
behind resource allocation decisions.
Data Collection
The data collection was conducted between September of 2008 and January of
2009. The researcher conducted site visits to each of the ten schools that participated in
127
the study. Each site visit consisted of a four-hour semi-structured interview with school
principal and other key personnel the principal deemed necessary. Key personnel
included school secretaries and lead teachers. Each interview was conducted in a pre-
determined format as described by the interview protocol.
Existing documents were collected from each school during the site visit. These
existing documents included: (1) School Vision and Mission Statement, (2) Single School
Plan for Academic Achievement (used to discuss instructional improvement plan), (3)
Master Schedule (used to determine instructional minutes), (4) Staff Roster (used to
determine quantity of staff members), and (5) School Budget (used to discuss how
resources are allocated).
Data Analysis
The researcher used the quantitative and qualitative data that were collected
during the school visits to write a case study of each school using a pre-determined case
study protocol (see Appendix B). Each case study includes a description the school and
its school district, longitudinal test scores for the school, other school achievement data,
key elements of the instructional improvement process, a comparison of the actual
resource use in the school to that provided in the Evidence-Based Model, lessons learned,
and additional resources the school needs to continue and expand the improvement
process.
The “lessons learned” section of each case study covered the following eight areas
that have been adopted from Odden et al., (2006): (1) focus on educating all students, (2)
128
data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state standards, (4)
effective professional development, (5) restructure the learning environment, (6) support
for struggling students, (7) effective instructional leadership, and (8) professional
learning communities and opportunities for collaboration. A comprehensive analysis of
what the school is actually doing in each of the areas above was discussed in each case
study. This information was used to identify the current instructional improvement
strategies observed at the school site.
Each case study also includes a resource comparison table that compares the
actual resources that are in place at each site to the resources that would be generated by
the Evidence-Based Model. Data from these comparison tables were to (1) determine
how resource patterns at the site are aligned with or different from the resource use
strategies that are used in the Evidence-Based Model and (2) how actual resources are
used to implement the school’s instructional improvement plan.
Finally, case study data were used to make comparisons across all of the schools
that participated in the study. Similarities and differences among the schools’ use of
resources were identified. These findings were used to draw conclusions regarding how
schools are actually using resources, and to discuss the implications for practitioners and
policy makers.
129
Summary of the Findings
This section provides a summary of the study findings as they relate to each of the
four research questions. The research questions were answered using data found in the
ten individual school case studies. The case studies are located in the appendices of this
document (see Appendices C-L).
Findings for Research Question One
The first research question asked, “What are the current instructional
improvement strategies observed at the school level?” The following eight areas that have
been adopted from Odden et al., (2006) provided the basis for data collection for the first
research question: (1) focus on educating all students, (2) data driven instruction, (3)
rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state standards, (4) effective professional
development, (5) restructure the learning environment, (6) support for struggling
students, (7) effective instructional leadership, and (8) professional learning communities
and opportunities for collaboration.
Focus on Educating All Students
Case study data reveal that two elementary schools stand out in terms of focusing
education on all students: Cold Spring Elementary School and Bayshore Elementary
School. These schools stood apart from the rest in the way they make sure to focus on all
students and how they implement a rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state standards.
Both Cold Spring and Bayshore focus on all students by working toward a common
purpose that involves holding all students to high expectations. Learning goals are
130
established for every student who attends these schools. Progress toward goals are
monitored and discussed with parents and students. The staffs at these schools express a
belief that all students can learn to high levels.
Use of Data to Drive Instruction
All schools that participated in this study use data to drive and inform instruction.
The schools use summative data to evaluate instructional programs. Formative data such
as district benchmark exams, curriculum-embedded assessments, student work samples,
and portfolio data are used to adjust instructional programs and provide differentiation
based on students’ needs. These formative data pieces are also used to identify students
for participation in the intervention programs that are provided at the school sites.
Differences in the use of data include the depth of data analysis and the frequency of data
analysis.
Rigorous Curriculum that is Aligned to State Standards
All ten elementary schools have adopted standards-based curriculum programs for
language arts and mathematics. Principals at Cold Spring, Bayshore, River View,
Waterfall, Brookside, and Creekside Schools report with confidence that teachers are
implementing these programs with fidelity. While the curriculum programs are standards-
based, the lessons and activities provided by the programs do not always meet the rigor of
the California Content Standards. Two schools (Cold Spring and Bayshore) have
addressed this issue by collaboratively designing lessons using an “unpacking the
131
standards” approach. This approach allows teachers to backward plan from the state
standards when developing lessons for students.
Effective Professional Development
Densimone, Porter, Garet, Yeon, and Birman (2002) conducted a three-year
longitudinal study on professional development and found that professional development
is most effective when specific instructional strategies are presented with the curriculum
that teachers actually use. Teachers at eight of the schools that participated in this study
were provided with professional development that provided training in a research-based
instructional strategy while receiving core-content area training. Most often this involved
the incorporation of Direct Instruction with district-adopted reading program.
Restructure of the Learning Environment
Cold Spring, Lakeside, Ocean View, Seaside, Baysore, River View, Waterfall,
and Creekside Schools all adjusted their schedules to increase instructional minutes for
language arts instruction. This added time is used to provide differentiated, small group
instruction to students. Seven of these schools saw steady growth in the number of
students scoring proficient or advanced on the language arts portion of the CST. Cold
Spring, Ocean View, Bayshore, River View, and Waterfall Schools increased the
instructional minutes allocated for mathematics instruction. All of these schools saw
increases in the number of students scoring proficient or advanced on the mathematics
portion of the CST. Every school with the exception of Brookside and Rolling Waves has
structured the learning day to ensure that teachers within grade levels deliver language
132
arts and mathematics instruction at the same time. This structure has allowed the schools
to provide a team approach to supporting struggling students.
Support for Struggling Students
All ten elementary schools have supports in place to assist students who are
struggling. All schools provide support during the school day. All schools except Ocean
View and Creekside provide extended-day learning programs. Three of the most
successful schools (based on state assessment data) incorporate elements of the Response
to Intervention (RTI) to provide help to students. These schools are Cold Spring,
Bayshore, and Waterfall.
Effective Instructional Leadership
Effective instructional leadership is evident at Cold Spring, Bayshore, River
View, and Waterfall Elementary Schools. Each of these sites has developed the
leadership capacity of their teachers. The depth in instructional leadership at these sites
has enabled the schools to make systemic changes in the instructional program. Each of
these sites met AYP criteria in 2008 and has consistently increased the number of
students scoring proficient or advanced on the CST.
Professional Learning Communities
All ten schools that participated in this study provide opportunities for their
teachers to collaborate on a regular basis. Cold Spring, Lakeside, Ocean View, Seaside,
and Bayshore “bank” minutes to provide weekly collaboration time for teachers. The
remaining schools use staff meeting and/or grade level meeting time for collaborative
133
purposes. Teachers at Cold Spring, Bayshore, River View develop their knowledge and
skills by reading and discussing professional literature on a regular basis.
Level of Implementation
The level of implementation of the eight instructional improvement strategies
discussed above varies from school site to school site. The researcher found that the level
implementation of these strategies might have a connection to student learning outcomes
based on AYP data. Table 5.1 shows each school with number of instructional
improvement strategies that are consistently implemented at the site and the school’s
2008 AYP status.
Table 5.1: Number of Instructional Improvement Strategies In Place at the
School Site with 2008 AYP Status
School Instructional Improvement
Strategies
Made 2008 AYP
Yes/No
Cold Spring 8 Yes
Lakeside 5 Yes
Ocean View 4 No
Seaside 5 Yes
Bayshore 8 Yes
River View 6 Yes
Waterfall 6 Yes
Brookside 2 No
Rolling Waves 3 No
Creekside 5 Yes
134
Conclusions for Research Question One
As displayed in Table 5.1, two schools consistently implement all eight of the
instructional improvements strategies. Both of these schools met AYP criteria in 2008
and continually increase the number of students who score proficient or advanced on the
CST. Schools that implement the fewest number of instructional improvement strategies
(Ocean View, Brookside, and Rolling Waves) did not meet AYP criteria in 2008. These
data indicate a correlation between the number of instructional strategies that are
implemented to student outcome data.
Findings for Research Questions Two and Three
The second research question asked, “How the actual resource patterns at the
school sites are aligned with or different from the resource use strategies that are used in
the Evidence-Based Model?” The third research question asked, “How are resources used
to implement the school’s instructional improvement plan?” The resource comparison
tables that were included in each case study provided the data that were used to answer
research questions two and three.
The comparison between the resources recommended by the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM) and the actual resource use at the ten school sites show that the schools
consistently retain fewer resources than recommended by the EBM. However, the data
revealed areas where schools can choose to reallocate their resources to better align with
the EBM.
135
The resource strategies that are used in the Evidence-Based Model were broken
down into the following six categories for the purpose of this study: (1) core and
specialist teachers, (2) resources for extra help, (3) professional development with
instructional coaches, (4) library/media support, (5) support staff, and (6) school
administration.
Core and Specialist Teachers
Each of the school sites employs fewer core teachers than recommended by the
EBM. Two factors explain this difference: (1) length of kindergarten day and (2) class
size. The EBM provides schools with enough teachers to provide a full-day kindergarten
program. It also provides the resources necessary to staff schools at a ratio of fifteen to
one in kindergarten through third grade and twenty-five to one in fourth through sixth
grade. Not one of the schools in this study offers a full-day kindergarten program.
Further, average class size in these schools is twenty to one in first through third grade
and thirty-two to one in kindergarten and fourth through sixth grade. Eight of the ten
schools used categorical funds to employ at least one extra certificated teacher. In every
instance, this teacher was used to lower class size for language arts and/or mathematics
instruction.
Data indicated that every school site is under funded in the area of specialist
teachers as well. The EBM funds specialist teachers who teach non-core academic
subjects to students so that teachers have time to collaborate with one another. The
136
schools that have a small allocation of specialist teachers use these teachers to provide
individual planning time to core teachers.
Resources for Extra Help
The EBM funds certificated tutors and teachers for English learner students who
are meant to provide support to students who need extra help. None of the ten schools
employs certificated tutors or teachers specifically for English learner students. However,
all ten schools are over-funded in the number of instructional aides who are employed at
the sites. In fact, the EBM does not recommend allocating any resources for the
employment of instructional aides. Schools may consider reallocating funds from
instructional aide salaries to pay for certificated tutors and teachers for English learner
students. It should be noted that funding certificated personnel costs substantially more
than funding instructional aides.
The researcher found that all schools under fund extended-day programs as
compared to the EBM. The EBM funds these programs in a manner that provides two
extra hours per school day to at least one-half of the school’s at-risk student population.
The actual extended-day programs taking place at the schools provide up to forty-five
minutes per day; three or four days per week. Two schools, Ocean View and Creekside,
do not even offer extended-day programs to students.
The EBM funds summer school services in a manner that is similar to the way it
funds extended-day programs. No school that participated in this study funded summer
school programs. Summer school programs are centralized at the district level. Schools
137
received very little data about student participation or student performance in the
districts’ summer school programs.
Professional Development with Instructional Coaches
The EBM recommends providing teachers with ten days per year of professional
development that takes place outside of the students’ school year. This allows teachers to
receive training alongside their colleagues and eliminates the need to release teachers
during the year using substitutes. The EBM also funds instructional coaches who provide
on-going instructional support to teachers throughout the school year.
While none of the schools that participated in this study come close to what the
EBM recommends for professional development in terms of resource use, several of the
schools mirror the strategies that the EBM recommends. Teachers at five schools
(Creekside, Lakeside, Ocean View, Seaside, and Bayshore) receive the equivalent of five
days of professional development through a full day before the school year begins and
through time that is allocated for collaboration throughout the school year. Each of these
sites has an instructional coach for up to two days a week who provides on-going support
via demonstration lessons, co-plan/co-teach opportunities and follow-up presentations in
strategy use. Of these sites, only Ocean View did not met AYP criteria. However, Ocean
View saw continuous increases in the number of students scoring proficient or advanced
until 2008.
The five remaining sites (River View, Waterfall, Brookside, Rolling Waves, and
Creekside) allocate three or fewer days to teachers for professional development. Among
138
these sites, Creekside is the only one that has on-site instructional coaches. The
instructional coaches at Creekside School provide on-going support to teachers in
language arts instruction, mathematics instruction and English language development
instruction. This support includes the provision of demonstration lessons, co-plan/co-
teach opportunities and the facilitation of professional dialogue during collaborative
meetings. Of the ten schools, Creekside Elementary School is the mostly closely aligned
to the EBM in terms of providing coaches for professional development. The EBM would
provide five coaches for a school of Creekside’s size. Though this school met AYP
criteria each year, it has experienced little growth over time in the number of students
who scored proficient or advanced on the CST.
Library/Media Personnel
Creekside School and Brookside School are the only schools in this study that
retain the services of library/media teachers. At both sites, these individuals provide
instructional support in the areas research and instructional technology. Creekside’s
allocation of one library/media teacher matches the allocation the EBM recommends for
this school. Brookside Elementary School employs a part-time library teacher. The EBM
would provide the school with a full-time individual. The remaining sites employ part-
time library and/or technology clerks. So while the schools are under funded in
library/media teachers, they are over funded in library/media aides. These aides provide
clerical and maintenance help rather than instructional support.
139
Pupil Support Staff
Pupil support staff includes counselors, nurses, psychologists, and other direct
service providers. Once again, when compared to the EBM, all schools are under funded
in this area. Most schools have the services of counselors and psychologists for one day
each week. Schools benefit from the support of school nurses one day every month or so.
All schools have the support of part-time health assistants who are on campus each day.
These assistants support ailing students and maintain student health information. Once
more, Creekside Elementary School’s allocation comes the closest to what the EBM
would provide to the school. Creekside’s actual pupil support staff allocation is three and
half employees. The EBM would provide the school with seven employees for this area.
Among other pupil support personnel, Creekside retains the services of a full-time
counselor, a half-time psychologist and a half-time nurse.
School Administration
For the purposes of this study, school administration refers to principals, assistant
principals and school secretaries. The EBM funds one principal per school site. All ten
schools in the study match the EBM in principal allocation. The amount of assistant
principal support schools would receive according to the EBM has been prorated based
on school size. This showed that all schools with exception of Ocean View and Waterfall
qualify for at least part-time assistant principal support. The only school currently
receiving this support is Creekside School.
140
Every school that participated in this case study fell short of secretarial support
when compared to the EBM. At minimum, the EBM provides for two full-time, twelve-
month secretaries. The schools actually have one secretary who works a ten or eleven
month work year. Creekside School has one twelve-month secretary. This is due to the
school’s year round status.
All of the schools employ part-time clerical staff. In this area the schools are over
funded compared to the EBM. Part-time clerical staff is less expensive than full-time
secretary positions.
Conclusions for Research Questions Two and Three
A comparison of the EBM resource indicators with the actual resource strategies
in place at the schools shows that schools are under funded in every area recommended
by the EBM. It must be noted that all of the schools are over funded (compared to the
EBM) in number of instructional aides, library/media aides and office clerks.
Resource allocations at Creekside School are the most similar to the EBM. These
similarities are seen in the amount of instructional coaches, library/media staff, pupil
support staff, and administrative support. Based on this resource use comparison, it is
interesting that Creekside School has not made substantial growth in number of students
scoring proficient or advanced on the CST. This lack of growth might be explained by the
fact that Creekside Elementary School consistently implements only five of the eight
instructional improvement strategies that were identified earlier in this chapter.
141
It is also worth noting that Cold Spring, Bayshore and River View were all able to
make substantial gains over time though each school is under funded based on
comparison data between the EBM and actual resource use. The number of instructional
improvement strategies each of these schools consistently implement might explain this.
Cold Spring and Bayshore both consistently implement all eight strategies while River
View School implements six of the strategies consistently.
Findings for Research Question Four
The first research question asked, “How does the availability of resources affect
the development and implementation of the instructional improvement plan?” All of the
principals who were interviewed indicate that limited availability of resources negatively
impact the instructional improvement plan at their sites. Each principal cited additional
resources the school would need to provide an instructional program that would move
students to higher levels of learning. Six resource themes emerged from the interviews
with principals: (1) time, (2) instructional coaches, (3) number of core teachers, (4),
resources for parents, (5) support personnel, and (6) curriculum programs.
Time
All ten principals would like to have more time to provide professional
development for teachers. This time would be added to the beginning or end of each
school year. Principals want to avoid using substitutes to release teachers to attend
training as most substitutes are not qualified to deliver effective instruction to students.
142
This resource is also recommended by the EBM. The EBM would allocate ten days for
professional development before the students’ school year begins.
The principals at Cold Spring, Bayshore, River View, and Creekside request more
instructional minutes be provided for students who are struggling. These principals
believe that there is too much core content to teach all students to mastery in the time
available. This may be accomplished by extending the school day and/or school year. The
EBM provides additional instructional minutes with its extended-day and extended-year
program.
Principals at four sites (Cold Spring, Lakeside, Seaside, and Bayshore) would like
time to meet with teachers to hold in-depth data discussions. The EBM provides each
school with teacher specialists who release teachers for collaborative purposes. This
release time may also be used for teachers to collaborate with the site principal.
Instructional Coaches
On-site instructional coaches are needed at every school site. These teachers
would be responsible for providing on-going support to teachers throughout the school
year. The instructional coaches would also provide support to teachers in how to
effectively meet the needs of struggling students. The EBM allocates one instructional
coach for every two hundred students who attend the school.
Number of Core Teachers
More core teachers are needed at every school site to lower class size in
kindergarten and grades four through six. Average class size in these grades is
143
approximately thirty-three. Principals feel that class size is too high to effectively provide
differentiation for at-risk and English learner students. Principals at several sites feel so
strongly about this that they use categorical funds to employ at least one part-time teacher
to lower class size for language arts and/or math instruction. The EBM funds core
teachers to allow a class size of fifteen to one in kindergarten through third grade and
twenty-five to one in grades four through six.
Resources for Parents
Cold Spring, Seaside, Bayshore, and Rolling Waves Schools request additional
parent liaison workers. These individuals would be responsible for helping to build a
home-school connection, provide on-going parent education, and develop the capacity of
parents to lead others. These liaisons would also provide education in areas of healthy
living habits and support parents as they attempt to navigate through medical and other
official organizations. The EBM does not provide a specific allocation for parent
resources. However, the EBM supports building connections with parents and school
communities. This support may be provided in the way schools use the resources the
EBM would provide for support personnel.
Support Personnel
All principals except for Creekside’s would welcome the support of an assistant
principal. Assistant principals would provide support with both instructional and
managerial duties at the site. The EBM funds at least a part-time assistant principal for
each site.
144
Students at Lakeside, Ocean View, Seaside, and Rolling Waves would benefit
from services provided by a school nurse. Students at all but two schools (Cold Spring
and Creekside) would benefit from the services provided by a counselor. Cold Spring
offers a site-based student-mentoring program that reduces the need for a full-time
counselor. Creekside already retains the support of a full-time counselor. The EBM funds
these support services for schools.
Curriculum Programs
Principals at all but one school site (Cold Spring) believe that it is time to adopt a
new English language development (ELD) curriculum. The consensus is that current
ELD programs do not provide ELD instruction in a systematic manner.
Principals at half of the sites (Seaside, Waterfall, Brookside, Rolling Waves, and
Creekside) are ready to acquire a new English language arts program. Current ELA
programs do not present academic vocabulary in a methodical approach. The current
programs also do not address the rigorous levels of the state standards.
Principals at Lakeside, Brookside, Rolling Waves, and Creekside believe that it is
time to replace the current mathematics program. Pacing is the main issue with this
program. Principals think that the programs move too quickly for students to master the
objectives that are taught in each lesson.
The EBM does not necessarily fund curriculum programs. However, this need
does correlate with the eight instructional improvement strategies that were discussed
145
earlier. One of these strategies is the provision of a rigorous, standards-based curriculum
for all students.
Conclusions for Research Question Four
A correlation exists between the resource strategies used in the Evidence Based
Model to the resources that site principals state they need to educate all students to high
levels. Like the EBM, principals would like to provide expert professional development
to teachers, increased instructional time and lower class size to students, and support
services to parents and students. Finally, principals want to ensure that students at their
schools have access to rigorous, standards-based curriculum.
Recommendations
The findings and conclusions of the study led to the following recommendations:
One: Cold Spring and Bayshore Elementary Schools consistently implemented
all eight of the instructional improvement strategies adopted from Odden, et al. (2006). In
particular, teachers at these schools share a common vision that all students can learn to
high levels. All of the instructional improvement strategies that were implemented at
these two sites centered on this belief. Further, learning goals for all students were
developed to ensure that every child made progress toward becoming proficient or
advanced on the California Standards Test. Both of these sites have experienced
substantial gains in student achievement between the years 2005 and 2008 though they do
not receive the funding allocation that the EBM would provide.
146
In order to provide all students with learning goals that will allow them to make
steady progress toward proficiency in the state standards, schools should have clear
vision and purpose that is shared by all stakeholders. Time should be taken to develop
this common purpose with all groups that represent the school community. This includes
classified personnel, parents and students. The common purpose should drive all resource
allocation decisions and instructional improvement strategies that are implemented at the
site.
Two: Eight school sites that participated in this study have incorporated a
schedule that provides teachers with regular and on-going time to collaborate. This
collaboration time led to the development of professional learning communities at the
schools. In turn, increased capacity for teacher leaders emerged. Literature from the
research revealed that numerous leaders within the organization and communities of
professional learning bring about deep school reform (Fullan, 2005).
The researcher recommends that schools restructure their schedules to provide
frequent and on-going opportunities for teachers to collaborate. This collaboration time
should be used for horizontal and vertical articulation, discussions of professional
literature, and sharing of best practices in the instructional improvement process. This
process should develop the capacity of teacher leaders who will be integral to the school
improvement process.
Three: The participants in the study felt that they had insufficient resources in
terms of time and instructional coaches to provide effective and on-going professional
147
development to teachers. More days that are allocated specifically for professional
development are needed. These days should take place outside the students’ school year
so as not to interrupt the students’ instructional program. Instructional coaches are needed
to provide regular and on-going support throughout the year. Research from the literature
found that professional development should incorporate proven instructional strategies
with curriculum and be supported throughout the year to be effective (Marzano,
Pickering & Pollock, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2006).
It is recommended that schools and districts review the possibility of adjusting the
teacher work year, teacher substitute allocations and resource use for professional
development. It may be possible for districts to negotiate with teacher unions to redefine
how substitute days are used in order to provide time before the school year begins to
deliver professional development. Further, districts and schools should review the total
amount of resources that are available for professional development. This review may
reveal a way to fund instructional coaches who would provide continued support
throughout the school year.
Four: Every school that participated in this study employs instructional aides for
the purpose of providing extra help to students who are struggling or who are English
language learners. While this is a common practice at schools sites, no basis for use of
instructional aide support can be found in the literature on instructional improvement.
In order to ensure highly skilled, certificated personnel provide support to the
students with the most learning needs, it is recommended that schools reallocate their
148
resources to provide certificated tutors as an extra help strategy. While certificated tutors
require more funds than instructional aides, the cost benefit may be worth the added
fiscal cost. The incorporation of trained, certificated tutors in the instructional
improvement plan will likely lead to the implementation of an improved support system
for struggling learners. Schools and districts are encouraged to seek out creative methods
to move away from the practice of employing instructional aides. This may involve not
replacing instructional aides when they resign or retire. It may also involve training
instructional aides to work in alternative support areas such as parent involvement
programs.
Suggestions for Further Research
Based on the findings of this study, the following suggestions are made regarding
future research in this area:
One: This study suggested a need to lower class size in kindergarten and grades
four through six. Currently, little research is available on the affect of class size in these
grades. Further research needs to be conducted to investigate the impact of class size,
particularly in schools with high levels of at-risk student populations.
Two: This study uncovered a need for on-site instructional coaches at the
school-level. These coaches have a significant role in providing professional
development to teachers. There may be a substantial cost to schools and districts for the
provision of such coaches. As instructional coaches play an important role in the
149
development of teachers, more research needs to conducted on how these coaches should
be selected, trained and evaluated.
Three: The data collected during this study suggested that the use of substitute
teachers to release teachers for professional development negatively impacts student
learning. Further research needs to be conducted to investigate the affect lost instructional
time due to use of substitutes has on students’ instructional program.
Concluding Remarks
NCLB (2002) requires that one hundred percent of all students will be proficient
in state content standards by 2014. At a time when resources are scarce in California,
schools will need to be strategic in how resources are allocated to ensure that students
achieve to the high levels of learning required by NCLB.
This study served to inform practitioners and policy makers of the resources that
are available to ten schools in Southern California. It also described how actual resource
patterns at the school sites align with the Evidence Based adequacy model, and are used
to support the implementation of the instructional program. The instructional
improvement strategies and resource allocation patterns described in this study can be
used as a guide by practitioners for the implementation of an evidenced-based program
that will meet the needs of all students.
150
REFERENCES
Adams, J. E. (1994). Spending school reform dollars in Kentucky: Familiar patterns and
new programs, but is this reform? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
16(4), 375-390.
Addonizio, M. F. (2003). From fiscal equity to educational adequacy: Lessons from
Michigan. Journal of Educational Finance, 28, 457-484.
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259-
287.
Benard, B. (2003). Turnaround teachers and schools. In (Ed.), (2nd ed., pp. 115-137).
In B. Williams (Ed.), Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing beliefs
and practices (2nd ed., pp. 25-47). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Brewer, D., & Smith, J. (2007). Evaluating the "Crazy Quilt"; Educational governance in
California. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from Stanford University Web Site:
http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
California Department Of Education. (2007, March). Overview of California's 2006
similar schools ranks based on the API. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov Web Site: http://star.cde.ca.gov/
Carter, S. C. (2001). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing schools. Washington
DC: The Heritage Foundation.
Chambers, J. G., Levin, J. D., & Parrish, T. B. (2006). Examining the relationship
between educational outcomes and gaps in funding: An extension of the New
York adequacy study. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(2), 1-32.
Chambers, J. G., & Parrish, T. B. (1994). State-level education finance. In Herbert J.
Walberg (Ed.), Advances in Educational Productivity (pp. 45-74). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
151
Chambers, J., Levin, J., & Delancey, D. (2007, March). Efficiency and adequacy in
California school finance: A professional judgement approach. Retrieved April
29, 2008 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Clune, W. H. (1994). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance. Educational
Policy, 8(4), 376-394.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: A competent teacher for every child.
Phi Delta Kappan, 78(3), 193-201.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to qualified
teacher in California's public schools. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1936-
1966.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Securing the right to learn: Policy and practice for
powerful teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 13-24.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America's commitment
to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Orphanos, S. (2007, March). Leadership development in
California. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from
http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Desimone, L., Porter, A., Garet, M., Oon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Effects of
professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year
longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
Dufour, R., & Burnette, B. (2002). Pull out negativity by its roots. Journal of Staff
Development, 23(3), 27-30.
Dufour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington: National Education
Service.
Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don't know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729-735.
Duncomber, W., & Yinger , J. (2007, March). Understanding the incentives in
California's education finance system. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on
Educational Policy and Practice (IREPP).
152
Edsource. (2007, January). Trends and comparisons in California school finance.
Retrieved March 8, 2008, from Edsource Web Site:
http://californiaschoolfinance.org/tabid/126/Default.aspx
Edsource (2008, February). The Governor’s budget for 2008-09 proposes historic cuts
for education. Retrieved March 8, 2008 from http://californiaschoolfinance.org
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: the moral
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.
Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Achilles, C. M. (2003). The 'why's" of class size: Student
behavior in small classes. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 321-368.
Firestone, W. A., Goertz, M. E., Nagle, B., & Smelkinson, M. F. (1994). Where did the
$800 million go? The first years of New Jersey's quality education act.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 359-347.
Fullan, M. (2003). Moral imperative of school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press Inc.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Goe, L. (2006). Evaluating a state-sponsored school improvement program through an
improved school finance lens. Journal of Education Finance, 31(4), 395-419.
Goertz, M., & Stiefel, L. (1998). Special Issue: School level resource allocation in urban
public schools. Journal of Education Finance, 23(4), 435-446.
Governor's Committee On Education Excellence (2007, November). Students first:
Renewing hope for California's future. Retrieved May 2, 2008 from
http://www.everychildprepared.org/
Grubb, W. N., Goe, L., & Huerta, L. A. (2004). The unending search for equity:
California policy, the "improved school finance," and the Williams case. Teachers
College Record, 106(11), 2081-2101.
153
Guthrie, J. W., & Rothstein, R. (1999). Enabling adequacy to achieve reality: Translating
adequacy into state school finance distribution arrangements. In H.F. Ladd, R.
Chalk, & J. S. Hansen (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues
and perspectives (pp. 209-259). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hannaway, J., McKay, S., & Nakib, Y. (2002). Reform and resource allocation: National
trends and state policies. Developments in School Finance, 1999-2000.
Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of
Education, 57-76.
Hansen, J. (2007, March). Education data in California: Availability and transparency.
Retrieved April 30, 2008 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Hanushek, E. (2006). Courting Failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges’
good intentions and harm our children. Stanford: Hoover Press.
Hanushek, E. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance.
Educational Researcher, 18(4), 45-65.
Hanushek, E. A. (1994). An exchange: Part II: Money might matter somewhere: A
response to Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 5-8.
Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (1997). Understanding the twentieth-century growth in U.S.
school spending. Journal of Human Resources, 32(1), 35-68.
Hartman, W. T., Bolton, D. G., & Monk, D. H. (2001). A synthesis of two approaches to
school-level financial data: the accounting and resource cost model approaches.
Selected Papers in School Finance. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Hedges , L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). An exchange: Part I: Does money
matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on
student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23(5). Retrieved July 9, 2008, from
http://edr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/5
Imazeki, J. (2007, March). Assessing the costs of K-12 education in California public
schools. Retrieved April 15, 2008 from
http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
154
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice. (2007). Getting down to facts; A
research project examining California's school governance and finance systems.
Retrieved April 6, 2008, from Stanford University Web Site:
http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Jefferson, A. L. (2005). Student performance: Is more money the answer? Journal of
Education Finance, 31(2), 111-124.
Kirst, M., Goertz, M., & Odden, A. (2007). Evolution of California state school finance
with implications from other states. In Consortium for Policy Research in
Education (CPRE).
Koski, W., & Horng, E. (2007, March). Curbing or facilitating inequality? Law,
collective bargaining, and teacher assignment among schools in California ().
Retrieved April 25, 2008 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Koski, W. S., & Weis, H. A. (2004). What educational resources do students need to
meet California's educational content standards? A textual analysis of California's
educational content standards and their implications for basic educational
conditions and resources. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1907-1935.
Ladd, H., & Hansen, J. (1999). Making money mater. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. H. (1995). Where has the money gone? An analysis of
school spending in New York. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
17(2), 195-218.
Lee, J., & Wong, K. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic
equity: considering both school resources and achievement outcomes. American
Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 797-832.
Loeb, S. (2007, August 6). Difficulties of estimating the cost of achieving education
standards (Working Paper 23). Stanford: School Finance Redesign Project.
Loeb, S., Grissom, J., & Strunk, K. (2007, March). District Dollars: Painting a picture of
revenues and expenditures in California's public school districts. Getting Down
to Facts Project: Stanford University.
Loeb, S., & Miller, L. (2007, March). A review of state teacher policies: What are they,
what are their effects, and what are their implications for school finance?.
Retrieved April 8, 2008 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
155
Manning, J. B., & Kovach, J. A. (2003). The continuing challenges of excellence and
equity. In B. Williams (Ed.), Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing
beliefs and practices (2nd ed., pp. 25-47). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that
works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that work: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Miles, K. H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Rethinking the allocation of teaching
resources: Some lessons from high performing schools. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 20(1), 9-29.
Mockler , J. (2007, September). Are Californians getting their money's worth from their
public schools? Retrieved March 2, 2008, from Edsource Web Site:
http://californiaschoolfinance.org/IssuesCommentarynbspnbsp/MoneysWorthMoc
klerCommentary/tabid/162/Default.aspx
Oates, W. E. (1999). An essay on fiscal federalism. Journal of Economic Literature,
37(3), 1120-1149.
Oberman, I., Hollis, J., & Dailey, D. (2007, March). Bringing the state and locals
together: Developing effective data systems in California school districts.
Retrieved April 30, 2008 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.
Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). Reallocating resources: How to boost student
achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A cost framework
for professional development. Journal of Education Fincance, 28(1), 51-74.
156
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditure structures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education
Finance, 28, 323-356.
Odden, A., Goertz, M., Goetz, M., Archibald, S., Gross, B., Weiss, M., Mangan, M.T.
(2008). The cost of instructional improvement: Resource allocation in schools
using comprehensive strategies to change classroom practice. Journal of
Education Finance, 33(4), 381-405.
Odden, A., & Massy, W. (1992). Education funding for schools and universities:
Improving productivity and equity. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California, Center for Research in Education Finance, Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
Odden, A., Monk, D., Nakib, Y., & Picus, L. O. (1995). The story of the educational
dollar: No academy awards and no fiscal smoking guns. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2),
161-168.
Odden, A., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School Finance: A policy perspective (4th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Mangan, M. T., & Fermanich, M. (2006). An
evidence-based approach to school finance in Washington. Submitted to the
Washington Learns Steering Committee, Olympia, WA. Retrieved April 29, 2008
from http://washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/EvidenceBasedReportFinal9-11-
06_000.pdf
Picus, L. O. (1991). Incentive funding programs and school district response: California
and Senate Bill 813. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(3), 289-308.
Picus, L. O. (1994). The local impact of school finance reform in Texas. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16(4), 391-404.
Picus, L. O. (2000). How schools allocate and use their resources. ERIC Clearinghouse.
ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 452578.
Picus, L. O., Odden, A., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008). Implementing
school finance adequacy: School level resource us in Wyoming following
adequacy-oriented finance reform. Retrieved April 26, 2008 from
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2008/interim/schoolfinance/resources.pdf
157
Rebell, M. A. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A
proposal for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teachers
College Record, 109(6), 1303-1373.
Resnick, L., & Zurawsky, C. (2005). Standards-based reform and accountability: Getting
back on course. American Federation of Teachers, Spring, 1-13.
Rice, J. K. (2004). Equity and efficiency in school finance reform: Competing or
complementing goods? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 134-151.
Schmoker, M. (199). Results: the key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sonstelie, J. (2007, March). Aligning school finance with academic standards: A
weighted-student formula based on a survey of practitioners. Retrieved April 30,
2008 from http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Spillane, J., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed
perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
Sunderman, G. L., & Orfield, G. (2007). Do states have the capacity to meet the NCLB
mandates? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 137-139.
Timar, T. B. (2003). The "new accountability" and school governance in California.
Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 177-200.
Timar, T. B. (2004). School governance and oversight in California: Shaping the
landscape of equity and adequacy. Teachers College Record, 106`(11), 2057-
2080.
Timar, T. B. (2006, September). How California funds K-12 education. University of
California, Davis: Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice
(IREPP).
Timar, T. B. (2007, March). Financing K-12 education in California: A system overview.
Retrieved April 7, 2008 from http://irepp.standford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm
Townley, A. J., Schmieder, J. H., & Wehmeyer, L. B. (1998). School finance: A
California perspective (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Verstegen, D. A. (2007). Has adequacy been achieved? A study of finances and costs a
decade after court-ordered reform. Journal of Education Finance, 32(3), 304-327.
158
Walter, F. B., & Sweetland, S. R. (2003). School finance reform: an unresolved issue
across the nation. The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, 121(1),
143-150.
Williams, B. (2003). Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing beliefs and
practices (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
159
APPENDIX A
Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol
School Sites
Following are open-ended questions intended to capture each school’s strategies for
improving student performance. Ask the questions in the order that they appear on this
protocol. Record the principal’s answers as s/he gives them and focus on getting the key
elements of the instructional improvement effort with less emphasis on the process
aspect.
I. Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance.
A. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?
1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
(E.g. Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)
2. What curricula have you used during your instructional improvement
effort? (E.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
• Is it aligned with state standards?
• How do you know it is aligned? (E.g. District recent review for
alignment)
3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
• • • • Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective teaching?
4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?
(E.g. Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework)
5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional
improvement process?
• • • • If so, what types of assessments have been key? (E.g. formative,
diagnostic, summative)
• How often are those assessments utilized?
• What actions were taken with the results?
6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part of
your reform efforts? (E.g. Individualized instruction, differentiated
instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction)
• • • • Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
160
• • • • How did you know that the instructional strategies were being
implemented?
B. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the
resources been in place?
1. Early Childhood program: Is it half or full day? Number kids? Staffing
ratios? Eligibility?
2. Full Day Kindergarten
• If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?
3. Class Size Reduction
• Reduction Strategy (E.g. 15 all day long K-3 or reading only with
15)
4. Professional Development:
• When are the professional development days scheduled for? (E.g.
Summer Institutes, Inservice Days)
• What is the focus of the professional development?
• Do you have instructional coaches in schools? Were there enough
coaches? (Did they need more but couldn’t afford it?)
5. “Interventions” or Extra Help Strategies for Struggling Students:
• Tutoring: Specify 1:1, in small groups (2-4), or in medium groups
(3-5)
• Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes & Number of
times per week), Academic focus, Who instructs (certified teachers
or aides), Who participates
• Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day, Number
weeks), Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who participates
• ELL
• Scheduling: (E.g. double periods in secondary schools)
6. Parent outreach or community involvement
7. Technology
C. Was the improvement effort centrist (central office orchestrated) or
bottom up?
161
D. What type of instructional leadership was present?
E. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan? (E.g. School
Board report which helped solidify focus)
F. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand your
efforts?
162
APPENDIX B
STUDY OF SCHOOL RESOURCE USE
& INSTRUCTIONAL IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
Case Study Write-up Format
I. Background on the school & school district including:
a. Whether they're rural/urban/suburban
b. Makeup of the district: # of elem/mid/high schools
c. Approximate number of students in the district & school, rounded to the
nearest 50 per school, and 100 per district.
d. Description of students (approximate number or percentage of FRL, ELL,
special education, etc.) in the district & school
e. One sentence on the improvement process
f. One sentence on the purpose of the case study.
II. Test Scores
a. Longitudinal (1999-00 to 2004-05) CST test scores in Reading, Writing, &
Math
b. 2005-06 & 2006-07 CST test scores.
III. Introduction of the key elements of the improvement process
a. How/why it started
b. This should be in "story" form with specific examples that gives a big picture
description of what happened
c. Identify what resources it took (people & dollar resources).
IV. Themes of the improvement process
a. Whatever the themes were, make sure that you not only describe them, but
also tie them to any outcome measures that resulted from the efforts
b. Order the themes in the way that they happened so that the story flows
c. Identify what resources it took (people & dollar resources).
V. Compare the actual resource use in the school to that provided in the Funding
Model using the following table.
a. The far left column, “Source from Funding Model,” maps where on the
Finance Model (which is on the web board for download) you can find the
quantities to populate the “Funding Model” Column
b. To access the correct information in the Funding Model Excel
spreadsheet, click on the “District Summary” worksheet. In cell A3, enter
the 7 digit district code of the district you wish to inquire with an
apostrophe before the digits (these codes can be found on the “Base Sheet”
163
worksheet) and the school resources should then appear on the “School
Summary-FTEs” worksheet and the “School Summary-Dollars”
worksheet. You will find FTEs on the “School Summary-FTEs”
worksheet and dollar figures on the “School Summary Dollars” worksheet.
Source from Funding
Model
Staffing Category
Funding Model
Actual
“Reg CORE”
(Column G)
Core Academic Teachers
“Specialist” (Column H)
+ “Voc Ed” (Column
K)
Specialist & Elective Teachers
“ALT” (Column I) +
“Small” (Column J)
Alternative Teachers/
Small School Teachers
N/A LIBRARY STAFF
“Librarian” (Column Q) - Librarian/Media Specialist (Certified)
“Media Tech”
(Column R)
- Library/Media Tech Aides (Non-
Certified)
N/A EXTRA HELP
“ELL” (Column N) - Certified Teacher Tutors for English
Language Learners
“Tutor” (Column M) - Certified Teacher Tutors for At-Risk
Students
N/A - Non-certified Tutors
0
N/A - Resource Room Teachers (non-special
education)
0
N/A - Resource Room Aides (non-special
education)
0
N/A - Special Education Teachers
Fully Funded
N/A - Special Education Aides
Fully Funded
N/A - Gifted & Talented Teachers
0
N/A - Gifted & Talented Aides
0
“Gifted” (Column O) - Gifted & Talented Funds
$ $
“Ext Day” (Column P) - Extended Day
“Summer” (Column O) - Summer School
N/A PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
N/A - Total # of Professional Development
Days
10
“Inst Fac” (Column L) - Instructional Facilitators
164
“Prof Dev” (Column P) - Teacher Time (Substitutes & Stipends)
$
$
- Trainer/Consultant Funds
$
- Materials, Equipment & Facilities $
- Travel & Transportation
$
- Tuition & Conference Fees $
N/A Other Instructional Staff
N/A - Building Substitutes & Other
Substitutes
0
N/A - Instructional Aides
0
“Supr Aides” (Column
T)
- Supervisory Aides
N/A Student Support
“Pupil Sup” (Column S) - Counselors
- Nurses
- Social Workers
N/A - Psychologists
Fully Funded
N/A - Speech/ OT/ PT
Fully Funded
N/A - Health Assistant
0
N/A Administration
“Principal” (Column U) - Principal
“Asst Principl” (Column
V) + “Smal/ALT AP”
(Column W)
- Assistant Principal
“Secretarial” (Column
X)
- Secretary
“Clerical” (Column Y) - Clerical
VI. Lessons Learned
a. The findings from the Washington Successful Districts Study provide a good
framework for summarizing what happened*:
http://www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/SuccessfulDistReport9-11-
06Final.pdf
1. Focus on Educating all Students
2. Use Data to Drive Decisions: Definition is “A process of making
decisions about curriculum and instruction based on the analysis of
classroom data and standardized test data. Data-driven decision making uses
165
data on function, quantity and quality inputs, and how students learn to
suggest educational solutions. It is based on the assumption that scientific
methods used to solve complex problems in industry can effectively evaluate
educational policy, programs and methods.” (Cite:
http://www.k12.wy.us/FP/title3/Glossary.pdf, which was developed by The
National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.)
3. Adopt a Rigorous Curriculum & Align to State Standards
4. Support Instructional Improvement with Effective Professional
Development
5. Restructure the Learning Environment
6. Provide Struggling Students with Extended Learning Opportunities
...all of which were implemented with:
7. Instructional Leadership and
8. Professional Learning Communities.
*Of course you can only include those that were part of the district's improvement
process.
VII. End with the additional resources that would be needed to continue & expand
their efforts.
166
APPENDIX C
CASE STUDY: COLD SPRING ELEMENTARY SCHOO L
Overview of School and District
Cold Spring Elementary School is a kindergarten through sixth grade school that
serves just fewer than seven hundred students in Grape Vine Unified School District.
Grape Vine USD is an urban district in Southern California. The district educates
approximately 50,000 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. In addition, Grape
Vine USD provides support programs for adult education, preschool, regional occupation
program (ROP), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), fine and performing arts, and
special education. Cold Spring Elementary School is one of eight schools in Grape Vine
USD that was designated a Title I Academic Achievement School during the 2007-2008
school year.
Though the school serves a diverse student population, there are three significant
subgroups of students at Cold Spring Elementary School: (1) socio-economically
disadvantaged (SED), (2) English learner students and (3) students of Hispanic ethnicity.
The percent of students who receive free or reduced meals is used to determine the
percent of students who are considered SED. Approximately eighty-three percent of
students are considered SED which is about twenty percent more than the district average
of sixty-four percent. Just over three quarters of the population of Cold Spring school is
made up of English Learner students while about half of the district’s population are
167
English learners. Nearly ninety percent of the students at Cold Spring are of Hispanic
ethnicity compared to a district average of about fifty-four percent.
Cold Spring Elementary School also provides services to forty-three students who
qualify for special education. Most of these students receive services for speech and
language support and for mild learning disabilities.
Over the past four years the school’s mission “No Excuses: We All Will Learn”
has been implemented through developing a common purpose, setting learning goals,
supporting a system of teacher leaders, building a student mentorship program, providing
students with strong first instruction, providing teachers with effective professional
development, using data to inform instruction that incorporates differentiation, supporting
students who are struggling, supporting professional learning communities, and
evaluating school programs regularly. The purpose of this case study is to tell the story of
noteworthy improvement in student learning at Cold Spring Elementary School and
identify how resources are aligned with the instructional improvement process.
State Assessment Data for Cold Spring Elementary School
Cold Spring Elementary School’s test scores have increased considerably over the
past four the past four years. In fact, in the area of English language arts the number of
students scoring proficient or advanced has doubled since the year 2005. In the year
2008, sixty-two percent of students scored proficient or advanced in math compared to
fifty-one percent in the year 2005. The most dramatic increase took place in the area of
science. In 2005 only fourteen percent of students scored proficient or advanced on the
168
state science standards test. By 2008 sixty-four percent of students scored proficient or
advanced. These dramatic increases over time can be seen in Figure One.
Figure One: Percent of students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST
for English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics and Science 2005-2008).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Percent Proficient or Advanced
ELA Math Science
An examination of significant subgroup data shows no notable gap between
subgroup performance on the California Standards Test. As shown in Figure Two
(below) all significant subgroups made steady growth in the area of English language arts
from the year 2005 to the year 2008.
169
Figure 2: ELA Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup: SED,
ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
Figure Three (below) shows a similar pattern in the area of mathematics:
Figure 3: Math Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup: SED,
ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
In 2008, Cold Spring Elementary School met the State of California’s goal for all
schools to obtain an Academic Performance Index (API) score of at least 800. From the
year 2005 to the year 2008 Cold Spring grew almost one hundred points. The school’s
170
current API score is 808. Figure Four demonstrates the incredible growth the school has
made in the past four years.
Figure 4: Academic Performance Index (API) Growth 2005-2008
711
748
778
808
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
820
2005 2006 2007 2008
API Growth Score
Cold Spring Elementary School has made Adequate Yearly Progress every year for the
past four years. This is remarkable performance because five years ago the school was at
risk for entering into program improvement. The instructional improvement strategies
that are discussed in the next section provide the roadmap for how this school turned
itself around.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
At the beginning of the instructional improvement process Cold Spring
Elementary School was at risk of entering program improvement due to the low numbers
of students who were scoring proficient or advanced on the state standards test. District
leadership replaced the principal for the 2004-2005 school year with the hope of seeing
an increase in student performance. The entering principal quickly realized that teachers
171
held low expectations for students and that at atmosphere of blame surrounded the
school. Further, teachers were not using the district-adopted textbooks, data analysis was
non-existent, extended-day programs were implemented randomly, and everyone was
doing his or her own thing. After assessing the situation at this school, the principal
decided that the first order of business was to develop a common purpose with all staff
members at the school.
Developing a Common Purpose
The staff at Cold Spring Elementary School began the process of developing a
purpose by taking the time to revisit their vision and mission statements. Certificated and
classified staff members worked in teams to discuss their ideas about teaching and
learning. Parents were invited to focus group meetings where they shared the hopes that
hold for their children. Upper grade students also participated in focus groups where they
discussed their goals for the future. This process led the entire school community to the
idea that they were all there for learning. They concluded that blame and excuses have no
part in the education of children which ultimately led to the school motto: “No Excuses:
We All Will Learn.” This motto literally covers the school. It is written across the school
marquee, on newsletters, meeting agendas, stickers, notepads, and spoken during
announcements and assemblies. The process of developing a common purpose succeeded
in changing the culture of the school. With the school focused on learning, the staff
turned their attention to establishing learning goals for all students.
172
Setting Learning Goals
The student learning goals Cold Spring Elementary School set are straightforward
ones. Students in kindergarten and first grade are expected to meet or excel at their grade
level standards. Students in second grade are expected to score proficient or advanced on
the CST. Each student in third grade through sixth grade is expected to make at least one
proficiency band’s growth on the CST for English language arts and math until they
reach proficient or advanced. The focus on these learning goals decreased the
apprehension about making AYP and allowed teachers to concentrate on moving all
students forward. Teachers meet with parents and students at the beginning of each year
to look at how the child has progressed and set new goals for the current year. Students
document the progress they make toward meeting their goals in academic journals.
Students who meet their learning goals throughout the year are honored during award
ceremonies and their pictures are placed on a “learning wall” that is located in the school
cafeteria. Parents are kept informed about their child’s progress through academic
journals and during regular conferences with teachers and the principal.
Collaborative Leadership
Strong teacher leadership is evident at Cold Spring Elementary School. Lead
teachers are selected at each grade level by the principal. The principal uses three criteria
to select each lead teacher (1) holds a positive attitude regarding change, (2) are respected
by others and respect others, and (3) display a desire to continuously improve instruction
practice. These teachers are key to securing buy-in from the rest of the staff so that new
173
ideas can be expressed and put into action. Teacher leaders meet weekly with their
respective grade levels and meeting bi-weekly with the principal. Topics such as effective
instruction, data analysis, intervention programs, professional development, parent
involvement, and reform efforts are discussed at these meetings. The concept of
collaborative leadership has led to a spirit of shared decision-making and share
responsibility. It is also how the school’s student mentoring program got its start.
Student Mentorship Program
The student mentorship program that is currently in place at Cold Spring
Elementary School began during the 2005-2006 school year. At the time, collaborative
discussions that began with an instructional topic kept falling back to the topic of student
behavior. Teachers expressed concern about students who showed a lack of motivation,
distractibility, defiance, poor learning habits, and a general disinterest in school. The
student mentorship program was developed as a way to confront and change these
behaviors that were identified in students. Currently, the entire staff including custodians,
lunch supervisors, office staff, teachers, instructional aides, and principal all take on
students to mentor. Both teachers and parents make recommendations to the principal
about students who would benefit by participating in this mentorship program. The
principal learns about the child then matches the child with an adult mentor based on the
information the principal obtains. Adult mentors perform a variety of activities with their
students. Some have lunch together once a week. Others check in with their students
regarding issues such as schoolwork and goal setting. A common practice among the
174
mentors is to go out and play with the student at recess if the schedule allows. The main
purpose of the student mentorship program is to help students feel a connection to at least
one person at school. Staff at Cold Spring Elementary School report an increase in school
community and pride since the initiation of the student mentorship program. They further
report feeling that they are proactive rather than reactive with issues regarding student
behavior. With a positive plan for changing student behavior in place the school was free
to focus on providing students with effective instruction.
Effective First Instruction
At the beginning of the instructional improvement process data from curriculum-
embedded assessments showed that more than half of the students were not mastering
learning objectives. This made it difficult to identify students for participation in
intervention programs. Therefore, the instructional focus at Cold Spring Elementary
School shifted to providing strong, effective first instruction to all students. Professional
development for teachers centered on instructional delivery and on curriculum (more
detail about how teachers received professional development will be described later in
this case study).
The instructional expectation at Cold Spring Elementary School is that all
students will receive explicit, engaging instruction in the California Content Standards.
Teachers use research-proven instructional strategies that include Direct Instruction,
Differentiated Instruction, Cooperative Learning, and Distributive Practice. Teachers at
school have moved from the model of “I say, you do” to the model of “I show, I do, we
175
do, you do.” This model uses the idea of gradual release of responsibility from the
teacher to the students. Typical instructional delivery at Cold Spring Elementary School
includes articulation of the learning objective, orientation to the lesson where prior
knowledge is accessed, teacher modeling, structured practice (very controlled by
teacher), guided practice (gradual release of control to students), semi-independent
practice (teacher works with small groups of students identified through comprehension
checks), and closure.
Instructional delivery at Cold Spring is expected to be highly engaging and
interactive. Students participate in an abundance of structured interaction activities that
include choral response, think/pair/share, think/silent/share, small group discussions, use
of individual white boards for quick understanding checks, and more. Comprehension
checks occur often and strategically to determine student understanding throughout the
lesson. Corrective feedback is given to students immediately.
All teachers at Cold Spring Elementary School are directed to use the district-
adopted curriculum during instruction. At the beginning of the instructional improvement
process teachers used whatever they wanted to teach core curriculum. Some teachers
used the adopted programs while others used novels, worksheets from publishers like
Teacher Created Materials, out-dated curriculum programs, or materials they created
themselves. To ensure all students receive instruction that reflects the rigor of the state
standards, all teachers are now required to use the adopted programs for instructional
delivery. After faithfully implementing these programs for a few years, teachers began to
176
notice that some of the lessons within the adopted programs do not always to teach to the
rigor called for by the state standards. Therefore, teachers now collaboratively go through
a process known as “unpacking the standards” to determine whether or not lessons in the
base program meet the rigor intended by the standards. Teachers work together to up
level the lessons in the base program. Examples of strategies used to up level the lesson
include, changing the questioning strategy, modifying an example, incorporating a
Thinking Map(visual representation based on brain theory), replacing the practice
activities for students, etc. The strong instructional delivery model and teacher
knowledge of content standards was developed through an effective professional
development program.
Professional Development
A model of expert professional development is implemented at Cold Spring
Elementary School. This model was first introduced to the school in the year 2005-2006
when teachers received training in Direct Instruction with the Houghton Mifflin Reading
Program. An outside consulting company was hired using site Title I funds to conduct the
training that consisted of five full days of presentation, demonstration lessons, co-
plan/co-teach opportunities and data analysis. The first five presentation days included a
deep look at the curriculum the school uses to teach reading/language arts (Houghton
Mifflin) and an overview of the components that make up the instructional strategy of
Direct Instruction. Two of these days occurred outside the teacher work year while the
remaining three days occurred during the beginning of the school year and substitutes
177
were used to release teachers. The demonstration component of this professional
development consisted of an initial meeting, viewing of the demonstration lesson and a
debrief session. Substitutes were used to release a grade level at a time for participation.
During the initial meeting the consulting teacher modeled how to plan a Direct
Instruction lesson. This lesson was then demonstrated in the classroom of one of the
teachers in the grade level. The debrief session was used as an opportunity for teachers to
ask questions of the consulting teacher and for the consulting teacher to share the
reasoning behind changes made to the lesson as it progressed. The final steps of this
professional development process included a co-plan/co-teach lesson for each teacher
with the consulting teacher and data analysis of student work directly following the
lesson.
It is important to point out that the principal participated during every part of this
professional development opportunity including the co-plan/co-teach component. The
principal met with each teacher following the training to set goals for each teacher and to
determine the next level of support the teacher would need. The principal continues to
hold teachers accountable for implementing the strategy of Direct Instruction by
conducting frequent observations and providing regular feedback to teachers.
Currently teachers at Cold Spring Elementary School are participating in a similar
professional development opportunity for the area of supporting English language learner
students. The expert model of professional development has been modified slightly due
to a current limit in resources the school is facing. Rather than bring in a consulting
178
teacher to provide training to all teachers, a lead teacher from each grade level is
receiving training in Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD). Lead teachers train
other teachers in their grade level during collaboration meetings. Additionally, the school
has an instructional coach on campus one day each week. The instructional coach
provides demonstration lessons, co-plan/co-teach opportunities and instructional support
to lead teachers. The principal acts as a substitute to release teachers who will work with
the lead teacher for co-plan/co-teach opportunities. Lead teachers for professional
development are selected based on their interest and skill level for a given area. For
example, different lead teachers are selected from within grade levels for math
instruction, writing instruction, language arts instruction and English language
development instruction. Further, lead teachers are selected for strategy instruction such
as implementation of Thinking Maps, universal access (differentiation) instruction and as
described above GLAD implementation. This model of professional development has
increased the instructional capacity of all teachers at Cold Spring Elementary School.
Using Data to Inform Instruction
A variety of data are used to inform instruction at Cold Spring School. At the
beginning of each school year teachers examine prior year CST scores and district
benchmark scores for each of their incoming students. These data are used as preliminary
indicators for setting pacing guides and determining scaffold levels for students. During
this time teachers administer a comprehensive literacy assessment to individual students
with the student’s parents present. The comprehensive literacy assessment tests phonics,
179
phonemic awareness and reading comprehension. The results of this assessment are used
to identify strengths and weaknesses and to set individual reading goals with students and
their parents. The results are also used to identify the gaps in students’ literacy skills and
to prescribe a course of action to fill those gaps.
Throughout the school year district benchmark exams in the content areas of
language arts and mathematics are analyzed. Here teachers look for trends and patterns
across the grade level. Common learning objectives where students had difficulty are
identified and a plan to revisit these objectives is developed. Benchmark exams are also
used to identify students who may be invited to attend an intervention program.
Student work data and other data are discussed regularly during collaborative
meetings within the grade level and with data discussion meetings with the principal.
Student work data is often used to calibrate common rubrics and to identify if students
are truly assigned tasks that meet the level of rigor articulated by the state’s content
standards.
Learning walks offer an additional data set to that is used to inform instruction at
this school. Learning walks are conducted by grade level teams or by vertical teams
during collaboration times. A focus for the learning walk is identified prior to the walk.
For example, this year teachers at Cold Spring Elementary School are focusing on how
they support English learner students. Therefore, a learning walk focus this year is to
examine the classroom environment for any tools that support English learner students.
Examples of such tools include graphic and visual representation, questioning cards,
180
records of students’ English language proficiency level, etc. Learning walk data and next
steps for the school are discussed during collaborative meetings.
Teachers at Cold Spring School collect lesson implementation data through a
process described as lesson study. The lesson study process includes planning a lesson
together as a grade level team, one teacher delivering the lesson to students with the
remaining teachers observing, and debriefing as a team following the lesson delivery.
Teachers use this process to collect data on how lessons are delivered to students. Some
of the areas that are looked at include level of student engagement, level of student
understanding at various points in the lesson and level of student mastery of the learning
objective. Teachers make modifications to the lesson during lesson study debrief
meetings.
Data inform instruction at the student level, classroom level, grade level, and
school level at this site. At the student level it is used to determine how instruction needs
to be differentiated for the child. At the classroom level data are used to identify how
instruction needs to be modified for groups of students. Grade levels use data to
determine how pacing will modified and how intervention can be incorporated
throughout the grade level. School level data are using to identify areas for professional
development and school wide intervention programs.
Support for Struggling Students
Support is in place for students who are struggling both during the school day and
during extended-day programs. Cold Spring Elementary School uses an instructional
181
intervention approach that is similar to Response To Intervention (RTI) during the school
day. Basically there are different levels of support in placed depending on what a student
may need. The regular classroom teacher provides the first level of intervention. As the
teacher checks for understanding during a lesson he or she is determining which students
to work with during the semi-independent practice component of the lesson.
The next level of support may include a change of instructional placement for
identified skill level instruction. This is best illustrated by describing how Cold Spring
Elementary School restructured the way they teach language arts instruction. First, the
school uses Title I funds to hire an additional certificated teacher. Next, teachers use data
to place students in differentiated learning groups for instruction. These learning groups
range from a challenge group where scaffolds are used to extend learning to a strategic
group where scaffolds are used to support learning. The Title I teachers is used to teach
one of the levels and to bring down class size during language arts instruction. When a
student struggles with an identified skill the student is sent to the strategic level for
instruction in that skill. Another level two support in place at this school are what the
teachers call learning labs. Instructional aides work in the learning labs to provide short-
term support to students who are struggling with specific skills. The principal and lead
teachers provide training to the aides on a regular basis. Learning labs are located in
regular classrooms due to space and to be compliant with California laws regarding
student supervision. The labs operate as a class within a class.
182
The final level of intervention during the school day occurs when the student is
working so far below grade level that he or she needs intensive intervention for longer
periods of time. The school’s resource teacher and a resource aide provide such support
whether or not the student has been identified with learning disabilities. At this point the
struggling student no longer has access to the core curriculum. A state approved
intervention curriculum is used for language arts support and out of grade level books are
used for math instruction.
Intervention for English learner students is provided within the school day.
Instructional aides for English learners rotate through classrooms to provide one to one
support for students who are learning English.
Approximately one hundred twenty students participate in extended-day
intervention programs at this school. The programs occur both before and after the
regular school day and last forty-five minutes a day four days per week. Extended-day
programs are offered to kinder, first and second grade students who struggle with phonics
and phonemic awareness. Third, fourth, fifth and sixth grade programs are offered to
students who are not meeting their learning goals based on benchmark assessment results.
Pre-test and post-test data are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the extended-day
intervention programs. Extended-day program design, curriculum and assessments are
determined during teacher collaboration meetings.
183
Professional Learning Communities
Setting up regular and on-going meetings for teacher collaboration went a long
way toward building professional learning communities at Cold Spring Elementary
School. The staff voted and approved to bank instructional minutes in order to block out
sixty minutes per week for collaboration. Collaborative time is used for professional
development, lesson planning, data collection and analysis, and the sharing of ideas and
success stories. The staff at Cold Spring Elementary School value collaborative time and
see it as an opportunity to develop as professionals. When collaboration time was first
established the principal would provide books such as Classroom Instruction that Works
by Robert Marzano for teachers to read and discuss. Now teachers bring peer-reviewed
articles and other professional literature to share during collaboration on their own.
Collaboration time has truly become an opportunity for teachers at Cold Spring to build
on their knowledge, share best practices and evaluate the instructional program at the site.
Evaluation of the Instructional Program
Staff at Cold Spring Elementary School take the time to evaluate their
instructional program at least twice a year. They use the Single School Plan for Student
Achievement (SSPFSA) as a guide for program evaluation. This is accomplished by
dividing into random teams and reading through the SSPFSA to see if the school is doing
what it said it would do. They also take this time to discuss what is working and what is
not working. This process allows the staff to make immediate modifications to the
instructional program and makes the SSPFSA a living document.
184
Other Components to the Instructional Improvement Process
In addition to the work described above other components are in place at Cold
Spring Elementary School that support the instructional improvement process. These
components include parent involvement activities, a partnership with the Boys and Girls
Club and the use of technology to support instruction.
Three half time community liaisons are employed at the school. These community
liaisons work to build a connection between the home and the school. In addition to
providing written translation and oral interpretation services, the liaisons conduct parent
education classes and accompany parents to district level parent meetings. Parent
education at Cold Spring Elementary is focused on how parents can support their children
at home. Topics include nutrition and healthy living, behavior management, early literacy
activities for home, and what to do when the child brings home a progress report.
Liaisons also work with the principal to counsel parents regarding school attendance and
student health concerns. Liaisons work with school staff to develop, conduct and interpret
an annual parent survey,
A partnership with the local Boys and Girls Club began during the 2007-2008
school year. The Boys and Girls Club offers a free, after school program on the school
site that serves the students of Cold Spring Elementary School. The program begins at
dismissal and continues until 6:00 p.m. on every school day during the year. During the
program, students receive a snack, have time to complete their homework, and participate
in enrichment activities for athletics, fine arts, performing arts, and science. Teachers
185
recommend students for participation in this program for both social and academic
concerns. Currently over ninety Cold Spring students attend the Boys and Girls Club
program. Since the program has been in place teachers have seen an increase in
completed homework assignments and a decrease in student absenteeism. Boys and Girls
Club staff members are on campus during lunch recess to help supervise students,
encourage enrollment in the program and provide students with structured play activities.
This has led to a decrease in conflicts on the playground between students and an
increase in collaboration with school staff members.
Use of technology to support instruction is just beginning to take place at Cold
Spring School. At the end of the 2007-2008 school year all teachers received a laptop,
projector and document camera. Teachers are able to use the document camera as an
advanced overhead projector to model for students. The laptop and projectors allow
teachers to access Discovery Streaming (an on-line teaching/learning tool), and the digital
path that is present in the base programs for mathematics, science and social science. The
school has a half-time technology clerk who works to keep the computers running, but
the instructional aspect of technology is left up to each classroom teacher.
Resource Use Comparison of the Evidence Based Model (EBM) to Cold Spring
Elementary School
How does resource use at Cold Spring Elementary School compare to the
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for funding schools? Table One (below) compares the
186
actual resource use in Cold Spring Elementary School to that provided by a prototypical
EBM elementary school.
Table 1: Resource Comparison
187
Cold Spring Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Cold Spring
Actual Status
EBM to Cold Spring
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
School
Characteristics
School configuration K-5 K-6 Plus one grade
Prototypical school
size
432 680
1.6 times larger than
Prototypical Site
Class size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 31
1-3: 20
4-6: 30
K: 2.06x larger
1-3: 1.33x larger
4-6: 1.20x larger
Full-day kindergarten Yes No
Number of At-Risk
(free & reduced lunch)
178 603
425 more than
Prototype
Number of ELL 225 532
307 more than
Prototype
Personnel Resources
Core teachers 25 28 38 (+10)
Specialist teachers
20% more:
5.0
0.5 7.6 (+7.1)
Instructional Coaches
2.2
1 per 200 students
0.3 3.4 (+3.10)
Library/Media Staff
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 0 1 (+1)
Library Aide 0 1 1 over EBM
Technology Aide 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Extra Help
Certificated Tutors
1.0 and an
additional 1.0 for every
100 at-risk students: 2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
0 7 (+7)
Title I Teachers 0 1 1 over EBM
Title I Aides 0 4 4 over EBM
Teachers for ELL
students
1 per 100 ELL students 0 5.3 (+5.3)
ELL Aides 0 4 4 over EBM
188
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Cold Spring Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Cold Spring
Actual Status
EBM to Cold Spring
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
Extra Help (continued)
Services for
gifted
students
$25/student 0 $17,000.00
Extended Day
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
1.2
5
Summer School
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
District
5
Teacher for Mild
SDC
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
1 4.5
Aide for Mild
SDC
0.5 aide position for every
150 ADM
.5 2.25
Teacher for
Severely
disabled
students
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
0 4.5?
Aide for Severely
disabled
students
1 aide position for every
150 ADM
0 4.5?
Professional Development
Professional
Development
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$43,200.00
5.5 days (1 in
summer and 4.5
from banking
minutes
throughout the
year).
Plus
23,000 for subs
and stipends and
$5,400.00 for
materials
EBM would give 4.5 more
days plus $68,000.00 for
other expenses
189
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Cold Spring Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Cold Spring
Actual Status
EBM to Cold Spring
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
Other Personnel
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
13 days per
teacher
3 more than EBM
Pupil support staff
1 Guidance Counselor
Plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position for every 125 at-
risk students:2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
1.9 5.8 (+3.9)
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 .25 3.4 (+3.15)
Administration
Principal 1 1 Equals EBM
Assistant Principal 0 0 .6 (+.6)
School Site Secretary 2.0 .84 3.2 (+1.2)
Clerical 0 1.5 1.5 more than EBM
Parent Liaison 0 1.5 1.5 more than EBM
For the most part, resource use at Cold Spring Elementary School falls well short
of the resource recommendation described by the EBM. Major differences occur in the
areas of core teachers, specialist teachers, instructional coaches, extra help personnel,
professional development, class size, and pupil support staff. Also, the EBM recommends
full day kindergarten while Cold Spring Elementary provides a three quarters day
kindergarten program. Cold Spring Elementary uses over the recommended amount of
instructional aides and over the amount of substitute days teacher receive for personal
benefit.
Lessons Learned
This section of the case study will use the following eight areas that have been
adopted from Odden et al., (2006) to provide evaluate the instructional improvement
190
strategies that are taking place at Cold Spring Elementary School: (1) focus on educating
all students, (2) data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state
standards, (4) effective professional development, (5) restructure the learning
environment, (6) support for struggling students, (7) effective instructional leadership,
and (8) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration.
Focus on Educating All Students
Quite a bit of time was spent on developing a common vision and to ensure that
high expectations are in place for all students. The site mentorship program calls upon all
staff members from the custodians to the principal to take ownership over the
instructional program at the school. Parents and students are share in the responsibility
for learning through the goal setting process.
Data Driven Instruction
Data are used in a variety of ways at the site to drive instruction. Teachers use
summative assessments to evaluate the instructional program and formative assessments
to modify the instruction students receive. In addition to student assessment data,
instructional decisions are made using student work data, classroom environment data,
and instructional delivery data. Students know and are able to talk about their
performance levels. They are also able to articulate their learning goals and what they
need to do to reach these goals. Further, students keep track of the progress they make in
academic journals.
191
Rigorous Curriculum Aligned to State Standards
Teachers implement district-adopted curriculum programs with fidelity. Teachers
do not use instructional materials that are not approved by the district. Lessons are
adjusted to ensure that students participate in learning tasks that meet the rigor of the
state standards. Thinking Maps are utilized to ensure that all students can access the
curriculum. Teachers plan lessons together in order to share ideas for providing
appropriate scaffolds based on the needs of the students.
Effective Professional Development
Professional development is driven by instructional data that are collected during
learning walks and lesson studies. Teachers learn instructional strategies like Direct
Instruction through training in base curriculum programs such as Houghton Mifflin
Reading. Teachers participate in an average of five and a half days of professional
development each year. On-going and follow-up support is provided by an instructional
coach who is on-campus one day each week throughout the school year. Teachers are
held accountable for implementing the strategies that they learn during professional
development.
Restructured Learning Environment
The instructional day has been restructured in order to bank time for the purpose
of collaboration. Instructional minutes have been adjusted to allow for more learning time
in the areas of language arts and mathematics. Schedules have been revised to ensure that
192
grade levels teach language arts and mathematics at the same time. This allows for a team
approach to providing support for students who are struggling. Title I funds are used to
pay for an additional certificated teacher whose presence allows class size to be reduced
during language arts instruction.
Support for Struggling Students
Struggling students receive support during the school day and through extended
learning opportunities. The school follows a Response to Intervention (RTI) models that
calls for progressive levels of intervention based on student need. Instructional aides
provide early intervention in learning labs for students who need extra support during the
school day. The resource teacher provides intensive support to both special education
students and general educations students. Extended-day programs are offered to students
who need extra learning time based on formative assessment data. Summer school is a
district program that is available to third and sixth grade students who will be retained.
No students at Cold Spring Elementary School qualified for the summer 2008 summer
school program.
Effective Instructional Leadership
Effective instructional leadership can be identified throughout the school in
teacher leaders as well as in the principal. The teacher leadership team is key to securing
buy-in from other teachers on the site. The impetus for change was nurtured at the teacher
level through the use of these leadership teams. Further, lead teachers receive expert
training in various instructional areas and are critical to the professional development
193
program at the site. The principal has a deep understanding of content knowledge and
instructional strategy. This helps hold teachers accountable for providing effective
instruction. Strong instructional leadership led to the creation of professional learning
communities at the school site.
Professional Learning Communities
The teachers at Cold Spring Elementary School are continuously building their
knowledge and skills. Instructional practice is improved through the sharing of best
practices during collaborative meetings. Teachers read and discuss professional literature
on a regular basis.
Future Implications
The staff at Cold Spring Elementary School identifies several additional resources
they would need to continue making adequate yearly progress as the achievement bar
continues to climb. To ensure students begin their school career with the skills they need
to succeed, they would like to see preschool and a full day kindergarten made available to
every incoming student.
They would also like to see class size lowered in kindergarten, fourth, fifth and
sixth grades. Teachers believe they would be able to provide better individualized
instruction to at-risk students if class size was reduced from enrollment sizes of up to
thirty-six students.
194
Three on-site instructional coaches would help the school take professional
development to the next level. These coaches would focus on the areas of language arts,
mathematics and English language development.
Support for struggling students would be better supported using certificated tutors
rather than instructional aides. Eventually the principal would like to replace the aides
with certificated tutors.
Finally, the principal would like to see the addition of a plant manager to the
elementary school staff. The duties of this person would include developing and
implementing the site safety plan, overseeing the custodians and the building
maintenance and maintaining the school budget and materials inventory. This would free
the principal to concentrate on the school’s instructional program.
195
APPENDIX D
CASE STUDY: LAKESIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Overview of School and District
Lakeside Elementary School is a kindergarten through sixth grade school that
serves just fewer than six hundred students in Grape Vine Unified School District. Grape
Vine USD is an urban district in Southern California. The district educates approximately
50,000 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. In addition, Grape Vine USD
provides support programs for adult education, preschool, regional occupation program
(ROP), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), fine and performing arts, and special
education. Lakeside Elementary School was designated a Title I Academic Achievement
School during the 2004-2005 school year. The school was nominated for the No Child
Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools program in 2007.
Though the school serves a diverse student population, there are four significant
subgroups of students at Lakeside Elementary School: (1) socio-economically
disadvantaged (SED), (2) English learner students, (3) students of Hispanic ethnicity, and
(4) students of Asian ethnicity. The percent of students who receive free or reduced meals
is used to determine the percent of students who are considered SED. Approximately
sixty-nine percent of students are considered SED which is about five percent more than
the district average of sixty-four percent. Just over two thirds of the population of
Lakeside school is made up of English Learner students while about half of the district’s
population is made up of English learners. About sixty-three percent of the students at
196
Lakeside are of Hispanic ethnicity compared to a district average of about fifty-four
percent. Thirty percent of the student population of both Lakeside School and Grape Vine
USD is of Asian ethnicity.
Lakeside Elementary School also provides services to thirty-two students who
qualify for special education. Most of these students receive services for speech and
language support and for mild learning disabilities.
State Assessment Data for Lakeside Elementary School
Lakeside Elementary School’s test scores have remained stagnant over the past
four years. In the area of English language arts the number of students scoring proficient
or advanced has stayed between fifty-two and fifty-four percent. In the year 2008,
seventy percent of students scored proficient or advanced in math; an increase of only
three percent since the year 2005. The most dramatic increase took place in the area of
science. In 2005 thirty-five percent of students scored proficient or advanced on the state
science standards test. By 2008 forty-nine percent of students scored proficient or
advanced. These state test scores can be seen in Figure One.
197
Figure One: Percent of students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST
for English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics and Science 2005-2008).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Percent Proficient or Advanced
ELA Math Science
An examination of significant subgroup data shows a notable gap in performance
between the Asian subgroup and all other subgroups on the California Standards Test. As
shown in Figure Two (below) there is about a thirty-point gap in the percentage of Asian
students who are scoring proficient or advanced compared to the other significant
subgroups. Figure Two also illustrates how this gap widens over time.
198
Figure 2: ELA Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup: SED,
ELL, Hispanic, and Asian for the years 2005 to 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic Asian
Figure Three (below) shows a similar pattern in the area of mathematics:
Figure 3: Math Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup: SED,
ELL, Hispanic, and Asian for the years 2005 to 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic Asian
199
Lakeside Elementary School has met the State of California’s goal for all schools
to obtain an Academic Performance Index (API) score of at least 800 for the past four
years. From the year 2005 to the year 2008 Lakeside’s API growth score increased by
twenty-nine points. The school’s current API score is 836. Figure Four demonstrates the
API growth the school has made in the past four years.
Figure 4: Academic Performance Index (API) Growth 2005-2008
807
832
830
836
790
795
800
805
810
815
820
825
830
835
840
2005 2006 2007 2008
API Growth Score
Lakeside Elementary School has made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) every
year for the past four years. While this is commendable, the school’s principal realizes
that instructional improvement practices must change in order to continue meeting AYP
criteria and to decrease the performance gap between the Asian subgroup and all other
significant subgroups. The instructional improvement strategies that are discussed in the
next section provide the roadmap for how this school has met national and state
200
accountability requirements, and how staff at the school planS to continue meeting AYP
criteria.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Lakeside Elementary School has had three different principals since 2006. While
the school’s leadership has changed, the school’s test scores have remained about the
same. The school’s current principal has five years experience as a principal and was
assigned to Lakeside beginning the 2008-2009 school year. During the summer of 2008,
this principal met with every staff member to ascertain the staffs’ perception of the
school. The principal found that while staff members feel pride in the school they seem
concerned that the school’s reputation of excellence is slipping away. This concern
prompted the principal to hold a special meeting in August 2008. During this meeting, the
staff discussed their vision for the school and began the process of developing a common
purpose. Staff members also revisited the school’s student learning goals.
The purpose of this case study is to tell the story of how Lakeside Elementary
School has met federal and state accountability targets, and to identify how resources are
aligned with the instructional improvement process.
Developing a Common Purpose
The staff at Lakeside Elementary School is just beginning the process of
developing a common purpose. Certificated and classified staff members have met
individually with the principal to share their thoughts about the school. The principal then
met with the teachers as a group to collectively discuss the school’s vision. During this
201
meeting, the teachers helped the principal come up with the new school motto: Lakeside
Elementary School: Where Pride, Perseverance, and Excellence Happen Every Day. This
new motto is posted on the school’s website and written on every school newsletters. The
process of developing a common purpose is currently on-going at the site. While the
entire staff is working on the common purpose, the school’s leadership team is revisiting
the goals for student learning.
Setting Learning Goals
Grape Vine Unified School District has established learning goals for all students
in grades two through eleven. Students in second grade are expected to score proficient or
advanced on the CST. Each student in third grade through sixth grade is expected to
make at least one proficiency band’s growth on the CST for English language arts and
math until they reach proficient or advanced. All English learner students are expected to
make one band’s growth on the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) assessment each year until they become English language proficient. The staff
at Lakeside School has yet to embrace these district goals. The principal relates that the
staff as whole is focused on keeping students at proficient or advanced, but they are not
thinking about moving students from the lower proficiency bands to the upper
proficiency bands. The leadership team has come up with a plan to change this mindset.
Teachers on the leadership team are going through a goal setting process with all students
who scored in the Basic band on the 2008 CST. The goal for each of these students is to
move up to Proficient on the 2009 CST. The goal setting and monitoring process includes
202
graphing progress on tests throughout the year, holding conferences between the
principal, teacher and student, and rewarding students who are making progress. The
principal hopes to expand this goal setting progress to include the whole school
beginning the 2010 school year.
Teacher Leaders
Lakeside Elementary School has a leadership team that is made up of one teacher
from each grade level. Being new to the site, the principal used a volunteer process to
identify teachers to serve on the school’s leadership team during the 2008-2009 school
year. Six of the seven teachers who volunteered to serve on the leadership team have
served in this capacity for at least the last two years. The principal expresses respect for
these teacher leaders. The team is positive and genuinely concerned about all the students
at the school. Through their actions, these teachers wish to model high standards for all
other teachers at the site. The principal hopes to develop the instructional skills of
Lakeside’s teacher leaders in order to improve instructional practice across the school.
Instructional Practice
A sense of complacency exists at Lakeside Elementary School. The principal
believes the presence of this complacency is due to the school’s decent performance on
state assessments and the school’s API score of 836. Teachers at Lakeside have
participated in professional development centered on instructional delivery and on
curriculum (more detail about how teachers received professional development will be
203
described later in this case study). However, not every teacher currently implements the
strategies they have been taught.
All teachers at the school have been trained in the use of Direct Instruction.
Currently each teacher is held accountable for implementing three components of Direct
Instruction during language arts lessons. These components are: (1) articulation of the
learning objective, (2) structured interaction for students, and (3) providing students with
immediate, corrective feedback. Other elements of Direct Instruction will begin being
implemented once these components are internalized by teachers. Teachers are beginning
with the components listed above because they are the least complicated to implement
and they anchor students to the lesson. Structured practice activities include
think/pair/share, choral response, small group instruction, and use of whole group
response techniques such as thumbs-up/down.
All teachers at Lakeside Elementary School have been directed to use the district-
adopted curriculum during instruction. Some teachers use both the adopted programs and
worksheets from publishers like Teacher Created Materials and materials they have
created themselves. The principal seeks to change this practice as many of the worksheets
require one-word responses from students and do not meet the rigor of the state
standards. Teachers use Thinking Maps (visual representation based on brain theory)
during language arts and science instruction. These graphic organizers are both supported
by research and accepted by teachers. The staff hopes that continued improvement in
effective instruction will be supported through the professional development program.
204
Professional Development
A model of expert professional development is implemented at Lakeside
Elementary School. This model was first introduced to the school in the year 2007-2008
when teachers received training in Direct Instruction with the Houghton Mifflin Reading
Program. An outside consulting company was hired using site Title I funds to conduct the
training that consisted of five full days of presentation, demonstration lessons, co-
plan/co-teach opportunities and data analysis. The first five presentation days included a
deep look at the curriculum the school uses to teach reading/language arts (Houghton
Mifflin) and an overview of the components that make up the instructional strategy of
Direct Instruction. Three of these days occurred outside the teacher work year while the
remaining two days occurred during the beginning of the school year and substitutes were
used to release teachers. The demonstration component of this professional development
consisted of an initial meeting, viewing of the demonstration lesson and a debrief session.
Substitutes were used to release a grade level at a time for participation.
During the initial meeting the consulting teacher modeled how to plan a Direct
Instruction lesson. This lesson was then demonstrated in the classroom of one of the
teachers in the grade level. The debrief session was used as an opportunity for teachers to
ask questions of the consulting teacher and for the consulting teacher to share the
reasoning behind changes made to the lesson as it progressed. The final steps of this
professional development process included a co-plan/co-teach lesson for each teacher
205
with the consulting teacher and data analysis of student work directly following the
lesson.
It is not known if the principal at the time participated in this professional
development. The current principal met with each teacher this year to set goals for each
teacher and to determine the next level of support the teacher would need. This principal
continues to hold teachers accountable for implementing three components of Direct
Instruction by conducting frequent observations and providing regular feedback to
teachers.
Currently teachers at Lakeside Elementary School are participating in a similar
professional development opportunity for the area of supporting English language learner
students. The expert model of professional development has been modified slightly due
to a current limit in resources the school is facing. Rather than bring in a consulting
teacher to provide training to all teachers, a lead teacher from each grade level is
receiving training in EL Achieve. Lead teachers train other teachers in their grade level
during collaboration meetings. Additionally, the school has an instructional coach on
campus one and half days each week. The instructional coach provides demonstration
lessons, co-plan/co-teach opportunities and instructional support to lead teachers. The
principal acts as a substitute to release teachers who will work with the lead teacher for
co-plan/co-teach opportunities.
206
Using Data to Inform Instruction
A variety of data are used to support instruction at Lakeside School, but data do
not necessarily inform instruction at this time. At the beginning of each school year
teachers examine prior year CST scores and district benchmark scores for each of their
incoming students. These data are used place students in learning groups for language
arts and mathematics instruction. In September teachers administer a comprehensive
literacy assessment to individual students. The comprehensive literacy assessment tests
phonics, phonemic awareness and reading comprehension. The results of this assessment
are used to identify strengths and weaknesses and to set individual reading goals for
students. The results are also used to identify students for participation in extended-day
learning opportunities.
Throughout the school year district benchmark exams in the content areas of
language arts and mathematics are administered to students. Benchmark scores are used
to assign report card grades to students. Benchmark exams are also used to identify
students who may be invited to attend an intervention program.
Leadership team members are beginning to use data to set and monitor learning
goals with their students. They are also beginning to lead data discussions with teachers
in their grade levels. At the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year, each teacher
received a data binder that contained school level test results, grade level test results and
individual test results from the previous school year. These binders also include the
blueprints for the California Standards Test and released test items for their grade level.
207
The binders have a place for student work data and formative assessment data that is
collected during the 2008-2009 school year. Grade level teacher leaders are modeling
their use of these data binders with the hope that other teachers begin using data for the
purpose of informing instruction.
Support for Struggling Students
Supports are in place for students who are struggling both during the school day
and during extended-day programs. During the school day students are placed in learning
groups for language arts instruction based on prior year test scores. Lakeside Elementary
School restructured the way they teach language arts instruction to make these learning
groups possible. First, the school uses Title I funds to hire an additional certificated
teacher. Next, teachers use data to place students in differentiated learning groups for
instruction. These learning groups range from a challenge group where scaffolds are used
to extend learning to a strategic group where scaffolds are used to support learning. The
Title I teachers is used to teach one of the levels and to bring down class size during
language arts instruction. Students remain in their learning group for the entire school
year. Instructional aides are assigned to grade level teams. Teachers within the grade
level decide how to use their instructional aide(s). Most of the aides are assigned to the
teachers who have the group that needs extra support. Instructional aides receive training
at the district level during non-student days. These trainings are optional for the aides so
not all of them participate in staff development.
208
Another level of intervention during the school day occurs for students who have
been identified with a learning disability. The school’s resource teacher and a resource
aide provide this support by pulling students from the core program and providing
intensive support using a state-approved intervention curriculum for language arts and for
mathematics. At this point the struggling student no longer has access to the core
curriculum. Intervention for English learner students is provided within the school day.
Instructional aides for English learners rotate through classrooms to provide one to one
support for students who are learning English.
Approximately eighty students participate in extended-day intervention programs
at this school. The programs occur after the regular school day and last forty-five minutes
a day three days per week. Extended-day programs are offered to first and second grade
students who struggle with phonics and phonemic awareness. Third, fourth, fifth and
sixth grade programs are offered to students who are scoring around the Basic band on
benchmark tests. The school chooses to provide support to students scoring Basic in an
effort to bump the students up to Proficient on the CST. Pre-test and post-test data are
used to evaluate the effectiveness of the extended-day intervention programs. Extended-
day program design, curriculum and assessments are determined during teacher
collaboration meetings.
Professional Learning Communities
The process of setting up regular and on-going meetings for teacher collaboration
at Lakeside Elementary School began at the end of the 2007-2008 school year. At that
209
time, the staff voted and approved to bank instructional minutes in order to block out
sixty minutes per week for collaboration. Collaborative time is used for professional
development, lesson planning, data collection and analysis, and the sharing of ideas. The
staff Lakeside is beginning to see the value of having collaborative time. The principal
provides suggested topics for weekly collaboration. These topics include data analysis,
differentiating instruction to meet students’ needs and sharing of ideas for how Thinking
Maps can be used across the curriculum.
Other Components to the Instructional Improvement Process
In addition to the work described above other components are in place at Lakeside
Elementary School to support the instructional improvement process. These components
include parent involvement activities, a partnership with the Boys and Girls Club and the
use of technology to support instruction.
One half time community liaison is employed at the school. This community
liaison is currently working to build a connection between the home and the school. In
addition to providing written translation and oral interpretation services, the liaison
conducts parent education classes and goes with parents to district level parent meetings.
Parent education at Lakeside Elementary is focused on helping parents navigate the
school system. Topics include the importance of school attendance, understanding report
cards and progress reports, how to participate in parent conferences, and more. The
liaison also works with the principal to counsel parents regarding student health concerns.
210
A partnership with the local Boys and Girls Club began during the 2007-2008
school year. The Boys and Girls Club offers a free, after school program on the school
site that serves the students of Lakeside Elementary School. The program begins at
dismissal and continues until 6:00 p.m. on every school day during the year. During the
program, students receive a snack, have time to complete their homework, and participate
in enrichment activities for athletics, fine arts, performing arts, and science. Teachers
recommend students for participation in this program for both social and academic
concerns. Currently about seventy Lakeside students attend the Boys and Girls Club
program. Since the program has been in place teachers have seen an increase in
completed homework assignments.
Use of technology to support instruction is just beginning to take place at
Lakeside School. At the end of the 2007-2008 school year all teachers received a laptop,
projector and document camera. Teachers are able to use the document camera as an
advanced overhead projector to model for students. The laptop and projectors allow
teachers to access Discovery Streaming (an on-line teaching/learning tool), and the digital
path that is present in the base programs for mathematics, science and social science. The
school has a half-time technology clerk who works to keep the computers running, but
the instructional aspect of technology is left up to each classroom teacher.
The Accelerated Reader program is used at the school for motivating students to
read daily. Students earn Accelerated Reader points each time they read a book and take
the electronic quiz that goes with the book. The school has purchased Accelerated Reader
211
quizzes that match the selections within the district-adopted reading program. Students
who meet their Accelerated Reader goals receive special recognition during award
ceremonies throughout the school year.
Resource Use Comparison of the Evidence Based Model (EBM) to Lakeside
Elementary School
How does resource use at Lakeside Elementary School compare to the Evidence
Based Model (EBM) for funding schools? Table One (below) compares the actual
resource use in Lakeside Elementary School to that provided by a prototypical EBM
elementary school.
212
Table 1: Resource Comparison
Lakeside Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Lakeside Actual
Status
EBM to Lakeside
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
School
Characteristics
School configuration K-5 K-6 Plus one grade
Prototypical school
size
432 569
1.3 times larger than
Prototypical Site
Class size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 31
1-3: 20
4-6: 34
K: 2.06x larger
1-3: 1.33x larger
4-6: 1.36x larger
Full-day kindergarten Yes No
Number of At-Risk
(free & reduced
lunch)
178 429 247 more than Prototype
Number of ELL 225 386 161 more than Prototype
Personnel Resources
Core teachers 25 22 30 (+8)
Specialist teachers
20% more:
5.0
0.4 6 (+5.6)
Instructional Coaches
2.2
1 per 200 students
0.3 2.8 (+2.5)
Library/Media Staff
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 0 1 (+1)
Library Aide 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Technology Aide 0 .4 .4 over EBM
Extra Help
Certificated Tutors
1.0 and an
additional 1.0 for every
100 at-risk students: 2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
0 5 (+5)
Title I Teachers 0 1 1 over EBM
Title I Aides 0 1 1 over EBM
Teachers for ELL
students
1 per 100 ELL students 0 3.8 (+3.8)
ELL Aides 0 1 1 over EBM
213
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Lakeside Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Lakeside Actual
Status
EBM to Lakeside
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
Extra Help (continued)
Services for gifted
students
$25/student 0 $14,225.00
Extended Day
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
.6 3.57
Summer School
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
District
3.57
Teacher for Mild
SDC
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
1 3.8
Aide for Mild
SDC
0.5 aide position for every
150 ADM
.5 1.9
Teacher for
Severely
disabled
students
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
0 State Funded
Aide for Severely
disabled
students
1 aide position for every
150 ADM
0 State Funded
Professional Development
Professional
Development
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$43,200.00
5.5 days (1 in
summer and 4.5
from banking
minutes
throughout the
year).
Plus
21,000 for subs
and stipends and
$4,500.00 for
materials
EBM would give 4.5
more days plus
$56,900.00 for other
expenses
214
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Lakeside Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Lakeside Actual
Status
EBM to Lakeside
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
Other
Personne
l
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
13 days per
teacher
3 more than EBM
Pupil support staff
1 Guidance Counselor
Plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position for every 125 at-
risk students:2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
.90 4.4 (+3.5)
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 .25 2.8 (+2.55)
Administration
Principal 1 1 Equals EBM
Assistant
Principal
0 0 .3(+.3)
School Site
Secretary
2.0 .84 2.6 (1.76)
Clerical 0 1.5 1.5 more than EBM
Parent Liaison 0 .5 .5 more than EBM
For the most part, resource use at Lakeside Elementary School falls well short of
the resource recommendation described by the EBM. Major differences occur in the areas
of core teachers, specialist teachers, instructional coaches, extra help personnel,
professional development, class size, and pupil support staff. Also, the EBM recommends
full day kindergarten while Lakeside Elementary provides a three quarters day
kindergarten program. Lakeside Elementary uses over the recommended amount of
instructional aides and over the amount of substitute days teacher receive for personal
benefit.
215
Lessons Learned
This section of the case study will use the following eight areas that have been
adopted from Odden et al., (2006) to provide evaluate the instructional improvement
strategies that are taking place at Lakeside Elementary School: (1) focus on educating all
students, (2) data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state
standards, (4) effective professional development, (5) restructure the learning
environment, (6) support for struggling students, (7) effective instructional leadership,
and (8) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration.
Focus on Educating All Students
Teacher leaders at Lakeside Elementary School hold high expectations for all
students. These teachers show a concern regarding the gap in performance between the
Asian population and all other student populations at their school. Not all teachers at the
site have internalized the belief that all students can learn to high standards. For this
reason, teacher leaders make it a point to share their expectations for all students during
grade level meetings.
Data Driven Instruction
A variety of data are used at Lakeside Elementary School. Teachers use
summative assessments such as the CST and district benchmark data to determine student
placement in instructional groups. Formative assessments such as curriculum-embedded
assessments are used mainly to assign grades to students. District benchmark data are
used to identify which students will be invited to attend after school intervention
216
programs. Student writing samples are used at this school to assign students to one of
four writing level instructional groups. Data are mainly used to figure out how to place
students in learning groups, teachers do not yet use data to make instructional delivery
decisions. The principal reports that students in some classrooms know their CST and
benchmark scores, but sharing data and learning goals with students is not a school wide
practice at this time.
Rigorous Curriculum Aligned to State Standards
While all teachers use the district-adopted curriculum programs for instruction,
some teachers at the school supplement the programs with materials that are not approved
by the district. These materials particularly include fill-in-the-blank and math facts
worksheets. District-adopted curriculum is used as directed by the publishers most of the
time. A handful of teachers are beginning to adjust some of the lessons within the
program in order for the lessons to meet the rigor of the state standards. The teachers at
Lakeside have been trained in the use of Thinking Maps. These tools are utilized during
language arts and science instruction to ensure that all students can access the curriculum.
Effective Professional Development
District-level focus areas drive the content of professional development at this
site. Teachers learn instructional strategies like Direct Instruction through training in base
curriculum programs such as Houghton Mifflin Reading. Teachers participate in an
average of five and a half days of professional development each year. On-going and
follow-up support is provided by an instructional coach who is on-campus one and a half
217
days each week throughout the school year. The current principal holds teachers
accountable for implementing the strategies they learn by setting performance goals with
teachers.
Restructured Learning Environment
The instructional day has been restructured in order to bank time for the purpose
of collaboration. Instructional minutes have been adjusted to allow for more learning time
in the area of language arts. Schedules have been revised to ensure that grade levels teach
language arts and mathematics at the same time. This allows for a team approach to
providing support for students who are struggling. Title I funds are used to pay for an
additional certificated teacher whose presence allows class size to be reduced during
language arts instruction.
Support for Struggling Students
Struggling students receive support during the school day and through extended
learning opportunities. Extra help during the day is provided by instructional aides who
are assigned to a grade level. Teachers within the grade level decide how the aides will be
used. The resource teacher provides intensive support to special education students who
have been identified with mild learning disabilities. Extended-day programs are offered
to students who need extra learning time based on district benchmark assessment results.
Summer school is a district program that is available to third and sixth grade students
who will be retained. Two students at Lakeside Elementary School qualified for the
summer 2008 summer school program.
218
Effective Instructional Leadership
A plan is in place to strengthen the effectiveness of teacher leaders at the school.
The teacher leadership team is currently modeling professional behavior for the other
teachers at the site. These teacher leaders have positive attitudes toward making
instructional changes at the site. The principal has an understanding of content
knowledge and instructional strategy. This is helping hold teachers accountable for
providing effective instruction.
Professional Learning Communities
The teachers at Lakeside Elementary School meet regularly on a weekly basis for
collaboration. Topics for collaborative meetings are suggested by the principal at this
point. During collaboration, teachers look at assessment data, plan lessons together and
discuss student work. These collaborative meetings are led by grade level teacher leaders.
The school has not introduced professional literature during collaboration at this point in
time.
Future Implications
The staff at Lakeside Elementary School identifies several additional resources
they would need to continue making adequate yearly progress as the achievement bar
continues to climb.
They would like to see class size lowered in kindergarten, fourth, fifth and sixth
grades. Teachers believe they would be able to provide better-individualized instruction
219
to at-risk students if class size was reduced from enrollment sizes of up to thirty-six
students.
At least one, full-time on-site instructional coach would help the school take
professional development to the next level. This coach would focus on helping teachers
provide effective instruction to students using researched strategies.
The principal would like to see the addition of an assistant principal to the
elementary school staff. The assistant principal would share responsibilities with the
principal. These shared responsibilities would include evaluation of staff, monitoring the
instructional program at the site, meeting with grade level teams, as well as managing the
operational tasks that are involved with running a school.
Further, the principal wishes for more time. Additional time is needed to meet
with teachers to hold individual data discussions and to set goals for implementing
strategies that teachers learn during professional development opportunities.
Finally, the principal feels the students and parents would benefit by the addition
of support personnel. Support personnel include counselors and nurses. The principal
believes that students and families need more support with matters involving health, self-
esteem, and anger management.
220
APPENDIX E
CASE STUDY: OCEAN VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Overview of School and District
Ocean View Elementary School is a kindergarten through sixth grade school that
serves just fewer than five hundred students in Grape Vine Unified School District. Grape
Vine USD is an urban district in Southern California. The district educates approximately
50,000 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. In addition, Grape Vine USD
provides support programs for adult education, preschool, regional occupation program
(ROP), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), fine and performing arts, and special
education. Ocean View Elementary School is one of eight schools in Grape Vine USD
that was designated a Title I Academic Achievement School during the 2007-2008 school
year.
Though the school serves a diverse student population, there are three significant
subgroups of students at Ocean View Elementary School: (1) socio-economically
disadvantaged (SED), (2) English learner students, and (3) students of Hispanic ethnicity.
The percent of students who receive free or reduced meals is used to determine the
percent of students who are considered SED. Approximately ninety-two percent of
students are considered SED which is about thirty percent more than the district average
of sixty-four percent. Just about three-fourths of the population of Ocean View School is
made up of English Learner students while about half of the district’s population is made
221
up of English learners. About eighty-four percent of the students at Ocean View are of
Hispanic ethnicity compared to a district average of about fifty-four percent.
Ocean View Elementary School also provides services to thirty-six students who
qualify for special education. Twenty-six of these students receive services for speech
and language support and for mild learning disabilities. The remaining ten students
receive support for severe disabilities.
State Assessment Data for Ocean View Elementary School
Ocean View Elementary School has met the criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress
every year until 2008. In Spring 2008, only thirty-two percent of the students in the
Hispanic subgroup scored proficient or advanced on the language arts portion of the CST.
The percent of all students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST increased in
the areas of language arts, mathematics and science since the 2004-2005 school year.
However, growth in language arts and mathematics has stalled between the 2006-2007
school year and the 2007-2008 school year. The most substantial increase is in the area of
science. In 2004-2005 only two percent of students scored proficient or advanced. By
2008 twenty-nine percent of students scored proficient or advanced. These state test
scores can be seen in Figure One.
222
Figure One: Percent of students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST
for English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics and Science 2005-2008).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Percent Proficient or Advanced
ELA Math Science
An examination of significant subgroup data shows a slight gap in performance
between the Hispanic subgroup and all other subgroups on the California Standards Test.
As shown in Figure Two (below) slightly fewer Hispanic students scored proficient or
advanced in language arts than English learner and SED students. All three subgroups
had about three percent fewer students meeting AYP criteria. Figure Two also illustrates
how the number of students scoring proficient or advanced increases until 2007-2008.
223
Figure 2: ELA Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup: SED,
ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
Figure Three (below) shows a similar pattern in the area of mathematics though the gap
between the Hispanic subgroup and other subgroups is wider than with language arts.
224
Figure 3: Math Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup: SED,
ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or A dvanced
SED ELL Hispanic
Ocean View Elementary School has made steady increases in Academic
Performance Index (API) scores until 2007-2008. From the year 2005 to the year 2007
Ocean View’s API growth score increased by thirty-nine points. The school’s current
API score is 758. This is a drop of six points from 2007. Figure Four demonstrates the
API growth the school has made in the past four years.
225
Figure 4: Academic Performance Index (API) Growth 2005-2008
725
740
764
758
700
710
720
730
740
750
760
770
2005 2006 2007 2008
API Growth Score
Ocean View Elementary School has made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) every
year until 2008. As stated earlier, the school failed to meet AYP criteria because it did not
have enough students in the Hispanic subgroup score proficient or advanced in language
arts. Further, overall scores made steady increases until the year 2008. State test results
from 2008 show a slight decrease in all areas except for science. The school has avoided
entering program improvement this year. However, the school will enter year one of
program improvement if it does not meet AYP in 2009.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Ocean View Elementary School was reopened by Grape Vine District in 2001. At
the time, the school’s current principal was assigned to the school. This principal had the
privilege of selecting the entire teaching staff for the site through an interview process.
These circumstances allowed the principal to fill the school with teachers who were (1)
highly-qualified, (2) highly-skilled, and (3) excited to be part of the school reopening.
226
Currently, the majority of teachers in service at Ocean View Elementary School began
teaching at the school back in 2001 when it was reopened. The principal is concerned that
staff members no longer possess the energy and the enthusiasm they once had for
teaching and learning. This principal believes that it could be time for a change in
leadership at the site in order to “shake things up again.”
The purpose of this case study is to tell the story of how Ocean View Elementary
School made steady growth until 2008, and to articulate the instructional improvement
practices that are in place this year to ensure that the school will meet AYP criteria in
2009. This case study will also identify how resources are aligned with the instructional
improvement process.
Developing a Common Purpose
The staff at Ocean View Elementary School worked together to develop a
common vision and mission for student learning in 2001 when the school first reopened.
At that time, focus groups with parents, teachers, classified staff members, and students
met regularly to develop a common purpose. The principal felt that is was particularly
important to include the parents in these focus groups because the school was just
reopening and the students had been going to different schools prior to 2001. The focus
groups resulted in a shared vision that all students would be successful in mastering state
standards. Additionally, the school community wanted to ensure that the students left
Ocean View prepared for middle school and with the skills they need to develop as
individuals. The school’s vision and purpose were not revisited until the 2008-2009
227
school year. Staff members decided to revisit the common purpose once the school did
not meet AYP criteria in 2008. The school is currently in the process of revisiting its
vision and mission statements. Like before, focus groups that include teachers, parents
and students have begun meeting to discuss the school’s purpose and set goals for student
learning.
Setting Learning Goals
Grape Vine Unified School District has established learning goals for all students
in grades two through eleven. Students in second grade are expected to score proficient or
advanced on the CST. Each student in third grade through sixth grade is expected to
make at least one proficiency band’s growth on the CST for English language arts and
math until they reach proficient or advanced. All English learner students are expected to
make one band’s growth on the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) assessment each year until they become English language proficient.
The staff at Ocean View Elementary School embrace the concept of moving
individual students up proficiency bands and having them make one band’s growth each
year. The staff also recognizes that they need to do a better job of this with their Hispanic
population. With this in mind, goal setting conferences are being held this year with
every student of Hispanic ethnicity who did not meet the district goals based on 2008
CST test results. These goal-setting conferences include the principal, the parent, the
teacher, and the student. A number of items are discussed during these goal-setting
conferences. First, the parent is asked to express what his or her hopes are for the child.
228
Next, CST data and other data are reviewed. Then, achievement goals are set and an
action plan is outlined. Finally, a plan for monitoring progress toward meeting goals is
developed. Each parent and student leave the goal-setting meeting with a goal binder that
includes the student’s test data and templates for the student to use for graphing his or her
progress. The goal-setting conferences take place at the beginning of the year with
progress conferences sprinkled throughout the year. Staff members hope that this goal-
setting process will help all Hispanic students meet the district goal of moving up at least
one proficiency band on the CST. They anticipate that this process will ultimately help
the school meet AYP criteria in 2009.
Teacher Leaders
Ocean View School has a leadership team that is made up of one teacher from
each grade level. The same leadership team has been in place since the 2001-2002 school
year. The principal acknowledges that this is unusual. One would expect a change in
teacher leaders due to attrition, loss of interest, grade level changes, or for other reasons.
The principal believes that it is time she moved on to another school because she has
been at Ocean View for seven years and is feeling “a bit stalled.” This principal admits
that the leadership team may be feeling the same way and may be time for a change in
teacher leaders as well.
Instructional Practice
Teachers at Ocean View School have agreed upon a common instructional
strategy that all teachers use for language arts and mathematics instruction. This strategy
229
is Direct Instruction. All teachers at the school have been trained in the use of Direct
Instruction, however the level on expertise in this strategy varies from teacher to teacher.
Most teachers are comfortable with articulating the learning objectives and providing
students with structured interaction. Some teachers need help with the gradual release of
responsibility component of this strategy. The principal finds that teachers either never
release responsibility (meaning practice is directly guided throughout the entire lesson) or
teachers release responsibility before students are ready.
All teachers at Ocean View Elementary School have been directed to use the
district-adopted curriculum during instruction. Some teachers use both the adopted
programs and worksheets from publishers like Frank Shaffer and materials they have
created themselves. The principal seeks to change this practice as many of the worksheets
require one-word responses from students and do not meet the rigor of the state
standards.
Teachers were trained in the use of Thinking Maps (visual representation based on
brain theory) during the 2002-2003 school year. While these tools are used across the
curriculum, teachers are mainly using only three of the eight maps. To remedy this, the
school is revisiting use of Thinking Maps during the 2008-2009 school year by devoting a
number of collaborative sessions to this topic.
Professional Development
A model of expert professional development is implemented at Ocean View
School. This model was first introduced to the school in the year 2006-2007 when
230
teachers received training in Direct Instruction with the Houghton Mifflin Reading
Program. An outside consulting company was hired using site Title I funds to conduct the
training that consisted of five full days of presentation, demonstration lessons, co-
plan/co-teach opportunities and data analysis. The first five presentation days included a
deep look at the curriculum the school uses to teach reading/language arts (Houghton
Mifflin) and an overview of the components that make up the instructional strategy of
Direct Instruction. Three of these days occurred outside the teacher work year while the
remaining two days occurred during the beginning of the school year and substitutes were
used to release teachers. The demonstration component of this professional development
consisted of an initial meeting, viewing of the demonstration lesson and a debrief session.
Substitutes were used to release a grade level at a time for participation.
During the initial meeting the consulting teacher modeled how to plan a Direct
Instruction lesson. This lesson was then demonstrated in the classroom of one of the
teachers in the grade level. The debrief session was used as an opportunity for teachers to
ask questions of the consulting teacher and for the consulting teacher to share the
reasoning behind changes made to the lesson as it progressed. The final steps of this
professional development process included a co-plan/co-teach lesson for each teacher
with the consulting teacher and data analysis of student work directly following the
lesson.
Implementation of the Direct Instruction strategy is being visited again this year.
The school has an instructional coach on campus who is providing teachers with
231
demonstration lessons and co-plan/co-teach opportunities that focus on the gradual
release of responsibility component of Direct Instruction.
The focus of professional development shifted to mathematics during the 2007-
2008 school year. Teachers received training in an instructional delivery model for
mathematics that includes Direct Instruction and Cooperative Learning. Teachers also
received training in new method for teaching math facts to students. These strategies are
being implemented across the school for the first time this school year.
Using Data to Inform Instruction
A variety of data are used to inform instruction at Ocean View School At the
beginning of each school year teachers examine prior year CST scores and district
benchmark scores for each of their incoming students. These data are used place students
in learning groups for language arts and mathematics instruction. In September teachers
administer a comprehensive literacy assessment to individual students. The
comprehensive literacy assessment tests phonics, phonemic awareness and reading
comprehension. The results of this assessment are used to identify strengths and
weaknesses and to set individual reading goals for students. The results are also used to
identify students for participation in extended-day learning opportunities.
Throughout the school year district benchmark exams in the content areas of
language arts and mathematics are administered to students. Benchmark scores are used
to identify students for intervention and to identify which objectives should be revisited
during spiral reviews that are embedded within curriculum programs.
232
Support for Struggling Students
Supports are in place for students who are struggling both during the school day,
but not during extended-day programs. During the school day students are placed in
learning groups for language arts instruction and mathematics instruction based on prior
year test scores. Teachers at Ocean View Elementary School restructured the way they
provide language arts and mathematics instruction to make these learning groups
possible. First, the school uses Title I funds to hire an additional certificated teacher.
Next, teachers use data to place students in differentiated learning groups for instruction.
These learning groups range from a challenge group where scaffolds are used to extend
learning to a strategic group where scaffolds are used to support learning. The Title I
teachers is used to teach one of the levels and to bring down class size during language
arts instruction and mathematics instruction. Students may move fluidly between learning
groups. Decisions to move students to different learning groups are made based on
formative data from curriculum-embedded assessments or teacher created assessments.
Differentiation is provided for students within learning groups during universal
access time. This is a thirty-minute block within the language arts time that teachers use
to provide extra support to groups of students or to provide challenge support to groups
of students. Typically, teachers use the data they collect from checks for understanding
during lesson presentation to determine which students will need direct support from the
teacher during universal access time.
233
Instructional aides are assigned to grade level teams. Teachers within the grade
level decide how to use their instructional aide(s). Most of the aides are assigned to the
teachers who have the group that needs extra support. Instructional aides have been
trained to provide support to students in kindergarten through third grade using the
Torgesen Phonemic Awareness program. Instructional aides that support upper grade
students have been trained in the use of English Now for English language development
and in the Houghton-Mifflin phonics intervention program for older students who have
not mastered phonemic awareness.
Another level of intervention during the school day occurs for students who have
been identified with a learning disability. The school’s resource teacher and a resource
aide provide this support by pulling students from the core program and providing
intensive support using a state-approved intervention curriculum for language arts and for
mathematics. At this point the struggling student no longer has access to the core
curriculum.
As of October of 2008 the school had no plans to provide extended-day learning
opportunities for students. There are two main reasons for this decision. First, the
principal was unsure if there would be enough money in the school budget to pay
teachers for extended-day classes. Second, few teachers showed an interest in teaching
after the regular school day. Teachers expressed workload issues as the main explanation
for not wanting to perform extra duty.
234
Professional Learning Communities
The process of setting up regular and on-going meetings for teacher collaboration
at Ocean View Elementary School began during the 2006-2007 school year. At that time,
the staff voted and approved to bank instructional minutes in order to block out fifty
minutes per week for collaboration. Collaborative time is used for professional
development, lesson planning, data collection and analysis, and the sharing of ideas. The
staff at Ocean View is beginning to see the value of having collaborative time, and is
discussing whether to bank more minutes an increase weekly collaborative time to an
hour. The principal provides suggested topics for weekly collaboration. These topics
include data analysis, differentiating instruction to meet students’ needs and sharing of
ideas for how all eight Thinking Maps can be used across the curriculum.
Other Components to the Instructional Improvement Process
In addition to the work described above other components are in place at Ocean
View Elementary School to support the instructional improvement process. These
components include parent involvement activities, a partnership with the Boys and Girls
Club and the use of technology to support instruction.
Three half time community liaisons are employed at the school. These community
liaisons are currently working to build a connection between the home and the school. In
addition to providing written translation and oral interpretation services, the liaisons
conduct parent education classes and goes with parents to district level parent meetings.
Parent education at Ocean View Elementary is focused on helping parents navigate the
235
school system. Topics include the importance of school attendance, understanding report
cards and progress reports, how to participate in parent conferences, and more. The
liaisons also work with the principal to counsel parents regarding student health concerns.
A partnership with the local Boys and Girls Club began during the 2006-2007-
2008 school year. The Boys and Girls Club offers a free, after school program on a
satellite campus that only serves the students of Ocean View Elementary School. The
program begins at dismissal and continues until 6:00 p.m. on every school day during the
year. Students are bussed to the satellite campus. The Boys and Girls Club organization
provides the bussing. During the program, students receive a snack, have time to
complete their homework, and participate in enrichment activities for athletics, fine arts,
performing arts, and science. Teachers recommend students for participation in this
program for both social and academic concerns. Currently about one hundred Ocean
View students attend the Boys and Girls Club program. Because the program is off-site,
staff members from the program help with playground duty during the school day at
Ocean View School. Boys and Girls Club staff members lead students in organized play
activities during the students’ play periods. Since the program has been in place the
principal has seen a decrease in unacceptable playground behavior.
Teachers at Ocean View Elementary School have used technology to support
instruction for several years. All teachers have a laptop, projector and document camera.
Teachers are able to use the document camera as an advanced overhead projector to
model for students. The laptop and projectors allow teachers to access Discovery
236
Streaming (an on-line teaching/learning tool), and the digital path that is present in the
base programs for mathematics, science and social science. Upper grade students are
proficient in using Microsoft PowerPoint during group and individual presentations.
These presentations usually take place within the science and social science curriculum.
The Accelerated Reader program is used at the school for motivating students to
read daily. Students earn Accelerated Reader points each time they read a book and take
the electronic quiz that goes with the book. The school has purchased Accelerated Reader
quizzes that match the selections within the district-adopted reading program. Students
who meet their Accelerated Reader goals receive special recognition during award
ceremonies throughout the school year.
The school has a half-time technology clerk who works to keep the computers
running, but the instructional aspect of technology is left up to each classroom teacher.
Resource Use Comparison of the Evidence Based Model (EBM) to Ocean View
Elementary School
How does resource use at Ocean View Elementary School compare to the
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for funding schools? Table One (below) compares the
actual resource use in Ocean View Elementary School to that provided by a prototypical
EBM elementary school.
237
Table 1: Resource Comparison
Ocean View Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical
Elementary School
Ocean View
Actual Status
EBM to Ocean View
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
School
Characteristics
School
configuration
K-5 K-6 Plus one grade
Prototypical school
size
432 495
63 students larger than
Prototypical Site
Class size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 31
1-3: 20
4-6: 35
K: 2.06x larger
1-3: 1.33x larger
4-6: 1.40x larger
Full-day
kindergarten
Yes No
Number of At-Risk
(free & reduced
lunch)
178 311 133 more than Prototype
Number of ELL 225 402 177 more than Prototype
Personnel Resources
Core teachers 25 19.5 27 (+7.5)
Specialist
teachers
20% more:
5.0
0.3 5.4 (+5.1)
Instructional
Coaches
2.2
1 per 200 students
0.4 2 (+1.6)
Library/Media Staff
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 0 1 (+1)
Library Aide 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Technology Aide 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Extra Help
Certificated
Tutors
1.0 and an
additional 1.0 for every
100 at-risk students: 2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
0 4 (+4)
Title I Teachers 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Title I Aides 0 2.5 2.5 over EBM
Teachers for
ELL students
1 per 100 ELL students 0 4 (+4)
ELL Aides 0 3 3 over EBM
238
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Ocean View Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Ocean View
Actual Status
EBM to Ocean View
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
Extra Help (continued)
Services for gifted
students
$25/student 0 $12,375.00
Extended Day
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
0 2.6
Summer School
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
District
2.6
Teacher for Mild
SDC
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
2 Same as EBM
Aide for Mild
SDC
0.5 aide position for every
150 ADM
1.5 .5 over EBM
Teacher for
Severely
disabled
students
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
0 State Funded
Aide for Severely
disabled
students
1 aide position for every
150 ADM
0 State Funded
Professional Development
Professional
Development
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$43,200.00
5.5 days (1 in
summer and 4.5
from banking
minutes
throughout the
year).
Plus
16,000 for subs
and stipends and
$3,000.00 for
materials
EBM would give 4.5
more days plus
$49,500.00 for other
expenses
239
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Ocean View Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Ocean View
Actual Status
EBM to Ocean View
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
Other
Personnel
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
13 days per
teacher
3 more than EBM
Pupil support staff
1 Guidance Counselor
Plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position for every 125 at-
risk students:2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
1.4 3.5 (+2.1)
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 .25 2 (+1.75)
Administration
Principal 1 1 Equals EBM
Assistant Principal 0 0 Equals EBM
School Site
Secretary
2.0 .84 2 (+1.16)
Clerical 0 .5 .5 more than EBM
Parent Liaison 0 1.5 1.5 more than EBM
For the most part, resource use at Ocean View Elementary School falls well short
of the resource recommendation described by the EBM. Major differences occur in the
areas of core teachers, specialist teachers, instructional coaches, extra help personnel,
professional development, class size, and pupil support staff. Also, the EBM recommends
full day kindergarten while Ocean View Elementary provides a three quarters day
kindergarten program. Ocean View Elementary uses over the recommended amount of
instructional aides and over the amount of substitute days teacher receive for personal
benefit.
240
Lessons Learned
This section of the case study will use the following eight areas that have been
adopted from Odden et al., (2006) to provide evaluate the instructional improvement
strategies that are taking place at Ocean View Elementary School: (1) focus on educating
all students, (2) data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state
standards, (4) effective professional development, (5) restructure the learning
environment, (6) support for struggling students, (7) effective instructional leadership,
and (8) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration.
Focus on Educating All Students
Teacher leaders at Ocean View Elementary School recognize the need to up level
expectations for students of Hispanic ethnicity. Teachers are beginning the process of
increasing learning expectations for this group through a goal-setting process. By inviting
parents to participate in the goal-setting process, teachers are hearing the parents’
expectations for their children. It is the aim of the staff to use this goal-setting process as
catalyst for getting students, parents and teachers engaged in the process of helping the
Hispanic subgroup meet AYP criteria in 2009.
Data Driven Instruction
A variety of data are used at Ocean View Elementary School. Teachers use
summative assessments such as the CST and district benchmark data to determine student
placement in instructional groups. Formative assessments such as curriculum-embedded
assessments are used mainly to assign grades to students. Data are mainly used to figure
241
out how to place students in learning group. Other than to determine when to pre-teach
and re-teach, teachers do not yet use data to make instructional delivery decisions.
Rigorous Curriculum Aligned to State Standards
While all teachers use the district-adopted curriculum programs for instruction,
some teachers at the school supplement the programs with materials that are not approved
by the district. These materials particularly include fill-in-the-blank and math facts
worksheets. District-adopted curriculum is used as directed by the publishers most of the
time. The teachers at Ocean View have been trained in the use of Thinking Maps. These
tools are utilized across core content area instruction to ensure that all students can access
the curriculum.
Effective Professional Development
School data determine focus areas for professional development at this site.
Teachers learn instructional strategies like Direct Instruction through training in base
curriculum programs such as Houghton Mifflin Reading. Teachers also receive training in
mathematics instruction and use of Thinking Maps. Teachers participate in an average of
five and a half days of professional development each year. An instructional coach who is
on-campus two days each week throughout the school year provides on-going and
follow-up support. The current principal holds teachers accountable for implementing the
strategies they learn by setting performance goals with teachers, and by conducting
observations to see if the strategies are being implemented.
242
Restructured Learning Environment
The instructional day has been restructured in order to bank time for the purpose
of collaboration. Instructional minutes have been adjusted to allow for more learning time
in the area of language arts and mathematics. Schedules have been revised to ensure that
grade levels teach language arts and mathematics at the same time. This allows for a team
approach to providing support for students who are struggling. Title I funds are used to
pay for an additional certificated teacher whose presence allows class size to be reduced
during language arts instruction.
Support for Struggling Students
Struggling students receive support during the school day by placing students in
differentiated learning groups and providing universal access support. Instructional aides
who are assigned to a grade level provide additional extra help during the day. Teachers
within the grade level decide how the aides will be used. The resource teacher provides
intensive support to special education students who have been identified with mild
learning disabilities. Summer school is a district program that is available to third and
sixth grade students who will be retained and to a specific group of English learner
students. Twenty-seven students at Ocean View Elementary School qualified for the
summer 2008 summer school program.
243
Effective Instructional Leadership
Both the leadership team and the principal have been in place at the site for seven
years. It may be time to make a change in leadership in order to progress further with
instructional improvement process. That being said, effective instructional leadership is
evident within the site based on the efforts being made to improve the performance of
Hispanic students. The need to change instructional practice for this group of students has
been recognized by school leaders and changes are taking place this school year.
Professional Learning Communities
The teachers at Ocean View Elementary School meet regularly on a weekly basis
for collaboration. The principal suggests topics for collaborative meetings at this point.
During collaboration, teachers look at assessment data, plan lessons together and discuss
student work. Collaborative meetings are also used to further professional development in
the areas of Direct Instruction and Thinking Maps.
Future Implications
The staff at Ocean View Elementary School identifies several additional resources
they believe they need to make adequate yearly progress as the achievement bar
continues to climb.
They would like to see class size lowered in kindergarten, fourth, fifth and sixth
grades. Teachers believe they would be able to provide better, individualized instruction
to at-risk students if class size was reduced from enrollment sizes of up to thirty-six
students.
244
Along with a reduction in class size, staff members request an improved
curriculum program to support English language development instruction. Staff members
believe that the current program, English Now, is not standards-based and does not
provide lessons that English learners actually need. Such lessons would include academic
vocabulary and grammar instruction.
The principal would like to see the addition of an assistant principal to the
elementary school staff. The assistant principal would be responsible for helping to deal
with student behavior and discipline issues at the site.
Further, the principal for additional time to be allocated for professional
development. Over the past few years, teachers have been released using substitutes
during the school year to attend training. The principal believes that this is not good for
students as substitutes are generally not highly qualified.
Finally, the principal feels the students and parents would benefit by the addition
of support personnel. Support personnel include counselors and nurses. The principal
believes that students and families need more support with matters involving health, self-
esteem, and anger management.
245
APPENDIX F
CASE STUDY: SEASIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Overview of School and District
Seaside Elementary School is a kindergarten through sixth grade school that
serves just fewer than seven hundred students in Grape Vine Unified School District.
Grape Vine USD is an urban district in Southern California. The district educates
approximately 50,000 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. In addition, Grape
Vine USD provides support programs for adult education, preschool, regional occupation
program (ROP), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), fine and performing arts, and
special education.
Though the school serves a diverse student population, there are three significant
subgroups of students at Seaside Elementary School: (1) socio-economically
disadvantaged (SED), (2) English learner students, and (3) students of Hispanic ethnicity.
The percent of students who receive free or reduced meals is used to determine the
percent of students who are considered SED. Approximately sixty-five percent of
students are considered SED, which is right in line with the district average of sixty-four
percent. Just about nearly seventy percent of the population of Seaside School is made up
of English Learner students while about half of the district’s population is made up of
English learners. About seventy-one percent of the students at Seaside are of Hispanic
ethnicity compared to a district average of about fifty-four percent.
246
Seaside Elementary School also provides services to seventy-one students who
qualify for special education. Most of these students receive services for speech and
language support and for mild learning disabilities.
State Assessment Data for Seaside Elementary School
Seaside Elementary School has met the criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress
every year between 2005 and 2008. In Spring 2008, only twenty-eight percent of the
students in the Hispanic subgroup scored proficient or advanced on the language arts
portion of the CST. The school was able to meet AYP criteria because the state used a
two-year average to determine the AYP status of the Hispanic subgroup. The percent of
all students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST has declined in the areas of
language arts, mathematics and science since the 2004-2005 school year. These state test
scores can be seen in Figure One:
Figure One: Percent of students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST
for English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics and Science 2005-2008).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Percent Proficient or Advanced
ELA Math Science
247
An examination of significant subgroup data shows a slight gap in performance
between the Hispanic subgroup and all other subgroups on the California Standards Test.
As shown in Figure Two (below) slightly fewer Hispanic students scored proficient or
advanced in language arts than English learner and SED students. All three subgroups
had fewer students score proficient or advanced in language arts on the 2008 CST
compared to the previous year. Figure Two also illustrates how the number of English
learner students scoring proficient or advanced increases slightly each year until 2007-
2008.
Figure 2: ELA Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup: SED,
ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
Figure Three (below) shows a slightly different pattern in the area of mathematics. This
figure illustrates how the scores for each subgroup go up and down each year. Like the
language arts scores, the biggest drop in percent of students scoring proficient or
advanced occurs between 2007 and 2008.
248
Figure 3: Math Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup: SED,
ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
Seaside Elementary School’s Academic Performance Index (API) scores have
gone up and down between 2005 and 2008. From the year 2005 to the year 2008
Seaside’s API growth score decreased by thirty-five points. The school’s current API
score is 757. This is a drop of thirty points since 2007. Figure Four demonstrates the API
pattern the school has experienced over the past four years.
249
Figure 4: Academic Performance Index (API) Growth 2005-2008
792
782
787
757
730
740
750
760
770
780
790
800
2005 2006 2007 2008
API Growth Score
Seaside Elementary School has made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) every
year until 2008. As stated earlier, the school met AYP criteria in 2008 because the state
used a two-year average to determine AYP status of the Hispanic subgroup. The school
has avoided entering program improvement this year. However, the school is at-risk of
not meeting AYP criteria in 2009.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Seaside Elementary School was once considered a “model” school for the district.
A dynamic principal who inspired teachers to high levels of instructional performance led
the school until 2005. In early 2005 this principal was promoted to Director of K-6
Instruction for the district. A new principal was assigned to the school and remained there
for two years. The current principal took over Seaside beginning the 2007-2008 school
year.
250
The purpose of this case study is to tell the instructional story of Seaside
Elementary School over the past four years and to articulate the instructional
improvement practices that are in place this year to ensure that the school will meet AYP
criteria in 2009. This case study will also identify how resources are aligned with the
instructional improvement process.
Reinforcing a Common Purpose
The current principal of Seaside Elementary School expresses a strong vision for
the school. She believes that while the teachers are very good, they have forgotten their
purpose. Upon arrival at the school in 2007, the current principal found that the teachers
held little respect for her predecessor. Individually, teachers sought her out to express
their concerns over what had taken place at the school during prior years. A common
theme emerged after listening to several staff members. Basically, the lack of an effective
leader left the staff divided. Teacher leaders began to make their own decisions about
how business would get done at the school. At first, staff members blamed one another
for irregular test scores. Then, staff members began to blame the children and their
families for low district benchmark scores during the 2007-2008 school year. Staff
members made comments about their perceived lack of support from parents and lack of
interest from students.
Nevertheless, the principal senses the pride Seaside’s teachers have for their
school. The principal also knows that the teachers really do believe in their students, but
have forgotten how to work together for the common good of the school. The principal
251
believes that it is time to reinforce the teachers’ belief that all students can learn if given
the right tools and instruction. The principal fears that the teachers are so frustrated over
falling test scores that it may take some time for their faith in what they can do to return.
The principal admits that the teachers take every low score as a personal defeat. She feels
that she will need to emphasize and celebrate every small success in order for the
teachers’ spirits to lift.
Setting Learning Goals
The API drop of thirty points from 2007 to 2008 was a wake up call about the
students who are the furthest behind in terms of meeting proficiency on the state
standards. Schools earn more API credit when they move students from lower
proficiency bands to higher proficiency bands. The test results from 2008 saw more
students fall to the bottom of the performance bands than any other year. Therefore, this
year the staff of Seaside Elementary School will focus on goal setting with every student
who scored Far Below Basic or Below Basic on the CST in language arts and/or in
mathematics.
Conferences are being held with every student who scored in one of the bottom
two proficiency bands on the CST. The conference involves the teacher, parent, student,
and principal. Goals for the student are discussed during the conference. The principal
checks in with students bi-weekly to help monitor the progress they are making toward
their goals and to provide the students with encouragement.
252
Teacher Leaders
Seaside’s teacher leaders are highly skilled individuals who want the best for their
school community. They disagree often, but with the best of intentions. They seem to
work well with a strong-minded principal who can allow these leaders to debate issues in
a professional manner. Having worked with the teachers for just over a year, the
principal is still determining each individual’s strengths and the best method for using
their assets.
Each teacher leader has a pocket of teachers who defer to their leader’s wishes.
The principal has figured out that she needs to secure buy-in from these leaders if she
wants her ideas to prosper. Each teacher leader is an excellent teacher. Some of these
teachers are not as skilled as others in the art of sharing their craft with other teachers
within their respective grade levels.
Instructional Practice
Teachers at Seaside School have agreed upon a common instructional strategy
that all teachers use for language arts and mathematics instruction. This strategy is Direct
Instruction. All teachers at the school have been trained in the use of Direct Instruction,
however the level of expertise in this strategy varies from teacher to teacher. Most
teachers are comfortable with articulating the learning objectives and providing students
with structured interaction. Many of the teachers struggle with the remaining elements of
Direct Instruction implementation.
253
Teachers use the district-adopted curriculum program of Houghton-Mifflin with
fidelity. The principal has asked primary teachers to really focus on the phonics and
phonemic awareness portion of the program because a number of students are exiting
second grade without having mastered these skills. Teachers need support implementing
the universal access component of the reading program. This is a built-in time within the
program that allows for differentiation based on student needs. The principal feels that
teachers are unsure of how to use the materials that are provided for differentiation.
Professional Development
Teachers received training in the use of Direct Instruction as a strategy during the
2006-2007 school year. This training was incorporated with instruction in academic
vocabulary from the Houghton-Mifflin Reading program. Teachers were released in grade
level clusters to receive this training throughout the school year. Teacher leaders had the
opportunity to view demonstration lessons and participate in co-plan/co-teach
experiences. The expectation was that these teacher leaders would be responsible for
providing these same experiences to other teachers at their respective grade levels. At this
time, about half of the school’s teachers have not had the opportunity to view a
demonstration lesson. Other than the teacher leaders, no teachers have participated in a
co-plan/co-teach experience.
Beginning the 2007-2008 school year and continuing during the 2008-2009
school year, teachers participated in four day training that focused on the use of Direct
Instruction with all aspects of the Houghton-Mifflin Reading program. This training takes
254
place during the school year, so teachers are released using substitutes for three of the
professional development days. The equivalent of one more day of training is provided in
after school sessions. These sessions are meant to provide follow-up after the initial
training and focus on incorporating universal access activities for students.
The principal admits that she did not hold teachers accountable for implementing
the strategies they learned by attending this training. She plans to remedy this during the
2008-2009 school year. The principal will attend the training with one of the grade level
groups from the school. She plans to provide follow-up support during staff meetings
throughout the year. The principal will hold teachers accountable for implementing the
techniques they learn by conducing classroom observations and holding conferences with
teachers to discuss what she observes.
Using Data to Inform Instruction
A variety of data are used to inform instruction at Seaside School. The CST
scores for 2008 were examined closely at the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year.
Students who scored in the Far Below Basic and Below Basic bands were identified for
immediate extra help that began on the first day of school. A comprehensive reading
assessment that tests phonemic awareness and reading comprehension was administered
to every student who scored in the lower proficiency bands on the language arts portion
of the CST. This assessment was also given to students in kindergarten, first and second
grades. The results of this assessment were used to identify exactly where students were
having difficulty in language arts.
255
All students who scored Far Below Basic or Below Basic in mathematics on the
2008 CST were given a mathematics diagnostics test during the first week of the 2008-
2009 school year. Results from this assessment were used to identify the areas where
students need more support in math.
District benchmark assessments and curriculum-embedded assessments are
administered to students throughout the school year. Teachers use the results of these
assessment to identify when to pre-teach and when to re-teach concepts. They also use
the results to adjust lesson pacing.
Portions of curriculum-embedded assessments are given to students who receive
extra help every two weeks. These are administered often so that student progress can be
monitored closely and adjustments to the intervention program can be made.
Support for Struggling Students
Supports are in place for students who are struggling both during the school day
and with extended-day programs. During the school day students are placed in learning
groups for language arts instruction and mathematics instruction based on prior year test
scores. Teachers at Seaside Elementary School restructured the way they provide
language arts and mathematics instruction to make these learning groups possible. First,
the school uses Title I funds to hire an additional certificated teacher. Next, teachers use
data to place students in differentiated learning groups for instruction. These learning
groups range from a challenge group where scaffolds are used to extend learning to a
strategic group where scaffolds are used to support learning. The Title I teacher is used to
256
teach one of the levels and to bring down class size during language arts instruction and
mathematics instruction.
The resource teacher provides extra support to students who are achieving the
lowest scores on the CST and on district benchmark assessment. Students who are in
third grade and above who have not mastered phonemic awareness report to the resource
teacher during their language arts time. Though the resource teacher’s main responsibility
is to serve special educations students, this teacher works with general education students
who need extra support.
Beginning the 2008-2009 school year, the work schedule for instructional aides
changed so that some aides begin their workday before the instructional day begins for
students and some aides work in the afternoon. This has made it possible for students to
receive extended-day opportunities without an additional cost to the school. The aides
who report for duty in the afternoon pull students from non-core instruction. All
instructional aides (including instructional aides for English learner students) are assigned
to work with students who scored Far Below Basic or Below Basic on the 2008 CST in
the area of language arts and/or mathematics. They also work with first and second grade
students who are not making progress based on report card grades. Teachers have trained
instructional aides in the use of the Houghton-Mifflin phonics intervention program.
Students who are in need of support in mathematics receive help using a math facts
program that was designed by one of the district’s teacher specialists. Two instructional
257
aides have been trained to provide support to students in kindergarten and first grade
using the Early Reading Intervention (ERI) program.
The school provides extended-day learning programs taught by certificated
teachers to about ninety-four students in grades two through six. Students are invited to
attend the extended-day programs if they scored Far Below Basic or Below Basic on the
2008 CST or if they received these lower performance band scores on district benchmark
exams. The extended-day program serves students for thirty minutes a day, three days per
week. Students are assessed bi-weekly and adjustments are made to the program based on
results from these assessments.
About thirty students from Seaside Elementary School attended a centralized
district summer school program during the summer of 2008. The program focused on
English learner students and students who were at-risk for mandatory retention. The
school has not received information about how students performed during summer
school.
Professional Learning Communities
The process of setting up regular and on-going meetings for teacher collaboration
at Seaside Elementary School began during the 2008-2009 school year. The staff voted
and approved to bank instructional minutes in order to reserve sixty minutes per week for
collaboration. The first collaborative meetings of the school year were used to determine
agreed upon meeting norms. The principal relates that the teachers are very passionate
about their ideas for educating students. It was important to the principal that norms be
258
established to ensure teachers treat one another with respect and ensure that the “blame
game” does not ensue during collaborative time. With established collaborative time new
to the school site, regular discussion topics have not been established. So far,
collaborative time has been used for planning together and reviewing data. The principal
feels that this is a good start considering there is still a bit of a divisive culture in the
school.
Other Components to the Instructional Improvement Process
In addition to the work described above, other components are in place at Seaside
Elementary School to support the instructional improvement process. These components
include the incorporation of a state preschool, a partnership with the Boys and Girls Club
and the use of technology to support instruction.
A state preschool program operates on Seaside’s campus. The preschool is
managed by a district-level administrator and is not under the authority of Seaside’s
principal. The preschool serves about sixty students who live in the community that
surrounds Seaside School. Roughly twenty of the students will attend Seaside when they
enter kindergarten. The remaining students will attend other elementary schools within
Grape Vine USD. The preschool uses the Houghton-Mifflin pre-kindergarten instructional
program. The preschool teachers hold transition conferences with the kindergarten
teachers for every student who will attend Seaside in kindergarten.
A partnership with the local Boys and Girls Club began during the 2007-2008
school year. The Boys and Girls Club offers a free, after school program on the school’s
259
campus. During the program, students receive a snack, have time to complete their
homework, and participate in enrichment activities for athletics, fine arts, performing
arts, and science. Teachers recommend students for participation in this program for both
social and academic concerns. Currently about eighty of Seaside’s students attend the
Boys and Girls Club program.
Teachers at Seaside Elementary School have used technology to support
instruction for several years. All teachers have a laptop, projector and document camera.
Teachers are able to use the document camera as an advanced overhead projector to
model for students. The laptop and projectors allow teachers to access Discovery
Streaming (an on-line teaching/learning tool), and the digital path that is present in the
base programs for mathematics, science and social science. The Accelerated Reader
program is used at the school for motivating students to read daily. Students earn
Accelerated Reader points each time they read a book and take the electronic quiz that
goes with the book. The school has purchased Accelerated Reader quizzes that match the
selections within the district-adopted reading program. Students who meet their
Accelerated Reader goals receive special recognition during award ceremonies
throughout the school year. The school has a half-time technology clerk who works to
keep the computers running. As an adjunct duty, a classroom teacher provides
instructional technology support to other teachers on campus.
260
Resource Use Comparison of the Evidence Based Model (EBM) to Seaside
Elementary School
How does resource use at Seaside Elementary School compare to the Evidence
Based Model (EBM) for funding schools? Table One (below) compares the actual
resource use in Seaside Elementary School to that provided by a prototypical EBM
elementary school.
261
Table 1: Resource Comparison
Seaside Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical
Elementary School
Seaside Actual
Status
EBM to Seaside
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
School
Characteristics
School
configuration
K-5 K-6 Plus one grade
Prototypical school
size
432 689
1.6 x larger than
Prototypical Site
Class size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 32
1-3: 20
4-6: 35
K: 2.13x larger
1-3: 1.33x larger
4-6: 1.40x larger
Full-day
kindergarten
Yes No
Number of At-Risk
(free & reduced
lunch)
178 554 376 more than Prototype
Number of ELL 225 481 256 more than Prototype
Personnel Resources
Core teachers 25 27 39 (+12)
Specialist teachers
20% more:
5.0
0.6 8 (+7.4)
Instructional
Coaches
2.2
1 per 200 students
0.2 3.5 (+3.3)
Library/Media Staff
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 0 1 (+1)
Library Aide 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Technology Aide 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Extra Help
Certificated Tutors
1.0 and an
additional 1.0 for every
100 at-risk students: 2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
0 6.5 (+6.5)
Title I Teachers 0 1 1 over EBM
Title I Aides 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Teachers for ELL
students
1 per 100 ELL students 0 4.8 (+4.8)
ELL Aides 0 4 4 over EBM
262
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Seaside Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Seaside Actual
Status
EBM to Seaside
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
Extra Help (continued)
Services for gifted
students
$25/student 0 $17,225.00
Extended Day
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
.47 4.6
Summer School
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
District
4.6
Teacher for Mild
SDC
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
1 4.5 (+3.5)
Aide for Mild SDC
0.5 aide position for every
150 ADM
.5 2.25 (+1.75)
Teacher for Severely
disabled
students
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
0 State Funded
Aide for Severely
disabled
students
1 aide position for every
150 ADM
0 State Funded
Professional Development
Professional
Development
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$43,200.00
5.5 days (1 in
summer and 4.5
from banking
minutes
throughout the
year).
Plus
18,500.00 for
subs and stipends
and $6,200.00
for materials
EBM would give 4.5
more days plus
$68,900.00 for other
expenses
263
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Seaside Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Seaside Actual
Status
EBM to Seaside
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
Other
Personnel
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
13 days per
teacher
3 more than EBM
Pupil support staff
1 Guidance Counselor
Plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position for every 125 at-
risk students:2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
1.25 5.5 (+4.25)
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 .25 3.5(+3.25)
Administration
Principal 1 1 Equals EBM
Assistant Principal 0 0 .6 (+.6)
School Site
Secretary
2.0 .84 3.2 (+2.36)
Clerical 0 1 1 more than EBM
Parent Liaison 0 1 1 more than EBM
For the most part, resource use at Seaside Elementary School falls well short of
the resource recommendation described by the EBM. Major differences occur in the areas
of core teachers, specialist teachers, instructional coaches, extra help personnel,
professional development, class size, and pupil support staff. Also, the EBM recommends
full day kindergarten while Seaside Elementary provides a three quarters day
kindergarten program. Seaside Elementary uses over the recommended amount of
instructional aides and over the amount of substitute days teacher receive for personal
benefit.
264
Lessons Learned
This section of the case study will use the following eight areas that have been
adopted from Odden et al., (2006) to provide evaluate the instructional improvement
strategies that are taking place at Seaside Elementary School: (1) focus on educating all
students, (2) data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state
standards, (4) effective professional development, (5) restructure the learning
environment, (6) support for struggling students, (7) effective instructional leadership,
and (8) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration.
Focus on Educating All Students
The staff at Seaside Elementary School is working toward returning to the
common purpose that they once held. Changes in leadership at the principal level brought
about some divisiveness among staff members. Teachers are beginning to work together
effectively and starting to focus on student learning instead of blaming one another or
blaming the students for poor performance.
Data Driven Instruction
A variety of data are used at Seaside Elementary School. Teachers use summative
assessments such as the CST and district benchmark data to determine student placement
in instructional groups and intervention groups. Formative assessments such as
curriculum-embedded assessments are used to monitor progress during intervention
programs. District benchmark assessments are being used to determine when to pre-teach
and re-teach.
265
Rigorous Curriculum Aligned to State Standards
All teachers use the district-adopted curriculum programs for instruction with
fidelity. Teachers are struggling with the implementation of the universal access
components from the reading program. This has hindered access to the rigor of the
standards for some students.
Effective Professional Development
The principal determines the focus areas for professional development based on
the instructional practices she observes during classroom observations. Teachers learn
instructional strategies like Direct Instruction through training in base curriculum
programs such as Houghton Mifflin Reading. Teachers also receive training in
mathematics instruction with an emphasis on building proficiency in math facts. Teachers
participate in an average of five and a half days of professional development each year.
An instructional coach who is on-campus one day each week throughout the school year
provides on-going and follow-up support. The current principal holds teachers
accountable for implementing the strategies they learn by setting performance goals with
teachers, and by conducting observations to see if the strategies are being implemented.
Restructured Learning Environment
The instructional day has been restructured in order to bank time for the purpose
of collaboration. Instructional minutes have been adjusted to allow for more learning time
in the area of language arts. Schedules have been revised to ensure that grade levels teach
language arts and mathematics at the same time. Title I funds are used to pay for an
266
additional certificated teacher whose presence allows class size to be reduced during
language arts instruction. Instructional aide work schedules have been adjusted to allow
them to provide support to students outside the students’ regular instructional day.
Support for Struggling Students
Struggling students receive support during the school day by placing students in
differentiated learning groups for language arts instruction. Instructional aides are
assigned to work with students who score Far Below Basic and Below Basic on the CST
and district benchmark assessments. The resource teacher provides intensive support to
these students as well. About ninety students participate in an extended-day program.
These students receive support in the areas of phonics, reading comprehension and
mathematics. Summer school is a district program that is available to third and sixth
grade students who will be retained, and to a specific group of English learner students.
Thirty students at Seaside Elementary School qualified for the 2008 summer school
program.
Effective Instructional Leadership
Effective instructional leadership is clearly important to the teachers at Seaside
Elementary School. They respect an instructional leader who is transparent about what he
or she expects of teachers, is knowledgeable about teaching and learning, and who will
work hard for the students and the staff. In the absence of such a leader, divisiveness
among staff members ensued. The current principal is working to bring the staff back
together and to build the capacity of teacher leaders to share sound instructional practice.
267
Professional Learning Communities
The teachers at Seaside Elementary School meet regularly on a weekly basis for
collaboration. As this regularly scheduled time for collaboration is new, the principal is
very directive about what will be discussed during collaborative meetings. During
collaboration, teachers look at assessment data and plan lessons together.
Future Implications
The staff at Seaside Elementary School identifies several additional resources
they believe they need to make adequate yearly progress as the achievement bar
continues to climb.
They would like to see class size lowered in kindergarten, fourth, fifth and sixth
grades. Teachers believe they would be able to provide better, individualized instruction
to at-risk students if class size was reduced from enrollment sizes of up to thirty-six
students.
Along with a reduction in class size, staff members request an improved
curriculum program to support English language development instruction. Staff members
believe that the current program, English Now, does not provide systematic instruction in
English language development. Staff members would also like to purchase a language
arts base program that provides more explicit instruction in phonics and phonemic
awareness in the early grades.
The principal would like to see the addition of an assistant principal to the
elementary school staff. The assistant principal would be responsible for helping to deal
268
with student behavior and discipline issues at the site. This individual would also help
with performing operational duties around the school; freeing the principal to work on
instruction.
Further, the principal would like additional time to be allocated for professional
development. Most of the professional development occurs during the school year and
teachers need to be released by using substitutes.
Finally, the principal feels the students and parents would benefit by the addition
of support personnel. Support personnel include parent liaisons, counselors and nurses.
The principal believes that students and families need more support with matters
involving school attendance, health, managing student behavior at home, and learning
problem-solving strategies.
269
APPENDIX G
CASE STUDY: BAYSHORE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Overview of School and District
Bayshore Elementary School is a kindergarten through sixth grade school that
serves just about five hundred fifty students in Grape Vine Unified School District. Grape
Vine USD is an urban district in Southern California. The district educates approximately
50,000 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. In addition, Grape Vine USD
provides support programs for adult education, preschool, regional occupation program
(ROP), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), fine and performing arts, and special
education. Bayshore Elementary School is one of eight schools in Grape Vine USD that
was designated a Title I Academic Achievement School during the 2007-2008 school
year.
Though the school serves a diverse student population, there are four significant
subgroups of students at Bayshore Elementary School: (1) socio-economically
disadvantaged (SED), (2) English learner students, (3) students of Hispanic ethnicity, and
(4) students of Asian ethnicity. The percent of students who receive free or reduced meals
is used to determine the percent of students who are considered SED. Approximately
fifty-five percent of students are considered SED which is about ten percent fewer than
the district average of sixty-four percent. Just over sixty-percent of the population of
Basyshore School is made up of English Learner students while about half of the
district’s population is English learners. Nearly forty-two percent of the students at
270
Bayshore are of Hispanic ethnicity compared to a district average of about fifty-four
percent. A little over half of Bayshore’s student population is made up of students of
Asian ethnicity while the district average of students in this subgroup is about thirty
percent.
Bayshore Elementary School also provides services to forty-seven students who
qualify for special education. Most of these students receive services for speech and
language support and for mild learning disabilities.
Over the past four years the school’s mission “Striving for Excellence” has been
implemented through developing a common purpose, setting learning goals, supporting a
system of teacher leaders, providing students with strong first instruction, providing
teachers with effective professional development, using data to inform instruction that
incorporates differentiation, supporting students who are struggling, supporting
professional learning communities, and evaluating school programs regularly. The
purpose of this case study is to tell the story of noteworthy improvement in student
learning at Bayshore Elementary School and identify how resources are aligned with the
instructional improvement process.
State Assessment Data for Bayshore Elementary School
Bayshore Elementary School’s test scores have increased considerably over the
past four the past four years. In fact, in the area of English language arts the number of
students scoring proficient or advanced has almost doubled since the year 2005. In the
year 2008, seventy-five percent of students scored proficient or advanced in math
271
compared to thirty-nine percent in the year 2005. The number of students who scored
proficient or advanced in science also increased over the past four years. In 2005 only
seventeen percent of students scored proficient or advanced on the state science standards
test. By 2008 thirty-six percent of students scored proficient or advanced. These
incredible increases over time can be seen in Figure One.
Figure One: Percent of students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST
for English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics and Science 2005-2008).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Percent Proficient or Advanced
ELA Math Science
While enough students in each significant subgroup scored proficient or advanced
to meet AYP criteria, a substantial gap between subgroups is evident. Figure Two
(below) shows a nearly twenty-point gap between the Asian subgroup and the Hispanic
subgroup. This gap widens over time. There is also a gap between English learner
students and SED students, with more English learners scoring proficient or advanced.
272
Figure 2: ELA Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup: SED,
ELL, Hispanic, and Asian for the years 2005 to 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic Asian
Figure Three (below) shows a similar pattern in the area of mathematics:
Figure 3: Math Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup: SED,
ELL, Hispanic, and Asian for the years 2005 to 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2005 2006 2007 2008
jPercent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic Asian
273
In 2006, Bayshore Elementary School met the State of California’s goal for all
schools to obtain an Academic Performance Index (API) score of at least 800. From the
year 2005 to the year 2008 Bayshore grew fifty-three points. The school’s current API
score is 846. Figure Four demonstrates the incredible growth the school has made in the
past four years.
Figure 4: Academic Performance Index (API) Growth 2005-2008
793
810
827
846
760
770
780
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
2005 2006 2007 2008
API Growth Score
Bayshore Elementary School has made Adequate Yearly Progress every year for the past
four years. While this is remarkable performance the school recognizes the need to
decrease the gap between subgroup performance on the CST. The instructional
improvement strategies that are discussed in the next section provide the roadmap for
how this school has met AYP criteria over the past several years and how the school
plans to meet the needs of all subgroups.
274
Instructional Improvement Strategies
At the beginning of the instructional improvement process Bayshore Elementary
School was at risk of entering program improvement due to the low numbers of Hispanic
students who were scoring proficient or advanced on the state standards test. The current
principal was assigned to Bayshore Elementary beginning the 2005-2006 school year.
Though overall the school was performing well, the entering principal quickly realized
that teachers held low expectations for students of Hispanic ethnicity and their parents
were blamed for not helping the children at home. Further, some teachers were not using
the district-adopted textbooks, data analysis was rare, extended-day programs were
implemented randomly, and there was not much consistency across grade levels at the
school. After assessing the situation at this school, the principal decided that the first
order of business was to develop a common purpose with all staff members at the school.
Developing a Common Purpose
The staff at Bayshore Elementary School began the process of developing a
purpose by taking the time to revisit their vision and mission statements. Certificated staff
members worked in teams to discuss their ideas about teaching and learning. Parents of
Hispanic students were invited to “vision” meetings where they shared the hopes that
hold for their children. Upper grade students representing every significant subgroup also
participated in focus groups where they discussed their goals for the future. This process
led the entire school community to the idea that they were all there for learning. Teachers
saw that the parents of Hispanic students really want their children to do well in school
275
and make a good life. They concluded that blame and excuses have no part in the
education of children that ultimately led to a school saying, “Should we go to the beach?”
This expression has a special meaning to the staff of Bayshore School. It means that
everyone might as well go to the beach if they cannot make a difference for kids during
the school day. This expression is whispered to one another when feelings of frustration
emerge about students not returning homework, possibly not studying at home, and when
parents do not make it to school meetings. The staff uses the expression to remind one
another that they have about six hours a day to make a difference for students. The
process of developing a common purpose succeeded in changing the culture of the
school. With the school focused on learning, the staff of Bayshore School turned their
attention to establishing learning goals for all students.
Setting Learning Goals
The student learning goals Bayshore Elementary School set are straightforward
ones. Students in kindergarten and first grade are expected to meet or excel at their grade
level standards. Students in second grade are expected to score proficient or advanced on
the CST. Each student in third grade through sixth grade is expected to make at least one
proficiency band’s growth on the CST for English language arts and math until they
reach proficient or advanced. The focus on these learning goals decreased the
apprehension about making AYP and allowed teachers to concentrate on moving all
students forward. Teachers meet with parents and students in October of each year to
look at how the child has progressed and set new goals for the current year. Students
276
document the progress they make toward meeting their goals in academic binders.
Students who meet their learning goals throughout the year are honored during award
ceremonies and their pictures are placed on a special bulletin board that is located in the
school cafeteria. Parents are kept informed about their child’s progress through academic
binders and during regular conferences with teachers and the principal.
Collaborative Leadership
Strong teacher leadership is evident at Bayshore Elementary School. Lead
teachers are selected at each grade level by the principal. These teachers are key to
securing buy-in from the rest of the staff so that new ideas can be expressed and put into
action. Teacher leaders meet weekly with their respective grade levels and meeting
monthly with the principal. Topics such as effective instruction, data analysis,
intervention programs, professional development, parent involvement, and reform efforts
are discussed at these meetings. The concept of collaborative leadership has led to a spirit
of shared decision-making and share responsibility.
Effective First Instruction
At the beginning of the instructional improvement process data from curriculum-
embedded assessments showed that most of the students in the Hispanic subgroup were
not mastering learning objectives. This made it difficult to identify students for
participation in intervention programs. It also made it clear to staff members that they
were not meeting the needs of this subgroup. Therefore, the instructional focus at
Bayshore Elementary School shifted to providing strong, effective first instruction to all
277
students. Professional development for teachers centered on instructional delivery and on
curriculum (more detail about how teachers received professional development will be
described later in this case study).
The instructional expectation at Bayshore Elementary School is that all students
will receive explicit, engaging instruction in the California Content Standards. Teachers
use research-proven instructional strategies that include Direct Instruction, Differentiated
Instruction, Cooperative Learning, and Distributive Practice. Teachers implement the
model of gradual release of responsibility from the teacher to the students. Typical
instructional delivery at Bayshore Elementary School includes articulation of the learning
objective, orientation to the lesson where prior knowledge is accessed, teacher modeling,
structured practice (very controlled by teacher), guided practice (gradual release of
control to students), semi-independent practice (teacher works with small groups of
students identified through comprehension checks), and closure.
Instructional delivery at Bayshore is expected to be highly engaging and
interactive. Students participate in an abundance of structured interaction activities that
include choral response, think/pair/share, think/silent/share, small group discussions, use
of individual white boards for quick understanding checks, and more. Comprehension
checks occur often and strategically to determine student understanding throughout the
lesson. Corrective feedback is given to students immediately.
All teachers at Bayshore Elementary School are directed to use the district-
adopted curriculum during instruction. At first, some teachers used the adopted programs
278
while others used books for Accelerated Reader, worksheets from publishers like Frank
Shaeffer, out-dated curriculum programs, or materials they created themselves. To ensure
all students receive instruction that reflects the rigor of the state standards, all teachers are
now required to use the adopted programs for instructional delivery. After faithfully
implementing these programs for a few years, teachers began to notice that some of the
lessons within the adopted programs do not always to teach to the rigor called for by the
state standards. Therefore, teachers now collaboratively go through a process known as
“unpacking the standards” to determine whether or not lessons in the base program meet
the rigor intended by the standards. Teachers work together to up level the lessons in the
base program. Examples of strategies used to up level the lesson include, changing the
questioning strategy, modifying an example, incorporating a Thinking Map(visual
representation based on brain theory), replacing the practice activities for students, etc.
The strong instructional delivery model and teacher knowledge of content standards was
developed through an effective professional development program.
Professional Development
A model of expert professional development is implemented at Bayshore
Elementary School. This model was first introduced to the school in the year 2007-2008
when teachers received training in Direct Instruction with the Houghton Mifflin Reading
Program. An outside consulting company was hired using site Title I funds to conduct the
training that consisted of five full days of presentation, demonstration lessons, co-
plan/co-teach opportunities and data analysis. The first five presentation days included a
279
deep look at the curriculum the school uses to teach reading/language arts (Houghton
Mifflin) and an overview of the components that make up the instructional strategy of
Direct Instruction. Two of these days occurred outside the teacher work year while the
remaining three days occurred during the beginning of the school year and substitutes
were used to release teachers. The demonstration component of this professional
development consisted of an initial meeting, viewing of the demonstration lesson and a
debrief session. Substitutes were used to release a grade level at a time for participation.
During the initial meeting the consulting teacher modeled how to plan a Direct
Instruction lesson. This lesson was then demonstrated in the classroom of one of the
teachers in the grade level. The debrief session was used as an opportunity for teachers to
ask questions of the consulting teacher and for the consulting teacher to share the
reasoning behind changes made to the lesson as it progressed. The final steps of this
professional development process included a co-plan/co-teach lesson for each teacher
with the consulting teacher and data analysis of student work directly following the
lesson.
It is important to point out that the principal participated during every part of this
professional development opportunity including the co-plan/co-teach component. The
principal met with each teacher following the training to set goals for each teacher and to
determine the next level of support the teacher would need. The principal continues to
hold teachers accountable for implementing the strategy of Direct Instruction by
conducting frequent observations and providing regular feedback to teachers.
280
Currently teachers at Bayshore Elementary School are participating in a similar
professional development opportunity for the area of supporting English language learner
students. The expert model of professional development has been modified slightly due
to a current limit in resources the school is facing. Rather than bring in a consulting
teacher to provide training to all teachers, a lead teacher from each grade level is
receiving training in Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD). Lead teachers train
other teachers in their grade level during collaboration meetings. Additionally, the school
has an instructional coach on campus one day each week. The instructional coach
provides demonstration lessons, co-plan/co-teach opportunities and instructional support
to lead teachers. The principal acts as a substitute to release teachers who will work with
the lead teacher for co-plan/co-teach opportunities.
Lead teachers have also been selected for strategy instruction such as
implementation of Thinking Maps, universal access (differentiation) instruction and math
facts instruction to provide professional development to the teachers within their grade
level during collaborative meetings. This model of professional development has
increased the instructional capacity of all teachers at Bayshore Elementary School.
Using Data to Inform Instruction
A variety of data are used to inform instruction at Bayshore School. At the
beginning of each school year teachers examine prior year CST scores and district
benchmark scores for each of their incoming students. These data are used as preliminary
indicators for setting pacing guides and determining scaffold levels for students. During
281
this time teachers administer a comprehensive literacy assessment to individual students
in kindergarten through third grade. The test is also given to upper grade students who
scored Far Below Basic or Below Basic on the CST. The comprehensive literacy
assessment tests phonics, phonemic awareness and reading comprehension. The results of
this assessment are used to identify strengths and weaknesses and to set individual
reading goals for students. The results are also used to identify the gaps in students’
literacy skills and to prescribe a course of action to fill those gaps.
Throughout the school year district benchmark exams in the content areas of
language arts and mathematics are analyzed. Here teachers look for trends and patterns
across the grade level. Common learning objectives where students had difficulty are
identified and a plan to revisit these objectives is developed. Benchmark exams are also
used to identify students who may be invited to attend an intervention program.
Student work data and other data are discussed regularly during collaborative
meetings within the grade level and with data discussion meetings with the principal.
Student work data is often used to calibrate common rubrics and to identify if students
are truly assigned tasks that meet the level of rigor articulated by the state’s content
standards.
Learning walks offer an additional data set that is used to inform instruction at
this school. Learning walks are conducted by grade level teams or by vertical teams
during collaboration times. A focus for the learning walk is identified prior to the walk.
For example, this year teachers at Bayshore Elementary School are focusing on how they
282
differentiate to meet the needs of their students. Therefore, a learning walk focus this year
is to examine the classroom environment for any tools that indicate differentiation
techniques are in place for students. Examples of such tools include graphic and visual
representation, use of universal access materials from Houghton-Mifflin, a variety of
scaffolds evident in teacher modeling, questioning cards, records of students’ English
language proficiency level, etc. Learning walk data and next steps for the school are
discussed during collaborative meetings.
Teachers at Bayshore School collect lesson implementation data through a
process described as lesson study. The lesson study process includes planning a lesson
together as a grade level team, one teacher delivering the lesson to students with the
remaining teachers observing, and debriefing as a team following the lesson delivery.
Teachers use this process to collect data on how lessons are delivered to students. Some
of the areas that are looked at include level of student engagement, level of student
understanding at various points in the lesson and level of student mastery of the learning
objective. Teachers make modifications to the lesson during lesson study debrief
meetings.
Data inform instruction at the student level, classroom level, grade level, and
school level at this site. At the student level it is used to determine how instruction needs
to be differentiated for the child. At the classroom level data are used to identify how
instruction needs to be modified for groups of students. Grade levels use data to
determine how pacing will modified and how intervention can be incorporated
283
throughout the grade level. School level data are using to identify areas for professional
development and school wide intervention programs.
Support for Struggling Students
Support is in place for students who are struggling both during the school day and
during extended-day programs. Bayshore Elementary School uses an instructional
intervention approach that is similar to Response To Intervention (RTI) during the school
day. Basically there are different levels of support in place depending on what a student
may need. The regular classroom teacher provides the first level of intervention. As the
teacher checks for understanding during a lesson he or she is determining which students
to work with during the semi-independent practice component of the lesson.
The next level of support may include a change of instructional placement for
identified skill level instruction. This is best illustrated by describing how Bayshore
Elementary School restructured the way they teach language arts instruction. First, the
school uses Title I funds to hire an additional certificated teacher for part of the day.
Next, teachers use data to place students in differentiated learning groups for instruction.
These learning groups range from a challenge group where scaffolds are used to extend
learning to a strategic group where scaffolds are used to support learning. The Title I
teacher is used to teach one of the levels and to bring down class size during language
arts instruction. When a student struggles with an identified skill the student is sent to the
strategic level for instruction in that skill. Another level two support in place at this
school are what the teachers call learning academies. Instructional aides work in the
284
learning academies to provide short-term support to students who are struggling with
specific skills. The principal and lead teachers provide training to the aides on a regular
basis. Learning academies are located in regular classrooms due to space and to be
compliant with California laws regarding student supervision. The academies operate as a
class within a class.
The final level of intervention during the school day occurs when the student is
working so far below grade level that he or she needs intensive intervention for longer
periods of time. The school’s resource teacher and a resource aide provide such support
whether or not the student has been identified with learning disabilities. At this point the
struggling student no longer has access to the core curriculum. A state approved
intervention curriculum is used for language arts support and out of grade level books are
used for math instruction. The principal recognizes that a disproportionate amount of
Hispanic students are receiving intensive support compared to the other subgroups at the
school.
Intervention for English learner students is provided within the school day.
Instructional aides for English learners rotate through classrooms to provide small group
support for students who are learning English. These instructional aides use the English
Now English language development program.
Approximately one hundred students participate in extended-day intervention
programs at this school. The programs occur both before and after the regular school day
and last thirty minutes a day three days per week. Extended-day programs are offered to
285
kinder, first and second grade students who struggle with phonics and phonemic
awareness. Third, fourth, fifth and sixth grade programs are offered to students who are
not meeting their learning goals based on benchmark assessment results. Pre-test and
post-test data are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the extended-day intervention
programs. Extended-day program design, curriculum and assessments are determined
during teacher collaboration meetings.
Additionally, some teachers have voluntarily decided to offer lesson previews to
students who come to school early. These teachers provide a pre-teach lesson in a
difficult concept that will be taught during the regular school day. The teachers who
provide these pre-teach classes open their doors about fifteen minutes early. They invite
students who may have difficulty with the concept to attend the pre-teach lesson. Other
students attend as well. Examples of pre-teach lessons include difficult comprehension
skills like making inferences and challenging math procedures such as long division.
Professional Learning Communities
Setting up regular and on-going meetings for teacher collaboration went a long
way toward building professional learning communities at Bayshore Elementary School.
The staff voted and approved to bank instructional minutes in order to block out sixty
minutes per week for collaboration. Collaborative time is used for professional
development, lesson planning, data collection and analysis, and the sharing of ideas and
success stories. The staff at Bayshore Elementary School value collaborative time and see
it as an opportunity to develop as professionals.
286
Evaluation of the Instructional Program
Staff at Bayshore Elementary School takes the time to evaluate their instructional
program at least once a year. They use the Single School Plan for Student Achievement
(SSPFSA) as a guide for program evaluation. This is accomplished by dividing into
random teams and reading through the SSPFSA to see if the school is doing what it said
it would do. They also take this time to discuss what is working and what is not working.
This process allows the staff to make immediate modifications to the instructional
program and makes the SSPFSA a living document. The SSPFSA has been enlarged to
poster size and hangs in the teacher’s lounge. Teachers add sticky notes to SSPFSA to
share how they are implementing specific actions that are outline in the school plan.
Other Components to the Instructional Improvement Process
In addition to the work described above other components are in place at
Bayshore Elementary School that support the instructional improvement process. These
components include parent involvement activities, a partnership with the Boys and Girls
Club and the use of technology to support instruction.
Two half time community liaisons are employed at the school. These community
liaisons work to build a connection between the home and the school. In addition to
providing written translation and oral interpretation services, the liaisons conduct parent
education classes and accompany parents to district level parent meetings. Parent
education at Bayshore Elementary is focused on how parents can support their children at
287
home. Classes are conducted in Vietnamese language sessions and Spanish language
sessions.
A partnership with the local Boys and Girls Club began during the 2007-2008
school year. The Boys and Girls Club offers a free, after school program on the school
site that serves the students of Bayshore Elementary School. The program begins at
dismissal and continues until 6:00 p.m. on every school day during the year. During the
program, students receive a snack, have time to complete their homework, and participate
in enrichment activities for athletics, fine arts, performing arts, and science. Teachers
recommend students for participation in this program for both social and academic
concerns. A teacher liaison works with the Boys and Girl’s Club to ensure consistency
between school efforts and those of this after school club. This teacher takes on this
responsibility as an adjunct duty. Currently over eighty Bayshore students attend the
Boys and Girls Club program. Since the program has been in place teachers have seen an
increase in completed homework assignments and a decrease in student absenteeism.
Boys and Girls Club staff members are on campus during lunch recess to help supervise
students, encourage enrollment in the program and provide students with structured play
activities. This has led to a decrease in conflicts on the playground between students and
an increase in collaboration with school staff members. The Boys and Girls Club program
is appreciated by the teachers and parents of Bayshore School.
Teachers at Bayshore School use technology to support instruction. By the end of
the 2007-2008 school year all teachers had a laptop, projector and document camera.
288
Teachers are able to use the document camera as an advanced overhead projector to
model for students. The laptop and projectors allow teachers to access Discovery
Streaming (an on-line teaching/learning tool), and the digital path that is present in the
base programs for mathematics, science and social science.
Resource Use Comparison of the Evidence Based Model (EBM) to Bayshore
Elementary School
How does resource use at Bayshore Elementary School compare to the Evidence
Based Model (EBM) for funding schools? Table One (below) compares the actual
resource use in Bayshore Elementary School to that provided by a prototypical EBM
elementary school.
289
Table 1: Resource Comparison
Bayshore Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Bayshore
Actual Status
EBM to Bayshore
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
School
Characteristics
School
configuration
K-5 K-6 Plus one grade
Prototypical school
size
432 545 1.3 x larger
Class size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 34
1-3: 20
4-6: 33
K: 2.26 x larger
1-3: 1.33 x larger
4-6: 1.32 x larger
Full-day
kindergarten
Yes No
Number of At-Risk
(free & reduced
lunch)
178 333 425 more than Prototype
Number of ELL 225 357 307 more than Prototype
Personnel Resources
Core teachers 25 20.5 26 (+5.5)
Specialist teachers
20% more:
5.0
0.4 5.20 (+4.8)
Instructional
Coaches
2.2
1 per 200 students
0.2 2.7 (+2.5)
Library/Media Staff
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 0 1 (+1)
Library Aide 0 .05 .5 over EBM
Technology Aide 0 0 = EBM
Extra Help
Certificated Tutors
1.0 and an
additional 1.0 for every
100 at-risk students: 2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
0 4 (+4)
Title I Teachers 0 .6 .6 over EBM
Title I Aides 0 2.5 2.5 over EBM
Teachers for ELL
students
1 per 100 ELL students 0 3.57 (+3.57)
ELL Aides 0 3 3 over EBM
290
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Bayshore Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Bayshore
Actual Status
EBM to Bayshore
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
Extra Help (continued)
Services for gifted
students
$25/student 0 $13,625.00
Extended Day
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
0.47 2.76
Summer School
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
District
2.76
Teacher for Mild
SDC
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
1 3.6
Aide for Mild SDC
0.5 aide position for every
150 ADM
.5 1.8
Teacher for
Severely
disabled
students
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
0 State Funded
Aide for Severely
disabled
students
1 aide position for every
150 ADM
0 State Funded
Professional Development
Professional
Development
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$43,200.00
5.5 days (1 in
summer and 4.5
from banking
minutes
throughout the
year).
Plus
17,000.00 for
subs and stipends
and $1,200.00
for materials
EBM would give 4.5 more
days plus $54,500.00 for
other expenses
291
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Bayshore Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Bayshore
Actual Status
EBM to Bayshore
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
Other
Personnel
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
13 days per
teacher
3 more than EBM
Pupil support staff
1 Guidance Counselor
Plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position for every 125 at-
risk students:2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
1.3 3.66 (+2.36)
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 .25 2.7 (+2.47)
Administration
Principal 1 1 Equals EBM
Assistant Principal 0 0 .3 (+.3)
School Site
Secretary
2.0 .84 2 (+1.16)
Clerical 0 0.5 .5 more than EBM
Parent Liaison 0 1 1 more than EBM
For the most part, resource use at Bayshore Elementary School falls well short of
the resource recommendation described by the EBM. Major differences occur in the areas
of core teachers, specialist teachers, instructional coaches, extra help personnel,
professional development, class size, and pupil support staff. Also, the EBM recommends
full day kindergarten while Bayshore Elementary provides a three quarters day
kindergarten program. Bayshore Elementary uses over the recommended amount of
instructional aides and over the amount of substitute days teacher receive for personal
benefit.
292
Lessons Learned
This section of the case study will use the following eight areas that have been
adopted from Odden et al., (2006) to provide evaluate the instructional improvement
strategies that are taking place at Bayshore Elementary School: (1) focus on educating all
students, (2) data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state
standards, (4) effective professional development, (5) restructure the learning
environment, (6) support for struggling students, (7) effective instructional leadership,
and (8) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration.
Focus on Educating All Students
Quite a bit of time was spent on developing a common vision and to ensure that
high expectations are in place for all students. A belief exists among staff members that
they have the power to make a difference for students while children are at school.
Challenges that students may face due to home environment, financial status, English
learner proficiency level, etc. are to be overcome by great instruction provided at school.
Data Driven Instruction
Data are used in a variety of ways at the site to drive instruction. Teachers use
summative assessments to evaluate the instructional program and formative assessments
to modify the instruction students receive. In addition to student assessment data,
instructional decisions are made using student work data, classroom environment data,
and instructional delivery data. Students know and are able to talk about their
performance levels. They are also able to articulate their learning goals and what they
293
need to do to reach these goals. Further, students keep track of the progress they make in
academic binders.
Rigorous Curriculum Aligned to State Standards
Teachers implement district-adopted curriculum programs with fidelity. Teachers
do not use instructional materials that are not approved by the district. Lessons are
adjusted to ensure that students participate in learning tasks that meet the rigor of the
state standards. Thinking Maps are utilized to ensure that all students can access the
curriculum. Teachers plan lessons together in order to share ideas for providing
appropriate scaffolds based on the needs of the students.
Effective Professional Development
Professional development is driven by instructional data that are collected during
learning walks and lesson studies. Teachers learn instructional strategies like Direct
Instruction through training in base curriculum programs such as Houghton Mifflin
Reading. Teachers participate in an average of five and a half days of professional
development each year. On-going and follow-up support is provided by an instructional
coach who is on-campus one day each week throughout the school year. Teachers are
held accountable for implementing the strategies that they learn during professional
development.
294
Restructured Learning Environment
The instructional day has been restructured in order to bank time for the purpose
of collaboration. Instructional minutes have been adjusted to allow for more learning time
in the areas of language arts and mathematics. Schedules have been revised to ensure that
grade levels teach language arts and mathematics at the same time. This allows for a team
approach to providing support for students who are struggling. Title I funds are used to
pay for an additional certificated teacher whose presence allows class size to be reduced
during language arts instruction.
Support for Struggling Students
Struggling students receive support during the school day and through extended
learning opportunities. The school follows a Response to Intervention (RTI) models that
calls for progressive levels of intervention based on student need. Instructional aides
provide early intervention in learning labs for students who need extra support during the
school day. The resource teacher provides intensive support to both special education
students and general educations students. Extended-day programs are offered to students
who need extra learning time based on formative assessment data. Summer school is a
district program that is available to third and sixth grade students who will be retained or
who qualify based on English language proficiency level. About twenty students at
Bayshore Elementary School qualified for the summer 2008 summer school program.
295
Effective Instructional Leadership
Effective instructional leadership can be identified throughout the school in
teacher leaders as well as in the principal. The teacher leadership team is key to securing
buy-in from other teachers on the site. The impetus for change was nurtured at the teacher
level through the use of these leadership teams. Further, lead teachers receive expert
training in various instructional areas and are critical to the professional development
program at the site. The principal has a deep understanding of content knowledge and
instructional strategy. This helps hold teachers accountable for providing effective
instruction. Strong instructional leadership led to the creation of professional learning
communities at the school site.
Professional Learning Communities
The teachers at Bayshore Elementary School are continuously building their
knowledge and skills. Instructional practice is improved through the sharing of best
practices during collaborative meetings. Teachers read and discuss professional literature
on a regular basis.
Future Implications
The staff at Bayshore Elementary School identifies several additional resources
they would need to continue making adequate yearly progress as the achievement bar
continues to climb. To ensure students begin their school career with the skills they need
to succeed, they would like to see preschool and a full day kindergarten made available to
every incoming student.
296
They would also like to see class size lowered in kindergarten, fourth, fifth and
sixth grades. Teachers believe they would be able to provide better individualized
instruction to at-risk students if class size was reduced from enrollment sizes of up to
thirty-six students.
More instructional coaches are needed at the site to provide on-going support
following professional development. The principal would also like to see a system of
monitoring and evaluating instructional coaches who serve the teachers at Bayshore
School.
The principal would like to see the addition of an assistant principal to the
elementary school staff. The duties of this person would include developing and
implementing the site safety plan, overseeing the custodians and the building
maintenance and maintaining the school budget and materials inventory. The assistant
principal would also help with implementation of instructional programs as he or she
built relationships with staff members.
The principal feels that there is not enough time in the school day or in the school
year to meet the needs of all students. She would like to see instructional minutes
increased each day and the school year expanded from 180 days to 210 days. The
principal would like to reserve some of these additional minutes for English language
development instruction. She would like to acquire a “better” ELD program for this
instruction. The school currently uses the English Now program for ELD.
297
Further, the principal feels that teachers are released by substitutes for
professional development. This principal recommends providing professional
development on non-student days. The principal would like more time to meet with
teachers after they attend a professional development opportunity. This will allow the
principal to set goals with teachers for accountability purposes.
Finally, the principal would like some additional support personnel. She believes
the school needs more time for counselors, nurses and parent liaisons. The school
currently has a counselor for one day each week. The school nurse is around one every
two months. The principal believes they would be able to provide more services to their
community if they had a consistent parent support program that incorporates a counselor,
a nurse and a parent liaison working together.
298
APPENDIX H
CASE STUDY: RIVER VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Overview of School and District
River View Elementary School is a kindergarten through fifth grade school that
serves about eight hundred fifty students in Apple Tree Unified School District. Apple
Tree USD is an urban district in Southern California. The district educates approximately
55,000 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. In addition, Apple Tree USD
provides support programs for adult education, preschool, regional occupation program
(ROP), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), fine and performing arts, and special
education. River View Elementary School is one of two schools in Apple Tree USD that
was designated a Title I Academic Achievement School during the 2007-2008 school
year. The school is one of four schools in this district to achieve this same designation in
the 2008-2009 school year.
Though the school serves a diverse student population, there are three significant
subgroups of students at River View Elementary School: (1) socio-economically
disadvantaged (SED), (2) English learner students and (3) students of Hispanic ethnicity.
The percent of students who receive free or reduced meals is used to determine the
percent of students who are considered SED. Approximately ninety percent of students
are considered SED which is about ten percent more than the district average of seventy-
eight percent. Around three quarters of the population of River View School is made up
of English Learner students while about half of the district’s population are English
299
learners. Over ninety-five percent of the students at River View are of Hispanic ethnicity.
This is very similar to the district average of about ninety-two percent.
River View Elementary School also provides services to eighty-seven students
who qualify for special education. Most of these students receive services for speech and
language support and for mild learning disabilities. Nineteen of these students receive
services for more severe disabilities and receive instruction in a self-contained
environment.
State Assessment Data for River View Elementary School
River View Elementary School’s test scores have increased considerably over the
past four the past four years. In fact, in the area of English language arts the number of
students scoring proficient or advanced has doubled since the year 2005. In the year
2008, seventy-two percent of students scored proficient or advanced in math compared to
fifty-four percent in the year 2005. The most dramatic increase took place in the area of
science between the year 2007 and the year 2008. In 2007 only sixteen percent of
students scored proficient or advanced on the state science standards test. In 2008 twenty-
seven percent of students scored proficient or advanced. The steady increases over time
can be seen in Figure One.
300
Figure One: Percent of students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST
for English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics and Science 2005-2008).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Percent Proficient or Advanced
ELA Math Science
An examination of significant subgroup data shows no notable gap between
subgroup performance on the California Standards Test. As shown in Figure Two
(below) with the exception of SED in 2005, all significant subgroups made steady growth
in the area of English language arts from the year 2005 to the year 2008. There is a slight
dip in performance of the SED from 2005 to 2006. The SED subgroup was back on track
by 2007.
301
Figure 2: ELA Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup: SED,
ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
Figure Three (below) shows a similar pattern in the area of mathematics. Again, each
subgroup makes steady gains from year to year:
Figure 3: Math Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup: SED,
ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
302
In 2008, River View Elementary School came within two points of the State of
California’s goal for all schools to obtain an Academic Performance Index (API) score of
at least 800. From the year 2005 to the year 2008 River View grew almost two hundred
points. The school’s current API score is 792. Figure Four demonstrates the incredible
growth the school has made in the past four years.
Figure 4: Academic Performance Index (API) Growth 2005-2008
686
741
784
798
620
640
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
820
2005 2006 2007 2008
API Growth Score
River View Elementary School has made Adequate Yearly Progress every year for the
past four years. This is remarkable performance because five years ago the school was at
risk for entering into program improvement. The purpose of this case study is to tell the
story of noteworthy improvement in student learning at River View Elementary School
and identify how resources are aligned with the instructional improvement process.
The instructional improvement strategies that are discussed in the next section provide
the roadmap for how this school turned itself around.
303
Instructional Improvement Strategies
At the beginning of the instructional improvement process River View
Elementary School was at risk of entering program improvement due to the low numbers
of students who were scoring proficient or advanced on the state standards test. District
leadership replaced the principal for the 2004-2005 school year with the hope of seeing
an increase in student performance. The entering principal quickly realized that teachers
held low expectations for students and that at atmosphere of helplessness surrounded the
school. Further, teachers were not using the district-adopted textbooks, data analysis was
non-existent, extended-day programs were implemented randomly, and everyone was
doing his or her own thing. After assessing the situation at this school, the principal
decided that the first order of business was to develop a common purpose with all staff
members at the school.
Developing a Common Purpose
The staff at River View Elementary School began the process of developing a
purpose by taking the time to revisit their vision and mission statements. The principal
met with every staff member early in the 2004 school year to draw out his or her beliefs
about teaching and learning. Many staff members expressed feeling helpless with regard
to teaching the rigorous state standards to the student population of River View School.
Staff believed that they received little support from parents and school administration.
Undesired student behaviors interfered with lesson presentations and students showed
little interest in school.
304
These beliefs about the school inspired the principal to begin the instructional
improvement process by focusing on positive character traits, student engagement and
developing a spirit of community. A motto emerged: River View School will be a safe
place for kids to learn! A zero tolerance policy for fighting between students and
disrespectful behavior became the norm. Rather than suspend students from school, the
principal held parents and students to an in-school suspension policy. This required
students who were suspended to come to school, but remain in the office. While in the
office, the principal worked to make connections with students in order to prevent future
incidents of negative behavior. The principal admits that this meant spending less time in
classrooms during her first year on campus. She felt that this sacrifice was needed to
show the teachers that she would support them with student behavior needs. The practice
of in-school suspension helped the principal to get to know the students and to help build
students’ emotional assets. Consequently, the school saw fewer incidents of fighting and
disrespectful behavior.
With student behaviors under control, the staff began to work on the instructional
program. The principal made small adjustments to instructional activities. These
adjustments consisted of things like increasing minutes for language arts instruction and
changing how instructional aides were utilized. As slight increases in student
achievement occurred, buy-in from teachers increased. By 2008, the staff at the school
was ready to embrace the district’s motto of: Failure Is Unacceptable! Success is the
305
Standard…It’s up to us all! To ensure success for all students, teachers set learning goals
for students.
Setting Learning Goals
The student learning goals River View Elementary School set are straightforward
ones. All students are expected to make progress toward mastery of state standards from
one year to the next. Individual learning goals for students are developed by their
teachers upon initial entrance into the school. For example, kindergarten teachers set
initial learning goals for students. Teachers of first through fifth grade students set initial
learning goals for students who are new to the school at that grade level. Once initial
goals are set, a plan of action is prescribed. This plan is monitored and documented in a
student goal folder that follows each student throughout his or her time at River View
School. This allows teachers to see the progress or lack of progress each student has
made over time. Each student is aware of his or her learning goals and also keeps track of
his or her own progress using the student goal folder. Students are rewarded for meeting
their learning goals at assemblies and other events. Students who do not meet learning
goals are candidates for intervention programs.
Collaborative Leadership
Strong teacher leadership is evident at River View Elementary School. Lead
teachers are selected at each grade level by the principal. The principal has spent the past
four years to develop a teacher leadership team that is knowledgeable in curriculum and
instruction. These teachers are key to securing buy-in from the rest of the staff so that
306
new ideas can be expressed and put into action. Teacher leaders meet weekly with their
respective grade levels and meet bi-weekly with the principal. Topics such as effective
instruction, data analysis, intervention programs, professional development, parent
involvement, and reform efforts are discussed at these meetings. The concept of
collaborative leadership has led to a spirit of shared decision-making and share
responsibility.
Effective First Instruction
At the beginning of the instructional improvement process data from curriculum-
embedded assessments showed that more than three quarters of the students were not
mastering learning objectives. The time the principal spent dealing with behavior
problems was evidence to her that students were not engaged in the instructional
activities that were taking place in the classrooms. Students were bored and did not
understand the concepts that were being taught. To remedy this, the instructional focus at
River View Elementary School became centered on providing strong, effective first
instruction to all students. Professional development for teachers centered on
instructional delivery and on curriculum (more detail about how teachers received
professional development will be described later in this case study).
The instructional expectation at River View Elementary School is that all students
will receive engaging instruction in the California Content Standards. Teachers use
research-proven instructional strategies that include Direct Instruction, Differentiated
Instruction, Cooperative Learning, and Distributive Practice. Typical instructional
307
delivery at River View Elementary School includes articulation of the learning objective,
orientation to the lesson where prior knowledge is accessed, teacher modeling, structured
practice (very controlled by teacher), guided practice (gradual release of control to
students), semi-independent practice (teacher works with small groups of students
identified through comprehension checks), and closure.
Instructional delivery at River View is expected to be highly engaging and
interactive. Students participate in an abundance of structured interaction activities that
include choral response, small group response, think/pair/share, think/silent/share, small
group discussions, use of whole group check for understanding techniques, and more.
Comprehension checks occur often and strategically to determine student understanding
throughout the lesson. Corrective feedback is given to students immediately. Teachers
differentiate during initial lesson presentation by using questioning strategies that align
with students’ English language development levels. Some students are expected to point
to, others need to tell, some will need compare/contrast, while students who are nearly
proficient in English or are English only need to analyze and evaluate. Students have a
card on their desk that gives the student’s English language development level, the
question strategies for that level, and the question strategies for the next level up.
All teachers at River View Elementary School are directed to use the district-
adopted curriculum during instruction. At the beginning of the instructional improvement
process teachers used whatever they wanted to teach core curriculum. Some teachers
used the adopted programs while others used worksheets from publishers like Teacher
308
Created Materials, out-dated curriculum programs, or materials they created themselves.
To ensure all students receive instruction that reflects the rigor of the state standards, all
teachers are now required to use the adopted programs for instructional delivery.
Professional Development
Teachers receive five days of training in the Open Court Reading program when
it was first adopted in 2002 school year. By 2004, the principal noticed that the teachers
were not using the program with fidelity and the students were not engaged in instruction.
So in 2005, an outside consulting company was hired using site Title I funds to conduct
further training that incorporated the Open Court materials with the instructional strategy
of Direct Instruction. This training consisted of five full days of presentation,
demonstration lessons, co-plan/co-teach opportunities and data analysis. The first five
presentation days included a deep look at the curriculum the school uses to teach
reading/language arts (Open Court Reading) and an overview of the components that
make up the instructional strategy of Direct Instruction. Two of these days occurred
outside the teacher work year while the remaining three days occurred during the
beginning of the school year and substitutes were used to release teachers. The
demonstration component of this professional development consisted of an initial
meeting, viewing of the demonstration lesson and a debrief session. Substitutes were used
to release a grade level at a time for participation.
During the initial meeting the consulting teacher modeled how to plan a Direct
Instruction lesson. This lesson was then demonstrated in the classroom of one of the
309
teachers in the grade level. The debrief session was used as an opportunity for teachers to
ask questions of the consulting teacher and for the consulting teacher to share the
reasoning behind changes made to the lesson as it progressed. The final steps of this
professional development process included a co-plan/co-teach lesson for each teacher
with the consulting teacher and data analysis of student work directly following the
lesson.
It is important to point out that the principal participated during every part of this
professional development opportunity including the co-plan/co-teach component. The
principal met with each teacher following the training to set goals for each teacher and to
determine the next level of support the teacher would need. The principal continues to
hold teachers accountable for implementing the strategy of Direct Instruction by
conducting frequent observations and providing regular feedback to teachers. The school
does not have an instructional coach, so the principal continues to conduct demonstration
lessons and co-plan/co-teach lessons with teachers. The principal herself covers
classrooms so that teachers may be released to observe lead teachers as they present
lessons to students using Direct Instruction techniques.
During the 2007-2008 school year, teachers at River View Elementary School
participated in a similar professional development opportunity for the area of supporting
English language learner students. The expert model of professional development has
been modified slightly due to a current limit in resources the school is facing. Rather than
bring in a consulting teacher to provide training to all teachers, a lead teacher from each
310
grade level is receiving training in Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD). Lead
teachers train other teachers in their grade level during collaboration meetings.
Using Data to Inform Instruction
A variety of data are used to inform instruction at River View School. At the
beginning of each school year the principal and teacher leaders use a school profile report
to ascertain trends and patterns in school and grade level data. The school profile report is
generated by the school district. This report contains multi-year data on CST scores,
district benchmark exams and district writing scores. The report also contains this data
for all subgroups. Finally, the report shows any shifts in demographics the school has
experienced over time. The school profile report helps the leadership team identify areas
of strength and weakness across the school and grade levels. This information is used to
determine school level and grade level focuses each school year.
Teachers examine prior year CST scores and district benchmark scores for each of
their incoming students in August every year. Teachers also review each incoming
students learning goal folder. These data are used as preliminary indicators for
determining scaffold levels for students. All students in primary grades are administered
a reading assessment during the first month of school each year. This reading assessment
tests phonics, phonemic awareness and reading comprehension. The results of this
assessment are used to identify strengths and weaknesses and to set individual reading
goals for students. The results are also used to identify the gaps in students’ literacy skills
and to prescribe a course of action to fill those gaps. Upper grade students who score far
311
below basic or below basic on the language arts portion of the CST are also administered
this assessment.
Throughout the school year district benchmark exams in the content areas of
language arts and mathematics are analyzed. Here teachers look for trends and patterns
across the grade level. Common learning objectives where students had difficulty are
identified and a plan to revisit these objectives is developed. Benchmark exams are also
used to identify students who may be invited to attend an intervention program.
Student work data and other data are discussed regularly during collaborative
meetings within the grade level and with data discussion meetings with the principal.
Student work data is often used to calibrate common rubrics and to identify if students
are truly assigned tasks that meet the level of rigor articulated by the state’s content
standards. Student data is also shared collaboratively in an effort to share instructional
sequences that are working. Teachers within a grade level share lessons that worked well
as measured by student work or assessment results.
Data inform instruction at the student level, classroom level, grade level, and
school level at this site. At the student level it is used to determine how instruction needs
to be differentiated for the child. At the classroom level data are used to identify how
instruction needs to be modified for groups of students. Grade levels use data to
determine how pacing will modified and how intervention can be incorporated
throughout the grade level. School level data are used to identify areas for professional
development and school wide intervention programs.
312
Support for Struggling Students
Support is in place for students who are struggling both during the school day and
during extended-day programs. During the instructional day, teachers at River View
Elementary School provide support by implementing a system of learning groups for
language arts and for mathematics instruction. The school uses Title I funds to hire an
additional certificated teacher. The presence of this teacher allows class size to be
reduced and allows for an extra person to teach a learning group. The teachers use data to
place students in the differentiated learning groups for instruction. These learning groups
range from a challenge group where scaffolds are used to extend learning to a strategic
group where scaffolds are used to support learning. When a student struggles with an
identified skill the student is sent to the strategic level for instruction in that skill. Once
the student has mastered that skill, he or she returns to the original learning group.
Another way support for struggling students is provided during the school day is
through the use of instructional aides. Instructional aides are trained by the principal and
lead teachers to provide help with phonics and phonemic awareness, math facts, and
English language development. A few highly skilled instructional aides also provide extra
support to students who need assistance in reading comprehension and/or conceptual
work in mathematics. Further, special education program aides go into classrooms to
provide help to students who have been diagnosed with a learning disability, but are
mainstreamed in general education classrooms for language arts or mathematics.
313
The final level of intervention during the school day occurs when the student is
working so far below grade level that he or she needs intensive intervention for longer
periods of time. The school’s resource teacher and a resource aide provide such support
whether or not the student has been identified with learning disabilities. At this point the
struggling student no longer has access to the core curriculum. A state approved
intervention curriculum (Language! 3
rd
Edition) is used for language arts support and out
of grade level books are used for math instruction.
Intervention for English learner students is provided within the school day.
Instructional aides for English learners rotate through classrooms to provide one to one
support for students who are learning English. Beginning English learners are pulled out
of their classrooms for thirty minutes a day to receive English language development
instruction. Instructional aides deliver this instruction using the English Now program.
Approximately eighty-five students participate in extended-day intervention
programs at this school. The programs occur after the regular school day and last thirty
minutes a day three days per week. Extended-day programs are offered to kinder, first
and second grade students who struggle with phonics and phonemic awareness. Third,
fourth, fifth and sixth grade programs are offered to students who are not meeting their
learning goals based on benchmark assessment results. Upper grade students generally
receive support with reading comprehension and conceptual concepts in mathematics.
Pre-test and post-test data are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the extended-day
314
intervention programs. Extended-day program design, curriculum and assessments are
determined during teacher collaboration meetings.
Professional Learning Communities
Setting up regular and on-going meetings for teacher collaboration went a long
way toward building professional learning communities at River View Elementary
School. The staff participates in bi-weekly staff meetings. One staff meeting is devoted to
grade-level collaboration while the other is used for vertical communication.
Collaborative time is used to analyze data, plan lessons, and to ensure vertical alignment.
For example, kindergarten, first grade and second grade teachers meet four times each
year following benchmark assessments. Second grade benchmark data is reviewed and
the results are used to backward plan for what should be happening instructionally in first
grade and in kindergarten.
Other Components to the Instructional Improvement Process
In addition to the work described above other components are in place at River
View School that support the instructional improvement process. These components
include parent involvement activities, use of technology to support instruction, and a state
preschool program.
One half time community liaisons are employed at the school. The community
liaison works to build a connection between the home and the school. In addition to
providing written translation and oral interpretation services, the liaison conducts parent
education classes. Parent education at River View Elementary is focused on how parents
315
can support their children at home. Topics include nutrition and healthy living, behavior
management and early literacy activities for home. At first, the school had a difficult time
getting parents to attend the education classes. To increase attendance, the school began
incorporating standards-based student presentation at the beginning of each parent
education class. This increased class attendance and helped to build a sense of
community between the parents and the school.
Use of technology to support instruction has been in place at River View School
for about three years. Smart Boards were installed in every classroom in 2006. Teachers
received training in Smart Board use during staff meetings. Smart Boards are used for
lesson delivery and student presentations. By the end of the 2007-2008 school year all
grade levels had a laptop cart to share. The laptops allow each student to work on their
own computer to conduct research, publish writing and create presentations.
Every classroom has a minimum of four computers for student use. These
computers are used to continue work that students may not have completed on the
laptops. They are also used for students to take Accelerated Reader or Accelerated Math
quizzes. The Accelerated Reader and Accelerated Math are learning programs that
provide electronic quizzes to for students to check reading and math comprehension. The
programs are used primarily to motivate students in the areas of reading and math.
Computer maintenance is a challenge at this site. A half-time library aide works to
keep all computers in order and inventoried. One of the school’s teachers (as an adjunct
duty) also works to keep computers maintained.
316
Finally, the school benefits from the presence of a state preschool on the campus.
While the preschool is a separate program that is under a different authority, the principal
of River View Elementary recognizes the contribution the preschool makes to her
school’s instructional program. About ninety students attend the state preschool program.
Nearly half of these students end up attending River View when they enter kindergarten.
Kindergarten teachers notice that students who attend preschool come to school well
prepared for kindergarten level standards. Typically, these students know colors, shapes,
letter names and more importantly, letter sounds. The students also know their names,
can form some letters (writing) are able to use scissors, work with others, and pick up
classroom routines quickly.
The state preschool uses the Houghton Mifflin pre-kindergarten program for
academic instruction. This program incorporates language arts and mathematics. The
program includes vocabulary development, reading comprehension skills, and
mathematical concepts. Preschool teachers and kindergarten teachers collaborate four
times per year to share ideas and ensure a smooth transition between programs. This
collaboration has also resulted in the sharing of instructional strategies. Preschool
teachers now use elements of Direct Instruction during lesson presentation.
Consequently, many entering kindergarten students already know how to participate in
structured interaction activities such as think/pair/share.
317
Resource Use Comparison of the Evidence Based Model (EBM) to River View
Elementary School
How does resource use at River View Elementary School compare to the
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for funding schools? Table One (below) compares the
actual resource use in River View Elementary School to that provided by a prototypical
EBM elementary school.
318
Table 1: Resource Comparison
River View Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
River View
Actual Status
EBM to River View
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
School
Characteristics
School
configuration
K-5 K-5 Equals EBM
Prototypical school
size
432 856
2 x larger than
Prototypical Site
Class size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 31
1-3: 20
4-6: 33
K: 2.06x larger
1-3: 1.33x larger
4-6: 1.32x larger
Full-day
kindergarten
Yes No
Number of At-Risk
(free & reduced
lunch)
178 798 620 more than Prototype
Number of ELL 225 657 432 more than Prototype
Personnel Resources
Core teachers 25 33 49 (+16)
Specialist teachers
20% more:
5.0
.5 10 (+9.5)
Instructional
Coaches
2.2
1 per 200 students
0 4 (+4)
Library/Media Staff
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 0 1 (+1)
Library Aide 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Technology Aide 0 0 Equals EBM
Extra Help
Certificated Tutors
1.0 and an
additional 1.0 for every
100 at-risk students: 2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
0 8 (+8)
Title I Teachers 0 1 1 over EBM
Title I Aides 0 3 3 over EBM
Teachers for ELL
students
1 per 100 ELL students 0 6.5 (+6.5)
ELL Aides 0 3 3 over EBM
319
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
River View Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
River View
Actual Status
EBM to River View
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
Extra Help (continued)
Services for gifted
students
$25/student 0 $21,400.00
Extended Day
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
.8 6.7
Summer School
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
District
6.7
Teacher for Mild
SDC
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
3 5.5 (+2.5)
Aide for Mild
SDC
0.5 aide position for every
150 ADM
2.5 2.75 (+.25)
Teacher for
Severely
disabled
students
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
0 State Funded
Aide for Severely
disabled
students
1 aide position for every
150 ADM
0 State Funded
Professional Development
Professional
Development
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$43,200.00
1 day that occurs
in the middle of
the school year.
Plus
20,000.00 for
subs and stipends
and $3,000.00
for materials
EBM would give 9 more
days plus $85,600.00 for
other expenses
320
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
River View Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
River View
Actual Status
EBM to River View
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
Other
Personnel
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
11 days per
teacher
1 more than EBM
Pupil support staff
1 Guidance Counselor
Plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position for every 125 at-
risk students:2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
1 7.8 (+6.8)
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 .5 4(+3.5)
Administration
Principal 1 1 Equals EBM
Assistant Principal 0 0 1 (+1)
School Site
Secretary
2.0 .92 4 (+3.08)
Clerical 0 1 1 more than EBM
Parent Liaison 0 .5 .5 more than EBM
For the most part, resource use at River View Elementary School falls well short
of the resource recommendation described by the EBM. Major differences occur in the
areas of core teachers, specialist teachers, instructional coaches, extra help personnel,
professional development, class size, and pupil support staff. Also, the EBM recommends
full day kindergarten while River View Elementary provides a two-thirds day
kindergarten program. River View Elementary uses over the recommended amount of
instructional aides and over the amount of substitute days teacher receive for personal
benefit.
321
Lessons Learned
This section of the case study will use the following eight areas that have been
adopted from Odden et al., (2006) to provide evaluate the instructional improvement
strategies that are taking place at River View Elementary School: (1) focus on educating
all students, (2) data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state
standards, (4) effective professional development, (5) restructure the learning
environment, (6) support for struggling students, (7) effective instructional leadership,
and (8) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration.
Focus on Educating All Students
Quite a bit of time was spent on developing a common purpose and to ensure that
high expectations are in place for all students. The focus on positive character traits and
engaging instruction helped get student behavior under control. This led to a positive
culture that staff members embraced. As teachers worked hard to improve instructional
practice, test scores increased. Ultimately, teachers began to believe that all students can
learn and that the teachers have the power to ensure that students master learning
standards.
Data Driven Instruction
Data are used in a variety of ways at the site to drive instruction. Teachers use
summative assessments to evaluate the instructional program and formative assessments
to modify the instruction students receive. In addition to student assessment data,
instructional decisions are made using student work data, classroom environment data,
322
and instructional delivery data. Student progress is monitored over multiple years.
Students also keep track of the progress they make in learning goal folders. School and
grade level data are used to determine school wide instructional focuses.
Rigorous Curriculum Aligned to State Standards
Teachers implement district-adopted curriculum programs with fidelity. Teachers
do not use instructional materials that are not approved by the district. Teachers provide
differentiation to ensure that all students have access to high-level curriculum.
Differentiation occurs through scaffolds within learning groups and questioning students
based on their English language proficiency needs.
Effective Professional Development
Teachers participate in one full day of professional development each year.
Additional professional development is provided using staff meeting time, releasing
teachers with substitutes, and providing teachers with stipends to attend after school
trainings. Professional development focuses on instructional strategies and the curriculum
programs that teachers use. The principal and teacher leaders provide on-going and
follow-up support. Teachers are held accountable for implementing the strategies that
they learn during professional development.
323
Restructured Learning Environment
Instructional minutes have been adjusted to allow for more learning time in the
areas of language arts and mathematics. Schedules have been revised to ensure that grade
levels teach language arts and mathematics at the same time. This allows for a team
approach to providing support for students who are struggling. Title I funds are used to
pay for an additional certificated teacher whose presence allows class size to be reduced
during language arts instruction.
Support for Struggling Students
Struggling students receive support during the school day and through extended
learning opportunities. Instructional aides provide help to students who need extra
support during the school day. Extended-day programs are offered to students who need
extra learning time based on formative assessment data. Summer school is a district
program that is available to students who are at-risk based on low benchmark scores and
to English learner students. About thirty students from River View attended the district’s
summer school program. All of these students are English learners.
Effective Instructional Leadership
Effective instructional leadership can be identified throughout the school in
teacher leaders as well as in the principal. The teacher leadership team is key to securing
buy-in from other teachers on the site. The impetus for change was nurtured at the teacher
level through the use of these leadership teams. Further, lead teachers receive expert
training in various instructional areas and are critical to the professional development
324
program at the site. The principal has a deep understanding of content knowledge and
instructional strategy. This helps hold teachers accountable for providing effective
instruction. Strong instructional leadership led to the creation of professional learning
communities at the school site.
Professional Learning Communities
The teachers at River View Elementary School are continuously building their
knowledge and skills. Instructional practice is improved through the sharing of best
practices during collaborative meetings. Teachers read and discuss professional literature
on a regular basis during staff meetings.
Future Implications
The staff at River View Elementary School identifies several additional resources
they would need to continue making adequate yearly progress as the achievement bar
continues to climb. To ensure students begin their school career with the skills they need
to succeed, they would like to see preschool and a full day kindergarten made available to
every incoming student.
They would also like to see class size lowered in kindergarten, fourth and fifth
grades. Teachers believe they would be able to provide better-individualized instruction
to at-risk students if class size was reduced from enrollment sizes of up to thirty-six
students.
325
Instructional coaches would help the school take professional development to the
next level. Instructional coaches would be used to focus on the implementation of best
practices with regards to research-based instructional strategies.
The principal feels that the current English language development program
(English Now) is not sufficient for meeting students’ English development needs.
Therefore, the principal would like to purchase a standards-based ELD program that will
help students learn English quickly.
Further, the principal would like to have the help of an assistant principal. An
assistant principal would help support the principal with both managerial and
instructional duties. Note: the school had an assistant principal until the end of the 2007-
2008 school year. Budget concerns within the district forced the district to cut back this
support.
The staff would welcome support personnel such as a counselor and a school
nurse. These individuals would provide support for students who have health and/or
social and emotional needs.
Finally, the principal believes more time is needed for instructional delivery and
professional development. If she had the power, the principal would lengthen the school
year by at least three weeks. This would allow more time to teach grade level standards
and shorten the amount of time students are away from school during the summer. The
principal would add days to be designated for professional development outside the
instructional year. This would eliminate the need to release teachers using substitutes.
326
The practice of using substitutes to release teachers worries this principal greatly.
Substitutes are not highly qualified and do not provide the level of instruction regular
classroom teachers provide to students. The principal describes the use of substitutes as
“an interruption to learning.”
327
APPENDIX I
CASE STUDY: WATERFALL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Overview of School and District
Waterfall Elementary School is a kindergarten through fifth grade school that
serves just fewer than five hundred students in Apple Tree Unified School District. Apple
Tree USD is an urban district in Southern California. The district educates approximately
55,000 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. In addition, Apple Tree USD
provides support programs for adult education, preschool, regional occupation program
(ROP), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), fine and performing arts, and special
education. Waterfall Elementary School is one of four schools in this district that was
designated a Title I Academic Achievement School in the 2008-2009 school year.
Though the school serves a diverse student population, there are three significant
subgroups of students at Waterfall Elementary School: (1) socio-economically
disadvantaged (SED), (2) English learner students and (3) students of Hispanic ethnicity.
The percent of students who receive free or reduced meals is used to determine the
percent of students who are considered SED. Approximately eighty-six percent of
students are considered SED which is almost ten percent more than the district average of
seventy-eight percent. Around three quarters of the population of Waterfall School is
made up of English Learner students while about half of the district’s population are
English learners. Over ninety-seven percent of the students at Waterfall Elementary are
328
of Hispanic ethnicity. This is very similar to the district average of about ninety-two
percent.
Waterfall Elementary School also provides services to twenty-seven students who
qualify for special education. Most of these students receive services for speech and
language support and for mild learning disabilities.
State Assessment Data for Waterfall Elementary School
Waterfall Elementary School’s test scores have increased considerably over the
past four the past four years. In fact, in the area of English language arts the number of
students scoring proficient or advanced has increased by twelve percent since 2005. In
the year 2008, sixty-one percent of students scored proficient or advanced in math
compared to forty-nine percent in the year 2005. The most dramatic increase took place
in the area of science. In 2005 only twenty-four percent of students scored proficient or
advanced on the state science standards test. In 2008 forty-five percent of students scored
proficient or advanced. The steady increases over time can be seen in Figure One.
329
Figure One: Percent of students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST
for English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics and Science 2005-2008).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Percent Proficient or Advanced
ELA Math Science
An examination of significant subgroup data shows no notable gap between
subgroup performance on the California Standards Test. As shown in Figure Two
(below) all significant subgroups made steady growth in the area of English language arts
from the year 2005 to the year 2008.
330
Figure 2: ELA Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup:
SED, ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
Figure Three (below) shows a similar pattern in the area of mathematics. Again, each
subgroup makes steady gains from year to year:
Figure 3: Math Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup:
SED, ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
331
Waterfall Elementary School has been making steady progress toward the State of
California’s goal for all schools to obtain an Academic Performance Index (API) score of
at least 800. From the year 2005 to the year 2008 Waterfall Elementary School grew
thirty-eight points. The school’s current API score is 782. The school experienced a slight
dip in API between 2005 and 2006, but the school is back on track and making growth by
2007. Figure Four demonstrates the growth this school has made over the past four
years.
Figure 4: Academic Performance Index (API) Growth 2005-2008
744
709
759
782
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
2005 2006 2007 2008
API Growth Score
Waterfall Elementary School has made Adequate Yearly Progress every year for
the past three years. This is remarkable performance because in 2005 the school was at-
risk for entering into program improvement. The purpose of this case study is to tell the
story of noteworthy improvement in student learning at Waterfall Elementary School and
identify how resources are aligned with the instructional improvement process.
332
The instructional improvement strategies that are discussed in the next section provide
the roadmap for how this school turned itself around.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
At the beginning of the instructional improvement process Waterfall Elementary
School was at-risk of entering program improvement due to the low numbers of students
who were scoring proficient or advanced on the state standards test. The school did not
make AYP in 2005 because only twenty-two percent of the school’s English language
learner students scored proficient or advanced on the language arts portion of the CST.
District leadership replaced the principal for the 2004-2005 school year with the hope of
seeing an increase in student performance. The entering principal quickly realized that
teachers held low expectations for students. Teachers spoke of what students “can’t do”
rather than what students “are able to do.” Further, teachers were not using the district-
adopted textbooks, data was not used to inform instruction, teachers were not modeling
for students, and extended-day programs were implemented randomly. The principal used
the threat of possibly entering program improvement as method to change how business
was done at Waterfall School.
Developing a Common Purpose
While the staff at Waterfall Elementary School did not engage in a process to
develop a common vision or mission, they all shared the common purpose of ensuring
their students meet AYP criteria on the CST. Teachers at Waterfall Elementary School
did not want their school to enter program improvement. Teachers had heard stories from
333
their colleagues at program improvement schools in their district. From these stories, they
learned that decisions about how the school operates would be taken away from the site.
Teachers also expressed to their new principal that they felt “left behind” in matters of
professional development and instructional practices. The principal capitalized on these
feelings from teachers to begin a implementing an instructional program that centered on
the common purpose of ensuring that all subgroups meet AYP criteria each year.
Now that the criteria for meeting AYP is becoming increasingly harder to reach,
the principal feels that it is time to revisit the school’s purpose. While she has faith in her
teachers, she is unsure that they will be able to continue ensuring that at least ten percent
more students in each subgroup score proficient or advanced every year.
Setting Learning Goals
The student learning goals Waterfall Elementary School set are straightforward
ones. All students are expected to make progress toward mastery of state standards from
one year to the next. Basically, Students in kindergarten, first and second grade are
expected to make at least one level’s growth based on overall report card score. So if a
kindergarten student scores a “1” in overall reading, this same student should score a “3”
in overall reading by the time he or she leaves second grade.
To help ensure that these goals are met, a goal setting conference takes place at
the beginning of each school year. During the conference, the child’s teacher and parent
develop an instructional plan for the child. This plan is monitored and documented a data
form that follows each student throughout the year and is passed on to his or her teacher
334
the following year. This allows teachers to see the progress or lack of progress each
student has made over time. Each student is aware of his or her learning goals and also
keeps track of his or her own progress using a student data folder that the student
maintains. Students are rewarded for meeting their learning goals at assemblies and other
events.
New this year, the principal is meeting with every student that met his or her
learning goals throughout the 2007-2008 school year and on the 2008 CST. The principal
hopes to draw out the strategies that helped these students meet their goals. She plans to
have the students share their success stories during grade level academic assemblies,
during parent meetings, and during staff meetings.
Collaborative Leadership
Strong teacher leadership is evident at Waterfall Elementary School. Lead
teachers are selected at each grade level by the principal. The principal has spent the past
four years to develop a teacher leadership team that is knowledgeable in curriculum and
instruction. These teachers are key to securing buy-in from the rest of the staff so that
new ideas can be expressed and put into action. Teacher leaders meet bi-weekly with
their respective grade levels and meet monthly with the principal. Topics such as
effective instruction, student recognition programs, data analysis, intervention programs,
professional development, parent involvement, and reform efforts are discussed at these
meetings. The concept of collaborative leadership has led to a spirit of shared decision-
making and share responsibility.
335
Effective First Instruction
At the beginning of the instructional improvement process data from curriculum-
embedded assessments showed that more than three quarters of the students were not
mastering learning objectives. The principal conducted frequent classroom observations
during her first year on campus and found that effective first instruction was not taking
place. Instead of modeling and providing examples, teachers would tell the students what
work they were to complete, give one example, and direct the students to work
independently. Most of the students would be unable to complete the assignments
correctly. Teachers felt they were spending most of their time re-teaching. They also felt
that were too many students who needed extra support to accommodate them all during
after school intervention. The principal recognized that teachers would not have to re-
teach so much if effective instruction were delivered the first time around. To ensure this,
the instructional focus at Waterfall Elementary School became centered on providing
strong, effective first instruction to all students. Professional development for teachers
centered on instructional delivery and on curriculum (more detail about how teachers
received professional development will be described later in this case study).
The instructional expectation at Waterfall Elementary School is that all students
will receive engaging instruction in the California Content Standards. Teachers use
research-proven instructional strategies that include Direct Instruction, Differentiated
Instruction, Cooperative Learning, and Guided Language Acquisition Development
(GLAD). Typical instructional delivery at Waterfall Elementary School includes
336
articulation of the learning objective, orientation to the lesson where prior knowledge is
accessed, teacher modeling, structured practice (very controlled by teacher), guided
practice (gradual release of control to students), semi-independent practice (teacher
works with small groups of students identified through comprehension checks), and
closure.
Instructional delivery at Waterfall is expected to be highly engaging and
interactive. Students participate in an abundance of structured interaction activities that
include choral response, small group response, think/pair/share, think/silent/share, small
group discussions, use of whole group check for understanding techniques, and more.
These interaction techniques serve to provide English learner students with models of
academic English. It also gives these students an opportunity to practice speaking English
in small groups rather than in front of the entire class.
With the English language learner subgroup at risk for not meeting AYP criteria,
instructional focus also includes support for English learner students. Teachers
differentiate during initial lesson presentation by using questioning strategies that align
with students’ English language development levels. Some students are expected to point
to, others need to tell, some will need compare/contrast, while students who are nearly
proficient in English or are English only need to analyze and evaluate. Students have a
card on their desk that gives the student’s English language development level, the
question strategies for that level, and the question strategies for the next level up.
337
All teachers at Waterfall Elementary School are directed to use the district-
adopted curriculum during instruction. At the beginning of the instructional improvement
process teachers used whatever they wanted to teach core curriculum. Some teachers
used the adopted programs while others used worksheets, out-dated intervention
programs such as SRA, or materials they created themselves. To ensure all students
receive instruction that reflects the rigor of the state standards, all teachers are now
required to use the adopted programs for instructional delivery.
Professional Development
Teachers received five days of training in the Open Court Reading program when
it was first adopted in 2002 school year. By 2004, the principal noticed that the teachers
were not using the program with fidelity and the students were not engaged in instruction.
So in 2005, an outside consulting company was hired using site Title I funds to conduct
further training that incorporated the Open Court materials with the instructional strategy
of Direct Instruction. This training consisted of five full days of presentation,
demonstration lessons, co-plan/co-teach opportunities and data analysis. The first five
presentation days included a deep look at the curriculum the school uses to teach
reading/language arts (Open Court Reading) and an overview of the components that
make up the instructional strategy of Direct Instruction. Two of these days occurred
outside the teacher work year while the remaining three days occurred during the
beginning of the school year and substitutes were used to release teachers. The
demonstration component of this professional development consisted of an initial
338
meeting, viewing of the demonstration lesson and a debrief session. Substitutes were used
to release a grade level at a time for participation.
During the initial meeting the consulting teacher modeled how to plan a Direct
Instruction lesson. This lesson was then demonstrated in the classroom of one of the
teachers in the grade level. The debrief session was used as an opportunity for teachers to
ask questions of the consulting teacher and for the consulting teacher to share the
reasoning behind changes made to the lesson as it progressed. The final steps of this
professional development process included a co-plan/co-teach lesson for each teacher
with the consulting teacher and data analysis of student work directly following the
lesson.
It is important to point out that the principal participated during every part of this
professional development opportunity including the co-plan/co-teach component. The
principal met with grade levels following the training to set goals for the grade level and
to determine the next level of support the teachers would need. The principal continues to
hold teachers accountable for implementing the strategy of Direct Instruction by
conducting frequent observations and providing regular feedback to teachers. The school
does not have an instructional coach, so the principal continues to conduct demonstration
lessons and co-plan/co-teach lessons with teachers. The principal herself covers
classrooms so that teachers may be released to observe lead teachers as they present
lessons to students using Direct Instruction techniques.
339
During the 2006-2007 school year, teachers at Waterfall Elementary School
participated in a similar professional development opportunity for the area of supporting
English language learner students. The expert model of professional development has
been modified slightly due to a current limit in resources the school is facing. Rather than
bring in a consulting teacher to provide training to all teachers, a lead teacher from each
grade level is receiving training in Guided Language Acquisition Design (GLAD). Lead
teachers train other teachers in their grade level during collaboration meetings.
Components of this lesson design are seen mostly during science and social science
instruction.
Using Data to Inform Instruction
A variety of data are used to inform instruction at Waterfall Elementary School.
At the beginning of each school year the principal and teacher leaders use a school profile
report to ascertain trends and patterns in school and grade level data. The school profile
report is generated by the school district. This report contains multi-year data on CST
scores, district benchmark exams and district writing scores. The report also contains this
data for all subgroups. Finally, the report shows any shifts in demographics the school
has experienced over time. The school profile report helps the leadership team identify
areas of strength and weakness across the school and grade levels. This information is
used to determine school level and grade level focuses each school year. The school
profile report is also used to help the school write its Single School Plan for Student
Achievement.
340
Teachers examine prior year CST scores and district benchmark scores for each of
their incoming students in August every year. Teachers also review each incoming
students’ data sheets. These data are used as preliminary indicators for determining
scaffold levels for students. All students in primary grades are administered a reading
assessment during the first month of school each year. This reading assessment measures
phonics, phonemic awareness and reading comprehension. The results of this assessment
are used to identify strengths and weaknesses and to set individual reading goals for
students. The results are also used to identify the gaps in students’ literacy skills and to
prescribe a course of action to fill those gaps. Upper grade students who score far below
basic or below basic on the language arts portion of the CST are also administered this
assessment.
Throughout the school year district benchmark exams in the content areas of
language arts and mathematics are analyzed. Here teachers look for trends and patterns
across the grade level. Common learning objectives where students had difficulty are
identified and a plan to revisit these objectives is developed. Benchmark exams are also
used to identify students who may be invited to attend an intervention program. Data
from ELD program assessments are used to help determine monitor student progress
toward English language development throughout the year.
Student work data and other data are discussed regularly during collaborative
meetings within the grade level and with data discussion meetings with the principal.
Student work data is often used to calibrate common rubrics and to identify if students
341
are truly assigned tasks that meet the level of rigor articulated by the state’s content
standards. Student data is also shared collaboratively in an effort to share instructional
sequences that are working.
Data inform instruction at the student level, classroom level, grade level, and
school level at this site. At the student level it is used to determine how instruction needs
to be differentiated for the child. At the classroom level data are used to identify how
instruction needs to be modified for groups of students. Grade levels use data to
determine how pacing will modified and how intervention can be incorporated
throughout the grade level. School level data are used to identify and support needs for
school wide intervention programs.
Support for Struggling Students
Support is in place for students who are struggling both during the school day and
during extended-day programs. During the instructional day, teachers at Waterfall
Elementary School provide support by implementing a system of learning groups for
language arts and for mathematics instruction. The school follows a response to
intervention (RTI) model of instructional support that allows the school to use its special
education teacher during general education instruction. The presence of this teacher
allows class size to be reduced and allows for an extra person to teach a learning group.
The teachers use data to place students in the differentiated learning groups for
instruction. These learning groups range from a challenge group where scaffolds are used
to extend learning to a strategic group where scaffolds are used to support learning. When
342
a student struggles with an identified skill the student is sent to the strategic level for
instruction in that skill. Once the student has mastered that skill, he or she returns to the
original learning group.
Another way support for struggling students is provided during the school day is
through the use of instructional aides. Instructional aides are trained by the principal and
lead teachers to provide help with phonics and phonemic awareness, math facts, and
English language development. A few highly skilled instructional aides also provide extra
support to students who need assistance in reading comprehension and/or conceptual
work in mathematics.
The final level of intervention during the school day occurs when the student is
working so far below grade level that he or she needs intensive intervention for longer
periods of time. The school’s special education teacher and a resource aide provide such
support whether or not the student has been identified with learning disabilities. At this
point the struggling student no longer has access to the core curriculum. As this teacher is
used to bring down class size during language arts and math instruction, she sees a multi-
grade student group. A state approved intervention curriculum (Language! 3
rd
Edition) is
used for language arts support and out of grade level books are used for math instruction.
Intervention for English learner students is provided within the school day.
Instructional aides for English learners rotate through classrooms to provide one to one
support for students who are learning English. Beginning English learners are pulled out
343
of their classrooms for thirty minutes a day to receive English language development
instruction. Instructional aides deliver this instruction using the English Now program.
Approximately forty students participate in extended-day intervention programs at
this school. The programs occur after the regular school day and last thirty minutes a day
four days per week. Extended-day programs are offered to third, fourth, fifth and sixth
grade students who are not meeting their learning goals based on benchmark assessment
results. Students receive support with reading comprehension, English language
development and conceptual concepts in mathematics. Pre-test and post-test data are used
to evaluate the effectiveness of the extended-day intervention programs. Extended-day
program design, curriculum and assessments are determined during teacher collaboration
meetings.
Professional Learning Communities
Setting up regular and on-going meetings for teacher collaboration went a long
way toward building professional learning communities at Waterfall Elementary School.
The staff participates in bi-weekly staff meetings. One staff meeting is devoted to grade-
level collaboration while the other is used for vertical communication. Collaborative time
is used to analyze data, plan lessons, and to ensure vertical alignment.
The leadership team meets with the principal once each month to develop
discussion topics that will be addressed during the collaborative meetings mentioned
above.
344
Other Components to the Instructional Improvement Process
In addition to the work described above other components are in place at
Waterfall Elementary School that support the instructional improvement process. These
components include parent involvement activities, use of technology to support
instruction, and a state preschool program.
One half time community liaisons are employed at the school. The community
liaison works to build a connection between the home and the school. In addition to
providing written translation and oral interpretation services, the liaison conducts parent
education classes. Parent education at Waterfall Elementary is focused on how parents
can support their child’s education. Topics include nutrition and healthy living, behavior
management and early literacy activities for home. Beginning the 2008-2009 school year,
the school will provide a series of parent education classes designed to help navigate the
American School System. Many of the parents in the Waterfall community attended
school outside the United States. The liaison suggested that the school provide parents
with information about how schools operate in the United States in order to build a
connection between the parents and the school.
Use of technology to support instruction has been in place at Waterfall School for
about three years. Smart Boards were installed in every classroom in 2007. Teachers
received training in Smart Board use during staff meetings. Smart Boards are used for
lesson delivery and student presentations.
345
Every classroom has a minimum of three computers for student use. These
computers are used for students to publish their writing, conduct research and build
electronic presentations. They are also used for students to take Accelerated Reader or
Accelerated Math quizzes. The Accelerated Reader and Accelerated Math are learning
programs that provide electronic quizzes to for students to check reading and math
comprehension. The programs are used primarily to motivate students in the areas of
reading and math. The school does not have a media specialist, so one of the school’s
teachers (as an adjunct duty) works to keep computers maintained.
Finally, the school benefits from the presence of a state preschool on the campus.
While the preschool is a separate program that is under a different authority, the principal
of Waterfall Elementary recognizes the contribution the preschool makes to her school’s
instructional program. About seventy students attend the state preschool program. Nearly
two-thirds of these students end up attending Waterfall when they enter kindergarten.
Kindergarten teachers notice that students who attend preschool come to school well
prepared for kindergarten level standards. Typically, these students know colors, shapes,
letter names and more importantly, letter sounds. The students also know their names,
can form some letters (writing) are able to use scissors, work with others, and pick up
classroom routines quickly.
The state preschool uses the Houghton Mifflin pre-kindergarten program for
academic instruction. This program incorporates language arts and mathematics. The
program includes vocabulary development, reading comprehension skills, and
346
mathematical concepts. Preschool teachers and kindergarten teachers collaborate two
times per year to share ideas and ensure a smooth transition between programs. This
collaboration has also resulted in the sharing of instructional strategies. Preschool
teachers now use elements of Direct Instruction during lesson presentation.
Consequently, many entering kindergarten students already know how to participate in
structured interaction activities such as think/pair/share.
Resource Use Comparison of the Evidence Based Model (EBM) to Waterfall
Elementary School
How does resource use at Waterfall Elementary School compare to the Evidence
Based Model (EBM) for funding schools? Table One (below) compares the actual
resource use in Waterfall Elementary School to that provided by a prototypical EBM
elementary school.
347
Table 1: Resource Comparison
Waterfall Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical
Elementary School
Waterfall
Actual Status
EBM to Waterfall
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
School
Characteristics
School configuration K-5 K-5 Equals EBM
Prototypical school
size
432 497
1.15x larger than
Prototypical Site
Class size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 30
1-3: 19.5
4-6: 35
K: 2x larger
1-3: 1.3x larger
4-6: 1.4x larger
Full-day kindergarten Yes No
Number of At-Risk
(free & reduced
lunch)
178 438 270 more than Prototype
Number of ELL 225 387 162 more than Prototype
Personnel Resources
Core teachers 25 20 29 (+9)
Specialist teachers
20% more:
5.0
.4 5.8 (+5.4)
Instructional Coaches
2.2
1 per 200 students
0 2.5 (+2.5)
Library/Media Staff
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 0 1 (+1)
Library Aide 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Technology Aide 0 0 Equals EBM
Extra Help
Certificated Tutors
1.0 and an
additional 1.0 for
every 100 at-risk
students: 2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
0 5.3 (+5.3)
Title I Teachers 0 0 Equals EBM
Title I Aides 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Teachers for ELL
students
1 per 100 ELL
students
0 3.9 (+3.9)
ELL Aides 0 1 1 over EBM
348
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Waterfall Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Waterfall
Actual Status
EBM to Waterfall
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
Extra Help (continued)
Services for gifted
students
$25/student 0 $12,425.00
Extended Day
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
.44 3.7
Summer School
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
District
3.7
Teacher for Mild
SDC
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
1 3.3 (+2.3)
Aide for Mild SDC
0.5 aide position for every
150 ADM
.5 1.7 (+1.2)
Teacher for
Severely
disabled
students
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
0 State Funded
Aide for Severely
disabled
students
1 aide position for every
150 ADM
0 State Funded
Professional Development
Professional
Development
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$43,200.00
1 day that occurs
in the middle of
the school year.
Plus
14,500.00 for
subs and stipends
and $500.00 for
materials
EBM would give 9 more
days plus $49,700.00 for
other expenses
349
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Waterfall Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Waterfall
Actual Status
EBM to Waterfall
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
Other
Personnel
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
11 days per
teacher
1 more than EBM
Pupil support staff
1 Guidance Counselor
Plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position for every 125 at-
risk students:2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
.92 4.5 (+3.6)
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 .3 2(+1.7)
Administration
Principal 1 1 Equals EBM
Assistant Principal 0 0 Equals EBM
School Site
Secretary
2.0 .92 2 (+1.1)
Clerical 0 1 1 more than EBM
Parent Liaison 0 .5 .5 more than EBM
For the most part, resource use at Waterfall Elementary School falls well short of
the resource recommendation described by the EBM. Major differences occur in the areas
of core teachers, specialist teachers, instructional coaches, extra help personnel,
professional development, class size, and pupil support staff. Also, the EBM recommends
full day kindergarten while Waterfall Elementary provides a two-thirds day kindergarten
program. Waterfall Elementary uses over the recommended amount of instructional aides
and over the amount of substitute days teacher receive for personal benefit.
Lessons Learned
This section of the case study will use the following eight areas that have been
adopted from Odden et al., (2006) to provide evaluate the instructional improvement
350
strategies that are taking place at Waterfall Elementary School: (1) focus on educating all
students, (2) data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state
standards, (4) effective professional development, (5) restructure the learning
environment, (6) support for struggling students, (7) effective instructional leadership,
and (8) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration.
Focus on Educating All Students
The common purpose of meeting AYP criteria and avoiding program
improvement has helped the school make progress every year. In fact, the school has met
all AYP requirements for every year beginning in 2006. Teachers’ expectations for
students began to rise as they saw their API score and the numbers of students scoring
proficient or advanced increase. Teachers will now focus on what strategies work to help
students meet their learning goals.
Data Driven Instruction
Data are used in a variety of ways at the site to drive instruction. Teachers use
summative assessments to evaluate the instructional program and formative assessments
to modify the instruction students receive. In addition to student assessment data,
instructional decisions are made using student work data, classroom environment data,
and instructional delivery data. Student progress is monitored over multiple years.
Students also keep track of the progress they make on data sheets. School and grade level
data are used to determine school wide instructional focuses.
351
Rigorous Curriculum Aligned to State Standards
Teachers implement district-adopted curriculum programs with fidelity. Teachers
do not use instructional materials that are not approved by the district. Teachers provide
differentiation to ensure that all students have access to high-level curriculum.
Differentiation occurs through scaffolds within learning groups and questioning students
based on their English language proficiency needs.
Effective Professional Development
Teachers participate in one full day of professional development each year.
Additional professional development is provided using staff meeting time, releasing
teachers with substitutes, and providing teachers with stipends to attend after school
trainings. Professional development focuses on instructional strategies and the curriculum
programs that teachers use. The principal and teacher leaders provide on-going and
follow-up support. Teachers are held accountable for implementing the strategies that
they learn during professional development.
Restructured Learning Environment
Instructional minutes have been adjusted to allow for more learning time in the
areas of language arts and mathematics. Schedules have been revised to ensure that grade
levels teach language arts and mathematics at the same time. This allows for a team
approach to providing support for students who are struggling. The school’s resource
teacher is used to allow class size to be reduced during language arts instruction.
352
Support for Struggling Students
Struggling students receive support during the school day and through extended
learning opportunities. Instructional aides provide help to students who need extra
support during the school day. Extended-day programs are offered to students who need
extra learning time based on formative assessment data. Summer school is a district
program that is available to students who are at-risk based on low benchmark scores and
to English learner students. About twenty-five students from Waterfall attended the
district’s summer school program. All of these students are English learners.
Effective Instructional Leadership
Effective instructional leadership can be identified throughout the school in
teacher leaders as well as in the principal. The teacher leadership team is key to securing
buy-in from other teachers on the site. The impetus for change was nurtured at the teacher
level through the use of these leadership teams. Further, lead teachers receive expert
training in various instructional areas and are critical to the professional development
program at the site. The principal seems to have a deep understanding of content
knowledge and instructional strategy. This helps hold teachers accountable for providing
effective instruction. Strong instructional leadership led to the creation of professional
learning communities at the school site.
353
Professional Learning Communities
The teachers at Waterfall Elementary School are continuously building their
knowledge and skills. Instructional practice is improved through the sharing of best
practices during collaborative meetings. Time is allocated at each collaborative meeting
to allow teachers to share success stories and for student guests to speak about what has
worked for them.
Future Implications
The staff at Waterfall Elementary School identifies several additional resources
they would need to continue making adequate yearly progress as the achievement bar
continues to climb. To ensure students begin their school career with the skills they need
to succeed, they would like to see preschool and a full day kindergarten made available to
every incoming student.
They would also like to see class size lowered in kindergarten, fourth and fifth
grades. Teachers believe they would be able to provide better-individualized instruction
to at-risk students if class size was reduced from enrollment sizes of up to thirty-six
students.
Instructional coaches would help the school take professional development to the
next level. Instructional coaches would be used to focus on the implementation of best
practices with regards to research-based instructional strategies.
The principal feels that the current English language development program
(English Now) is not sufficient for meeting students’ English development needs.
354
Therefore, the principal would like to purchase a standards-based ELD program that will
help students learn English quickly.
Further, the principal would like to have the help of an assistant principal. An
assistant principal would help support the principal with both managerial and
instructional duties. Note: the school had a half-time assistant principal until the end of
the 2007-2008 school year. Budget concerns within the district forced the district to cut
back this support.
The staff would welcome support personnel such as a full-time counselor. This
individual would provide support for students who have social, behavioral and/or
emotional needs.
Finally, the principal believes more time is needed for professional development
outside the school year. This would eliminate the need to release teachers using
substitutes. The principal feels that teachers are released by substitutes “too often” and it
negatively affects student learning. The principal states that even parents notice that
teachers are absent quite a bit. Though she informs the parents that teachers are absent to
attend professional development, parents feel the teachers should be present for
instruction.
355
APPENDIX J
CASE STUDY: BROOKSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Overview of School and District
Brookside Elementary School is a kindergarten through fifth grade school that
serves just around five hundred fifty students in Tangerine Grove Unified School District.
Tangerine Grove USD is an urban district in Southern California. The district educates
approximately 21,000 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. In addition,
Tangerine Grove USD provides support programs for adult education, preschool, regional
occupation program (ROP), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), fine and performing
arts, and special education. Tangerine Grove USD is among the few school districts in
Southern California that has not entered district-level program improvement.
Though the school serves a diverse student population, there are three significant
subgroups of students at Brookside Elementary School: (1) socio-economically
disadvantaged (SED), (2) English learner students and (3) students of Hispanic ethnicity.
The percent of students who receive free or reduced meals is used to determine the
percent of students who are considered SED. Approximately ninety-one percent of
students are considered SED which is almost sixty percent more than the district average
of thirty-three percent. Over eighty-six of the population of Brookside School is made up
of English Learner students while about a quarter of the district’s population are English
learners. Over ninety-nine percent of the students at Brookside Elementary are of
Hispanic ethnicity. This is much greater than the district average of about fifteen percent.
356
Brookside Elementary School also provides services to twenty-eight students who
qualify for special education. Most of these students receive services for speech and
language support and for mild learning disabilities.
State Assessment Data for Brookside Elementary School
Brookside Elementary School’s test scores have been interesting. In the area of
English language arts the number of students scoring proficient or advanced has
increased slowly but steadily since 2005. Math scores have climbed since 2005, then
dipped slightly between the years 2007 and 2008. The most dramatic changes occurred in
the area of science. The number of students scoring proficient or advanced skyrocketed
between 2006 and 2007, and then dropped by twenty-five percent in 2008. The overall
scores over time can be seen in Figure One.
Figure One: Percent of students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST
for English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics and Science 2005-2008).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Percent Proficient or Advanced
ELA Math Science
357
An examination of significant subgroup data shows no notable gap between
subgroup performance on the California Standards Test. As shown in Figure Two
(below) all significant subgroups made steady growth in the area of English language arts
from the year 2005 to the year 2008.
Figure 2: ELA Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup:
SED, ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
Figure Three (below) shows a similar pattern in the area of mathematics. Again, each
subgroup makes steady gains from year to year until 2008 when they experienced a slight
drop.
358
Figure 3: Math Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup:
SED, ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
Brookside Elementary School has been making steady progress toward the State
of California’s goal for all schools to obtain an Academic Performance Index (API) score
of at least 800. From the year 2005 to the year 2008 Brookside Elementary School grew
one hundred thirty points. The school’s current API score is 734. The school saw no
growth in API between the years 2007 and 2008. Figure Four demonstrates API scores
the school has achieved between 2005 and 2008.
359
Figure 4: Academic Performance Index (API) Growth 2005-2008
684
701
734 734
650
660
670
680
690
700
710
720
730
740
2005 2006 2007 2008
API Growth Score
Brookside Elementary School did not make Adequate Yearly Progress in 2005 or
in 2008. The school missed making AYP for both those years because each of the
school’s significant subgroups did not have enough students score proficient or advanced
on the language arts portion of the CST. The school did meet AYP criteria for the years
2006 and 2007. Though students in each subgroup made growth on the language arts
portion of the CST in 2008, not enough of these students scored proficient or advanced to
meet AYP criteria.
The purpose of this case study is to tell the story of how Brookside Elementary
School turned itself around and met AYP criteria for two years in a row, and to identify
how resources are aligned with the instructional improvement process. The instructional
improvement strategies that are discussed in the next section provide the roadmap for
360
how this school managed to make steady increases over time in the amount of students
who scored proficient or advanced on the language arts portion of the CST.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Brookside Elementary School’s test scores in 2005 served as a wake up call for all
staff members. The school did not make AYP in 2005 because less than twenty-four
percent of the school’s Hispanic and SED population scored proficient or advanced on
the language arts portion of the CST. Only twenty-one percent of English language
learner students scored proficient or advanced on the language arts portion of the CST.
This prompted all staff members to focus their attention on language arts instruction.
Professional development centered on language arts curriculum and technology over the
past four years. At the end of 2008, Brookside’s principal of seven years retired. This
principal’s replacement began her assignment at Brookside School in August 2008. The
new principal set out immediately to get to know the staff and to understand the school’s
purpose.
Developing a Common Purpose
The new principal at Brookside Elementary School noticed the school’s motto
right away: ASAP! – All Students Achieve Proficiency. The principal decided that the
2008-2009 school year would be the perfect year to revisit the school’s purpose, and set
out to do so by reinforcing the school’s motto. The school held various activities
designed to reinforce the ASAP! motto at the beginning of the year. An ASAP! party was
held on the staff members first day back. The celebration focused on recognizing the
361
successes that the school has made over time. The school held an ASAP! awards
ceremony in September. Students who scored proficient or advanced on any portion of
the CST in 2008 received special recognition at this ceremony. The principal plans to
continue such activities throughout the 2008-2009 school year with the hope of
motivating students and teachers to do their best.
Setting Learning Goals
The staff of Brookside Elementary School has decided to focus on students who
scored in the upper levels of the Basic proficiency band in language arts and math. The
teachers believe that if they can meet the needs of this group of students, they will meet
AYP criteria in 2009.
Teachers in grades three, four, five and six are meeting with each student who
scored in Upper Basic or Lower Proficient on the CST. They use the CST scaled scores
to identify these students. Teachers show the students how close they are to either
moving up to Proficient or falling back to Basic. They let students know that they expect
each of these students to score at least Proficient on every district benchmark exam
during the 2008-2009 school year. This exam serves as a predictor for how students will
score on the CST.
Students who meet this goal will be recognized during ASAP! assemblies that will
be held after each benchmark exam. At the time the principal was interviewed, she was
unsure of how goals for students in kindergarten through grades two would be set. She
362
plans to meet with teachers in these grade levels to set realistic goals and to select focus
students whose progress will be monitored throughout the school year.
Collaborative Leadership
The principal of Brookside School is still in the process of evaluating the
effectiveness of the leadership team at the school. Teacher leaders represent each grade
level. The leadership team meets with the principal monthly to discuss instructional
programs that are taking place at the school. The principal believes that she will increase
leadership meetings to at least two times per month. She feels that the leadership team is
the best path for distributing information and for initiating change at the site. The
principal senses that she will make some changes to the leadership team once she gets to
know the teachers who serve at the school.
Effective First Instruction
According to the principal, students at Brookside School receive “pretty good”
instruction, especially in the area of language arts. Teachers received five days of training
in the use of the Houghton-Mifflin Reading program. The principal has confidence that
the teachers implement the program with fidelity. Teachers use several of the components
of this reading program to help support student learning. These components include use
of a theme board, writing process board and universal access books. The purpose of the
theme board is to anchor students to the concepts that are taught throughout the theme.
Elements of the theme board include selection genre, comprehension skill focus,
vocabulary, spelling pattern, and grammar focus. The theme board includes a balance of
363
teacher created samples and student work. The writing process board has a place for
samples from each step of the writing process (pre-writing, drafting, editing, revising, and
publishing). The writing process board also includes rubrics and scoring guides for
students to use. Universal access components include books to support English learner
students, books that provide extra support for all students, and books that are meant to
challenge students. Teachers at Brookside School use these materials to differentiate for
students during language arts instruction.
Teachers at Brookside School model during math instruction primarily through
the use of SMART boards. SMART boards are teaching tools that allow teachers to
display images and write over these images in a way that students can clearly see.
Teachers use this tool to model the process of solving math problems to students.
English language development instruction is embedded within language arts
instruction. Teachers are expected to differentiate to meet the needs of their English
learner students by using the English learner support component of the Houghton-Mifflin
Reading program. The principal feels that while instruction is good, English learner
students would benefit from the use of more visual representation and explicit vocabulary
instruction.
Professional Development
Teachers received five days of training in the Houghton-Mifflin Reading program
when it was first adopted in 2003 school year. The school district used funds provided by
the state for professional development in this area. The training focused on how teachers
364
use the components that are provided by the reading program Teachers were trained in
the three major elements of the program: reading comprehension, word work and writing.
Teachers were also shown how to use the assessments that are embedded within the
program.
All teachers at the school received SMART boards in 2006. During that year,
teachers attended a series of trainings that demonstrated how to use these tools. The
trainings took place after school and teachers received stipends to attend.
The district focus for professional development centered on building professional
learning communities in 2007. All teachers at Brookside School attended training that
was provided by the district in this area. The district paid consultants to present
information about building professional learning communities at school sites. The current
principal of Brookside School is uncertain if follow-up to this training ever occurred.
Currently, primary teachers at Brookside School are receiving training in an early
reading intervention program known as Diebels Deep. Implementation of this program
involves a series of weekly assessments in phonic and phonemic awareness skills. The
program than prescribes areas for instructional focus based on assessment outcomes. The
school does not have an instructional coach, so one of the teachers agreed to be the
Diebels coach at the site. This teacher will provide support to fellow teachers as an
adjunct duty. The teacher has her own classroom so she may be released by a substitute
to provide demonstrations and coaching.
365
Using Data to Inform Instruction
Teachers at Brookside School use a variety of data to inform instruction. As
previously stated, CST scores are used to determine focus students. Data on focus
students are monitored throughout the school year. Such data include benchmark
assessments, curriculum-embedded assessments and teacher-created assessments.
The Diebels Deep assessments are used to monitor the progress students in
primary grades are making in the areas of phonics and phonemic awareness. Teachers use
these assessment results to plan instruction for the primary students.
District benchmark data and curriculum-embedded assessment data are used to
identify objectives that need to be re-taught. As yet, teachers do not use these data to
identify when an objective should be pre-taught or to change instructional pacing.
Teachers use benchmark assessment results to identify students who will be
invited to participate in extended-day learning programs. At this time, extended-day
programs are provided to students who scored in upper Basic on the CST or upper Basic
on the district benchmark exams.
Support for Struggling Students
Instructional aides provide support to struggling students throughout the school
day. Brookside Elementary School employs instructional aides using Title I funds and
using English learner funds. Each classroom teacher has the support of an instructional
aide for at least thirty minutes each day. The teacher decides how the instructional will be
used while present in his or her classroom. Most of the instructional aides pull students
366
individually or in small groups to work on a learning skill that students have not
mastered.
English learner aides provide primary language support to English learner
students. These aides translate materials for students and interpret oral directions that
teachers give to the class. Some of these aides present beginning English learner students
with lessons from the Santillana Intensive English Resource Kit.
Students who scored upper Basic on the CST or district benchmark exams are
given the opportunity to attend extended-day learning classes. About sixty students
currently participate in this program for thirty minutes per day, three days per week. The
programs focus on learning skills that need to be reinforced based on benchmark results.
The language arts extended-day classes focus on comprehension skills and grammar.
Extended-day classes for math focus on problem solving and other difficult concepts such
as rounding, estimating and mathematical reasoning.
A small portion of students from Brookside School attended summer school in
2008. Summer school is operated by the Tangerine Grove Unified School District.
Tangerine Grove provides summer school for English learner students at the elementary
level. Thirty-seven students from Brookside qualified for this program. The principal is
unsure how many of the students actually attended summer school.
Professional Learning Communities
Teachers at Brookside School received district training in the implementation of
professional learning communities in 2007. As of 2008, grade level teams of teachers
367
meet once each month. The only vertical collaboration that takes place at the school
occurs during monthly leadership team meetings. The principal of Brookside School
hopes to begin meeting bi-weekly with the leadership team. She feels that she needs to
begin building a more collaborative culture at the leadership level for this type of culture
to develop across the school.
Other Components to the Instructional Improvement Process
In addition to the work described above technology is implemented across the
curriculum to support instructional improvement programs at the school.
Use of technology to support instruction has been in place at Brookside School
for several years. SMART Boards were installed in every classroom in 2006. Teachers
received training in SMART Board use throughout the 2006-2007 school year. SMART
Boards are used for lesson delivery in the areas of language arts, mathematics, science,
and social science.
Every classroom has a minimum of four computers for student use. These
computers are used for students to publish their writing, conduct research and build
electronic presentations. They are also used for students to take Accelerated Reader or
Accelerated Math quizzes. The Accelerated Reader and Accelerated Math are learning
programs that provide electronic quizzes to for students to check reading and math
comprehension. The programs are used primarily to motivate students in the areas of
reading and math.
368
Resource Use Comparison of the Evidence Based Model (EBM) to Brookside
Elementary School
How does resource use at Brookside Elementary School compare to the Evidence
Based Model (EBM) for funding schools? Table One (below) compares the actual
resource use in Brookside Elementary School to that provided by a prototypical EBM
elementary school.
369
Table 1: Resource Comparison
Brookside Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Brookside
Actual Status
EBM to Brookside
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
School
Characteristics
School
configuration
K-5 K-5 Equals EBM
Prototypical school
size
432 512
1.2x larger than
Prototypical Site
Class size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 31
1-3: 19.5
4-6: 30
K: 2.06x larger
1-3: 1.3x larger
4-6: 1.2x larger
Full-day
kindergarten
Yes No
Number of At-Risk
(free & reduced
lunch)
178 481 303 more than Prototype
Number of ELL 225 479 254 more than Prototype
Personnel Resources
Core teachers 25 22 30 (+6)
Specialist teachers
20% more:
5.0
0 6 (+6)
Instructional
Coaches
2.2
1 per 200 students
0 2.6 (+2.6)
Library/Media Staff
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 .5 1 (+.5)
Library Aide 0 0 Equals EBM
Technology Aide 0 0 Equals EBM
Extra Help
Certificated Tutors
1.0 and an
additional 1.0 for every
100 at-risk students: 2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
0 5.8 (+5.8)
Title I Teachers 0 1 1 over EBM
Title I Aides 0 1 1 over EBM
Teachers for ELL
students
1 per 100 ELL students 0 4.8 (+4.8)
ELL Aides 0 1.5 1.5 over EBM
370
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Brookside Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Brookside
Actual Status
EBM to Brookside
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
Extra Help (continued)
Services for gifted
students
$25/student 0 $12,800.00
Extended Day
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
.26 4
Summer School
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
District
4
Teacher for Mild
SDC
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
1 3.4 (+2.4)
Aide for Mild
SDC
0.5 aide position for every
150 ADM
.5 1.7 (+1.2)
Teacher for
Severely
disabled
students
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
0 State Funded
Aide for Severely
disabled
students
1 aide position for every
150 ADM
0 State Funded
Professional Development
Professional
Development
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$43,200.00
3 days that occur
before the school
year begins. Plus
$15,000.00 for
subs and stipends
and $1,000.00
for materials
EBM would give 7more
days plus $51,200.00 for
other expenses
371
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Brookside Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Brookside
Actual Status
EBM to Brookside
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
Other
Personnel
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
12 days per
teacher
2 more than EBM
Pupil support staff
1 Guidance Counselor
Plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position for every 125 at-
risk students:2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
2.2 4.8 (+2.6)
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 .3 2(+1.7)
Administration
Principal 1 1 Equals EBM
Assistant Principal 0 0 .2 (+.2)
School Site
Secretary
2.0 .92 2 (+1.1)
Clerical 0 1.5 1.5 more than EBM
Parent Liaison 0 0 Equals EBM
For the most part, resource use at Brookside Elementary School falls well short of
the resource recommendation described by the EBM. Major differences occur in the areas
of core teachers, specialist teachers, instructional coaches, extra help personnel,
professional development, class size, and pupil support staff. Also, the EBM recommends
full day kindergarten while Brookside Elementary provides a two-thirds day kindergarten
program. Brookside Elementary uses over the recommended amount of instructional
aides and over the amount of substitute days teacher receive for personal benefit.
Lessons Learned
This section of the case study will use the following eight areas that have been
adopted from Odden et al., (2006) to provide evaluate the instructional improvement
372
strategies that are taking place at Brookside Elementary School: (1) focus on educating
all students, (2) data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state
standards, (4) effective professional development, (5) restructure the learning
environment, (6) support for struggling students, (7) effective instructional leadership,
and (8) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration.
Focus on Educating All Students
The staff of Brookside Elementary School is currently going through the process
of revisiting the common purpose of the school. The school is renewing its motto of All
Students Achieve Proficiency (ASAP!) by implementing activities for teachers and parents
that reinforce this idea.
Data Driven Instruction
Data are used in a variety of ways at the site to drive instruction. Teachers use
formative assessments to modify the instruction students receive. Instructional decisions
are made using curriculum-embedded assessments, district benchmark assessments and
Diebels Deep assessments. Focus student progress is monitored throughout the school
year. Benchmark assessment data and CST assessment data are used to identify students
for participation in extended-day programs.
Rigorous Curriculum Aligned to State Standards
Teachers implement district-adopted curriculum programs with fidelity. Teachers
do not use instructional materials that are not approved by the district. Teachers provide
373
differentiation during language arts instruction to ensure that all students have access to
the curriculum. Differentiation occurs through use of the universal access components
that are embedded within the Houghton-Mifflin Reading program.
Effective Professional Development
Teachers participate in three full days of professional development each year.
Additional professional development is provided using staff meeting time, releasing
teachers with substitutes, and providing teachers with stipends to attend after school
trainings. Professional development focuses on technology and the curriculum programs
that teachers use.
Restructured Learning Environment
Instructional minutes have not been adjusted to allow for more learning time in
the areas of language arts and mathematics. Students at Brookside Elementary School
receive one hundred twenty minutes daily for language arts instruction and sixty minutes
daily for mathematics instruction. Teachers deliver language arts and mathematics
instruction at different times throughout the school day. Some grade levels have chosen
to deliver language arts instruction at the same time to allow instructional aides to pull
groups of struggling students from their classrooms while the same curriculum is being
implemented.
Support for Struggling Students
Struggling students receive support mainly during the school day. Instructional
aides provide help to students who need extra support by going into classrooms and
374
providing help as directed by classroom teachers. Extended-day programs are offered to
students who scored in upper Basic on the CST and/or benchmark exams. Summer school
is a district program that is available to students who are English learner students. Thirty-
seven students from Brookside qualified for this program.
Effective Instructional Leadership
The effectiveness of the school’s leadership team is still being determined. The
principal believes that strong leadership has taken place over the past few years as the
school as made steady gains in language arts and math based on CST scores. The
principal will focus on building the leadership capacity of all teachers by focusing her
efforts on developing the school’s leadership team during the 2008-2009 school year.
Professional Learning Communities
The teachers at Brookside Elementary School have received training in the area of
professional learning communities. Work needs to be done at the site to build a true
community of learning at Brookside. Teachers within grade levels meet monthly to plan
and share data. Vertical collaboration is rare at this time.
Future Implications
The staff at Brookside Elementary School identifies several additional resources
they would need to continue making adequate yearly progress as the achievement bar
continues to climb. To ensure students begin their school career with the skills they need
to succeed, they would like to see preschool and a full day kindergarten made available to
every incoming student.
375
They would also like to see class size lowered in kindergarten, fourth and fifth
grades. Teachers believe they would be able to provide better-individualized instruction
to at-risk students if class size was reduced from enrollment sizes of up to thirty-five
students.
The principal would like to have more time devoted for professional development.
She would like professional development to focus on instructional delivery. She would
also like at least one on-site instructional coach. The instructional coach would help
provide on-going instructional support to teachers.
The principal feels that it is time for new language arts, mathematics and English
language development programs. She believes that the programs are out-dated and that
better programs are available that will help teachers differentiate instruction to meet
students’ needs.
Further, the principal would like to have the help of an assistant principal. An
assistant principal would help support the principal with both managerial and
instructional duties.
Finally, the staff would welcome support personnel such as a full-time counselor.
This individual would provide support to students who need help making friends and who
need help making positive choices.
376
APPENDIX K
CASE STUDY: ROLLING WAVES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Overview of School and District
Rolling Waves Elementary School is a kindergarten through fifth grade school
that serves just around six hundred sixty students in Tangerine Grove Unified School
District. Tangerine Grove USD is an urban district in Southern California. The district
educates approximately 21,000 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. In
addition, Tangerine Grove USD provides support programs for adult education,
preschool, regional occupation program (ROP), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE),
fine and performing arts, and special education. Tangerine Grove USD is among the few
school districts in Southern California that has not entered district-level program
improvement. Rolling Waves Elementary School became a California Distinguished
School in 2006.
Though the school serves a diverse student population, there are three significant
subgroups of students at Rolling Waves Elementary School: (1) socio-economically
disadvantaged (SED), (2) English learner students and (3) students of Hispanic ethnicity.
The percent of students who receive free or reduced meals is used to determine the
percent of students who are considered SED. Approximately eighty-eight percent of
students are considered SED which is over fifty percent more than the district average of
thirty-three percent. Over seventy percent of the population of Rolling Waves School is
made up of English Learner students while about a quarter of the district’s population are
377
English learners. Over ninety-three percent of the students at Rolling Waves Elementary
are of Hispanic ethnicity. This is much greater than the district average of about fifteen
percent.
Rolling Waves Elementary School also provides services to thirty-one students
who qualify for special education. Most of these students receive services for speech and
language support and for mild learning disabilities.
State Assessment Data for Rolling Waves Elementary School
Rolling Waves Elementary School’s test scores have been steadily declining since
2006. In the area of English language arts the number of students scoring proficient or
advanced has dropped from forty percent in 2006 to thirty-one percent in 2008. Math
scores have been a little more consistent. The percent of students scoring proficient or
advanced in math has remained in the fifty percent range between 2005 and 2008.
Rolling Waves School saw a steady increase in the percent of students who scored
proficient or advanced in science until the 2008 school year when the percentage slightly
dropped. The overall scores over time can be seen in Figure One.
378
Figure One: Percent of students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST
for English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics and Science 2005-2008).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Percent Proficient or Advanced
ELA Math Science
An examination of significant subgroup data shows no notable gap between
subgroup performance on the California Standards Test. As shown in Figure Two
(below) all significant subgroups made close to a twenty-percentage point growth in the
area of English language arts from the year 2005 to the year 2006. The percentage of
students in all subgroups scoring proficient or advanced decreased steadily between 2006
and 2008.
379
Figure 2: ELA Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup:
SED, ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
Figure Three (below) shows a similar pattern in the area of mathematics. Again, each
subgroup makes substantial gains from 2005 to 2006. By 2008 all subgroups show a
decrease in percentage of students who scored proficient or advanced in mathematics.
Figure 3: Math Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup:
SED, ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
380
Rolling Waves Elementary School has experienced inconsistent progress toward
meeting California’s goal for all schools to obtain an Academic Performance Index (API)
score of at least 800. From the year 2005 to the year 2006 Rolling Waves Elementary
School grew twenty points. After 2006, the school’s API score began to drop. In 2008
Rolling Waves School had a growth API score of 745, the same API score it had in 2005.
Figure Four demonstrates API scores the school has achieved between 2005 and 2008.
Figure 4: Academic Performance Index (API) Growth 2005-2008
745
765
748
745
735
740
745
750
755
760
765
770
2005 2006 2007 2008
API Growth Score
Rolling Waves Elementary School did not make Adequate Yearly Progress in
2008. The school missed making AYP for this year because each of the school’s
significant subgroups did not have enough students score proficient or advanced on the
language arts portion of the CST. The school did meet AYP criteria for the years 2005,
2006 and 2007. Rolling Waves Elementary School must meet AYP criteria in 2009 or the
school will enter year one of program improvement.
The purpose of this case study is to tell the instructional improvement story of
Rolling Waves Elementary School, and to identify how resources are aligned with the
381
instructional improvement process. The instructional improvement strategies that are
discussed in the next section provide possible reasons for why this school did not meet
AYP criteria in 2008, and gives information about how the principal plans to turn the
school around.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Rolling Waves Elementary School’s test scores in 2008 served as a wake up call
for all staff members. The school did not make AYP in 2008 because less than thirty-two
percent of the school’s Hispanic and SED population scored proficient or advanced on
the language arts portion of the CST. Only twenty-eight percent of English language
learner students scored proficient or advanced on the language arts portion of the CST.
The steady decline in test scores is astonishing as the school was recognized as a
California Distinguished School in 2006. The school’s principal of eight years retired at
the end of the 2007-2008 school year. The school’s current principal began her
assignment in August of 2008 with eight years experience as a principal to guide her.
Developing a Common Purpose
The new principal at Rolling Waves can articulate no common purpose for the
school. Staff members are feeling frustrated about their AYP status and are currently
making excuses for why test scores have fallen. The principal indicates that she has heard
just about every excuse that can be thought of for why the students have not been
achieving proficiency. The students and their parents have been blamed for “not being
interested in learning.” The district has been blamed for not providing teachers with the
382
resources they require to teach “needy” students. The principal has not heard any teacher
take responsibility for student learning at the school. This leader is investigating the
strategies the school used to make incredible gains between the 2005 and 2006 school
year. She hopes to capitalize on the success the school had at that time to help turn the
school around. Please note: the researcher was unable to draw these strategies out from
the current principal.
Setting Learning Goals
The staff of Rolling Waves Elementary School have decided to set learning goals
for students based on the students’ 2008 CST scores. The expectation is that each student
will score at least one proficiency band higher on the 2009 CST than he or she scored on
the 2008 CST. The principal believes that this is a “doable” goal.
This learning goal for students was shared with parents during the school’s Back
to School Night event that took place in October 2008. All teachers were expected to
inform all students of their 2008 score during individual student conferences by the end
of September. During the Back to School Night event, the principal challenged all parents
to question their children to see if the children were able to articulate their 2008 CST
proficiency level.
The principal held CST assemblies by grade level in November of 2008. During
these assemblies the principal presented students with information about the CST
assessment and the test’s five possible proficiency bands: Far Below Basic, Below Basic,
Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. Students were challenged to advance at least one level
383
from their current proficiency band. Students were informed that their scores on district
benchmark exams would serve as predictors of whether the students would meet their
goals. The principal plans to recognize students who meet their learning goals based on
district benchmark exams during award ceremonies throughout the school year.
Collaborative Leadership
The principal of Rolling Waves School is still in the process of evaluating the
effectiveness of the leadership team at the school. Teacher leaders represent each grade
level. The leadership team meets with the principal monthly to discuss school level data.
Grade level teams meet monthly as well. The principal does not believe consistent
collaboration among teachers is taking place at this school.
Effective First Instruction
According to the principal, “decent” instruction is taking place at the school.
Teachers received five days of training in the use of the Houghton-Mifflin Reading
program. The principal is not sure that the teachers implement the program with fidelity.
She has discovered that many teachers supplement the language arts program with
poems, their own spelling lists, and other materials. It disturbs the principal that the
programs spelling words are being replaced because the Houghton-Mifflin Reading
program presents spelling in a systematic way that focuses on spelling patterns.
Teachers at Rolling Waves School model during math instruction primarily
through the use of SMART boards. SMART boards are teaching tools that allow teachers
384
to display images and write over these images in a way that students can clearly see.
Teachers use this tool to model the process of solving math problems to students.
English language development instruction is embedded within language arts
instruction. Teachers are expected to differentiate to meet the needs of their English
learner students by using the English learner support component of the Houghton-Mifflin
Reading program. The principal does not believe that teachers are differentiating well
enough to meet the needs of English learner students. This is an area she plans to address
through professional development.
Professional Development
Teachers received five days of training in the Houghton-Mifflin Reading program
a year after it was first adopted in 2003. The school district used funds provided by the
state for professional development in this area. The training focused on how teachers use
the components that are provided by the reading program Teachers were trained in the
three major elements of the program: reading comprehension, word work and writing.
Teachers were also shown how to use the assessments that are embedded within the
program.
All teachers at the school received SMART boards in 2006. During that year,
teachers attended a series of trainings that demonstrated how to use these tools. The
trainings took place after school and teachers received stipends to attend.
The district focus for professional development centered on building professional
learning communities in 2007. All teachers at Rolling Waves School attended training
385
that was provided by the district in this area. The district paid consultants to present
information about building professional learning communities at school sites. The current
principal of Rolling Waves School is uncertain if follow-up to this training ever occurred.
Currently, all teachers at Rolling Waves School are receiving training in the use
of Thinking Maps. Thinking Maps are a series of graphic organizers that were developed
based on brain research. These tools are ideal for use with English learner students
because they provide visual representation of content that students are learning. Two of
the school’s three professional development days are being used to send teachers to
Thinking Maps training. The third professional development day will take place at the
school site. Teachers will share how they are implementing Thinking Maps in their
classrooms on this day. Three teachers from the school have been chosen to be Thinking
Map teacher coaches. These teachers will be released from their own classrooms
periodically to provide support to other teachers at the school.
Using Data to Inform Instruction
Teachers at Rolling Waves School use a variety of data to inform instruction. As
previously stated, CST scores are used to set learning goals for students. Benchmark data
are used to monitor student progress throughout the year.
Teachers use benchmark assessment results and curriculum embedded
assessment to identify students who will be invited to participate in extended-day
learning programs. At this time, extended-day programs are provided to students who
386
need extra support in phonics, phonemic awareness, reading comprehension, and English
language development.
Support for Struggling Students
Instructional aides provide support to struggling students throughout the school
day. Rolling Waves Elementary School employs instructional aides using Title I funds
and using English learner funds. Each classroom teacher has the support of an
instructional aide for twenty to forty minutes each day. The teacher decides how the
instructional will be used while present in his or her classroom. Most of the instructional
aides pull students individually or in small groups to work on a learning skill that
students have not mastered.
English learner aides provide primary language support to English learner
students. These aides translate materials for students and interpret oral directions that
teachers give to the class. Some of these aides present beginning English learner students
with lessons from the Santillana Intensive English Resource Kit. This kit is also used by
teachers during extended-day programs.
Students who are having difficulty mastering phonics, phonemic awareness, or
reading comprehension skills are given the opportunity to attend extended-day learning
classes. About seventy-five students currently participate in this program for forty-five
minutes per day, three days per week.
A small portion of students from Rolling Waves School attended summer school
in 2008. Summer school is operated by the Tangerine Grove Unified School District.
387
Tangerine Grove provides summer school for English learner students at the elementary
level. The principal is unsure how many of Rolling Waves students qualified for the
program and actually attended summer school.
Professional Learning Communities
Teachers at Rolling Waves School received district training in the implementation
of professional learning communities in 2007. As of 2008, grade level teams of teachers
meet once each month. The principal does not believe much vertical collaboration is
taking place at the school. The principal believes that she will need to focus her attention
on building a collaborative community at the school.
Other Components to the Instructional Improvement Process
In addition to the work described above technology is implemented across the
curriculum to support instructional improvement programs at the school.
Use of technology to support instruction has been in place at Rolling Waves
School since 2006 when SMART boards were installed in every classroom. Teachers
received training in SMART board use throughout the 2006-2007 school year. SMART
boards are used for lesson delivery in the areas of mathematics, science, and social
science.
Every classroom has a minimum of two computers for student use. These
computers are used for students to take Accelerated Reader or Accelerated Math quizzes.
The Accelerated Reader and Accelerated Math are learning programs that provide
388
electronic quizzes to for students to check reading and math comprehension. The
programs are used primarily to motivate students in the areas of reading and math.
Resource Use Comparison of the Evidence Based Model (EBM) to Rolling Waves
Elementary School
How does resource use at Rolling Waves Elementary School compare to the
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for funding schools? Table One (below) compares the
actual resource use in Rolling Waves Elementary School to that provided by a
prototypical EBM elementary school.
389
Table 1: Resource Comparison
Rolling Waves Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical
Elementary School
Rolling Waves
Actual Status
EBM to Rolling Waves
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
School
Characteristics
School
configuration
K-5 K-5 Equals EBM
Prototypical school
size
432 660
1.5x larger than
Prototypical Site
Class size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 32
1-3: 19.5
4-6: 30
K: 2.13x larger
1-3: 1.3x larger
4-6: 1.2x larger
Full-day
kindergarten
Yes No
Number of At-Risk
(free & reduced
lunch)
178 620 442 more than Prototype
Number of ELL 225 482 257 more than Prototype
Personnel Resources
Core teachers 25 25 38 (+13)
Specialist teachers
20% more:
5.0
0 7 (+7.6)
Instructional
Coaches
2.2
1 per 200 students
0 3.3 (+3.3)
Library/Media Staff
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 0 1 (+1)
Library Aide 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Technology Aide 0 0 Equals EBM
Extra Help
Certificated Tutors
1.0 and an
additional 1.0 for every
100 at-risk students: 2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
0 7 (+7)
Title I Teachers 0 0 Equals EBM
Title I Aides 0 1 1 over EBM
Teachers for ELL
students
1 per 100 ELL students 0 4.8 (+4.8)
ELL Aides 0 1 1 over EBM
390
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Rolling Waves Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Rolling Waves
Actual Status
EBM to Rolling Waves
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
Extra Help (continued)
Services for gifted
students
$25/student 0 $16,500.00
Extended Day
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
.5 5
Summer School
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
District
5
Teacher for Mild
SDC
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
1 4.4 (+3.4)
Aide for Mild SDC
0.5 aide position for every
150 ADM
.5 2.2 (+1.7)
Teacher for
Severely
disabled
students
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
0 State Funded
Aide for Severely
disabled
students
1 aide position for every
150 ADM
0 State Funded
Professional Development
Professional
Development
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$43,200.00
3 days that occur
before the school
year begins. Plus
$23,000.00 for
subs and stipends
and $3,500.00
for materials
EBM would give 7more
days plus $66,000.00 for
other expenses
391
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Rolling Waves Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Rolling Waves
Actual Status
EBM to Rolling Waves
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
Other
Personnel
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
12 days per
teacher
2 more than EBM
Pupil support staff
1 Guidance Counselor
Plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position for every 125 at-
risk students:2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
2.3 6 (+3.7)
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 .3 2(+1.7)
Administration
Principal 1 1 Equals EBM
Assistant Principal 0 0 .5 (+.5)
School Site
Secretary
2.0 .92 3 (+2)
Clerical 0 1.5 1.5 more than EBM
Parent Liaison 0 0 Equals EBM
For the most part, resource use at Rolling Waves Elementary School falls well
short of the resource recommendation described by the EBM. Major differences occur in
the areas of core teachers, specialist teachers, instructional coaches, extra help personnel,
professional development, class size, and pupil support staff. Also, the EBM recommends
full day kindergarten while Rolling Waves Elementary provides a two-thirds day
kindergarten program. Rolling Waves Elementary uses over the recommended amount of
instructional aides and over the amount of substitute days teacher receive for personal
benefit.
392
Lessons Learned
This section of the case study will use the following eight areas that have been
adopted from Odden et al., (2006) to provide evaluate the instructional improvement
strategies that are taking place at Rolling Waves Elementary School: (1) focus on
educating all students, (2) data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned
to state standards, (4) effective professional development, (5) restructure the learning
environment, (6) support for struggling students, (7) effective instructional leadership,
and (8) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration.
Focus on Educating All Students
The staff of Rolling Waves Elementary School does not currently share a
common vision or purpose for the school. Teachers are expressing frustration over
declining test scores and assigning blame to various groups for lack of student learning.
The principal has instituted a common learning goal for all students: all students are
expected to grow by one proficiency level on the CST. The principal hopes this will lead
all staff members to a common purpose for the school.
Data Driven Instruction
A variety of data are used to inform the instructional program at the school.
Scores from the 2008 CST were used to set learning goals for students. These goals are
monitored throughout the year using district benchmark exam results. District benchmark
exams and curriculum embedded assessments are used to identify students for
participation in extended-day learning classes.
393
Rigorous Curriculum Aligned to State Standards
Though all teachers have been trained in the components of the Houghton-Mifflin
Reading program, the teachers do not necessarily implement this program with fidelity.
Teachers are using instructional materials that are not approved by the district. These
materials include poems, worksheets and alternative spelling lists. This is leading to an
alternative curriculum that is not aligned with state standards.
Effective Professional Development
Teachers participate in three full days of professional development each year.
This year professional development is focused on implementation of Thinking Maps.
Teachers will receive on-going support from on-site teacher coaches. These coaches are
assigned as classroom teachers so they will be released by substitutes to provide support.
Restructured Learning Environment
Instructional minutes have not been adjusted to allow for more learning time in
the areas of language arts and mathematics. Students at Rolling Waves Elementary
School receive one hundred twenty minutes daily for language arts instruction and sixty
minutes daily for mathematics instruction. Teachers deliver language arts and
mathematics instruction at different times throughout the school day.
394
Support for Struggling Students
Struggling students receive support during the school day and through
participation in extended-day programs. Instructional aides provide help to students who
need extra support by going into classrooms and providing help as directed by classroom
teachers. Extended-day programs are offered to students who need help in phonics,
phonemic awareness or reading comprehension. Summer school is a district program that
is available to students who are English learner students. It is unknown how many
Rolling Waves students participated in the summer school program.
Effective Instructional Leadership
The effectiveness of the school’s leadership team is still being determined. The
principal believes that strong leadership has taken place in the past because the school
was recognized as a California Distinguished School. The principal plans to develop the
capacity of Rolling Waves teacher leaders in the years to come. She has started this by
assigning teacher leaders for Thinking Maps implementation.
Professional Learning Communities
The teachers at Rolling Waves Elementary School have received training in the
area of professional learning communities. Work needs to be done at the site to build a
true community of learning at Rolling Waves. Teachers within grade levels meet monthly
to plan and share data. Vertical collaboration is rare at this time.
395
Future Implications
The staff at Rolling Waves Elementary School identifies several additional
resources they would need to make adequate yearly progress in 2009 and the years that
follow. To ensure students begin their school career with the skills they need to succeed,
they would like to see a full day kindergarten made available to every incoming student.
They would also like to see class size lowered in kindergarten, fourth and fifth
grades. The principal believes that class sizes in these grades are too large to provide
effective instruction.
The principal would like to have more time devoted for professional development.
She would also like at least one on-site instructional coach. The instructional coach
would help provide on-going instructional support to teachers.
The principal also feels that it is time for new language arts, mathematics and
English language development programs. She believes that the programs that have been
adopted by the district are not paced in a manner that supports student learning.
Further, the principal would like to have the help of an assistant principal. An
assistant principal would help support the principal with both managerial and
instructional duties.
Finally, the staff would welcome support personnel such as a full-time nurse and
counselor. Students do not come to school well rested or well nourished. Parents struggle
to get children to regular appointments with doctors and dentists. The staff believes that a
nurse can help parents navigate the medical system and get help for their children. A
396
counselor would be used to help students who have trouble getting along with others at
school. This individual would also provide support to students who are experiencing
problems at home or have anger management issues.
397
APPENDIX L
CASE STUDY: CREEKSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Overview of School and District
Creekside Elementary School is a kindergarten through fifth grade school that
serves just over one thousand students in Cherry Valley Unified School District. Cherry
Valley USD is an urban district in Southern California. The district educates
approximately 88,000 students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. In addition, Cherry
Valley USD provides support programs for adult education, preschool, regional
occupation program (ROP), Gifted and Talented Education (GATE), fine and performing
arts, and special education. Though Cherry Valley USD is in its second year of district-
level program improvement, the district is a four-time finalist for the Broad Prize for
Urban Education. Creekside Elementary School operates a year-round, multi-track
program.
Though the school serves a diverse student population, there are three significant
subgroups of students at Creekside Elementary School: (1) socio-economically
disadvantaged (SED), (2) English learner students and (3) students of Hispanic ethnicity.
The percent of students who receive free or reduced meals is used to determine the
percent of students who are considered SED. Approximately eighty-three percent of
students are considered SED which is about twenty percent more than the district average
of sixty-seven percent. Over sixty percent of the population of Creekside School is made
up of English Learner students while about a quarter of the district’s population are
398
English learners. Over eighty-six percent of the students at Creekside Elementary are of
Hispanic ethnicity. This is about thirty percent greater than the district average of about
fifty-one percent.
Creekside Elementary School also provides services to fifty-seven students who
qualify for special education. Most of these students receive services for speech and
language support and for mild learning disabilities.
State Assessment Data for Creekside Elementary School
Creekside Elementary School’s test scores have been rather inconsistent over
time. In the area of English language arts the number of students scoring proficient or
advanced has increased slightly between 2005 and 2008. Math scores have been a little
more sporadic. Though the percent of students scoring proficient or advanced in math has
remained in the fifty percent range between 2005 and 2008, the actual percentages have
gone up and down from year to year. Creekside School saw a similar pattern in the
percent of students who scored proficient or advanced in science. These changes over
time can be seen in Figure One.
399
Figure One: Percent of students who scored proficient or advanced on the CST
for English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics and Science 2005-2008).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Percent Proficient or Advanced
ELA Math Science
An examination of significant subgroup data shows a fairly substantial gap
between subgroup performance on the California Standards Test. As shown in Figure
Two (below) all significant subgroups made gains and losses in the area of English
language arts from the year 2005 to the year 2006. The English learner subgroup
performs lower than the other subgroups until 2008 when all subgroups made gains.
400
Figure 2: ELA Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup:
SED, ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
Figure Three (below) shows a different pattern in the area of mathematics. There is no
evident gap in subgroup performance. All subgroups make gains and losses between
2005 and 2008.
Figure 3: Math Percent Proficient or Advanced by significant subgroup:
SED, ELL, and Hispanic for the years 2005 to 2008
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
2005 2006 2007 2008
Percent Proficient or Advanced
SED ELL Hispanic
401
Creekside Elementary School has experienced inconsistent progress toward
meeting California’s goal for all schools to obtain an Academic Performance Index (API)
score of at least 800. From the year 2005 to the year 2006 Creekside Elementary School
lost eleven points. By 2007 the school’s API was up sixteen points to 768 where it
remained in 2008. Figure Four demonstrates API scores the school has achieved between
2005 and 2008.
Figure 4: Academic Performance Index (API) Growth 2005-2008
763
752
768 768
740
745
750
755
760
765
770
2005 2006 2007 2008
API Growth Score
Creekside Elementary School has met criteria for Adequate Yearly Progress every
year since 2005. To meet AYP criteria in 2009, at seven percent more students in each
subgroup will need to score proficient or advanced on the CST.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
The purpose of this case study is to tell the instructional improvement story of
Creekside Elementary School, and to identify how resources are aligned with the
instructional improvement process. The instructional improvement strategies that are
402
discussed in the next section provide information for how this school has met AYP
criteria four years in a row.
Developing a Common Purpose
The staff at Creekside Elementary School has operated under the following motto
for several years: STAR- Student Success, Terrific Teaching, Achievement, Results! While
this motto has served the school well, the principal believes it is time to revisit the
school’s vision, mission and common purpose if they are to continue meeting AYP
criteria. The principal expects to revisit these ideas by holding special, collaborative
meetings that include teachers, classified staff members, parents, and students. He will
make these meeting optional for staff members, but will encourage them to attend. The
principal plans to use the school’s past success as way to inspire all stakeholders to high
levels of performance in the years to come.
Setting Learning Goals
Student learning goals are simple and clear at Creekside Elementary School. All
students are expected to leave third grade reading at grade level. Students in fourth and
fifth grade are expected to meet state proficiency levels in language arts and mathematics.
Student goals are monitored using student portfolios. Each portfolio includes
standardized test data for the student, formative assessment data, and student work
samples. Portfolios also include reflective statements written by students about how they
are progressing toward meeting their goals.
403
Collaborative Leadership
Creekside Elementary School’s principal believes that collaborative leadership is
evident at his school site. The school’s leadership team is made up of the principal,
assistant principal, site coaches, and Title I teachers. This team makes instructional and
curriculum decisions for the entire site. Members of the leadership team meet with grade
levels to disseminate information and bring ideas back from grade level meetings. The
principal feels that this is an effective way to promote collaborative leadership because
the school is quite large. He admits that instructional improvement strategies would be
implemented more successfully if classroom teachers were included on the leadership
team. Consequently, the principal is currently exploring ways to include classroom
teachers on the leadership team without making the group too large to be efficient.
Effective First Instruction
The principal describes the instructional program at Creekside School to be
“outstanding.” Teachers provide students with explicit instruction in state standards using
strategies such as Direct Instruction, Cooperative Learning and Guided Language
Acquisition Development (GLAD). Teachers check for understanding regularly and make
adjustments accordingly.
Learning standards are posted in every classroom and are articulated to students at
the beginning of each lesson. Teachers use Discovery Streaming (a subscription program
that allows teachers to download video clips) to help make connections to prior
404
knowledge. Teachers use graphic organizers and visual representation to help English
learner students access the curriculum.
The principal and assistant principal conduct classroom observations frequently to
ensure that district-adopted programs are implemented with fidelity. Instructional coaches
are assigned to support teachers who need extra support.
Professional Development
Teachers received five days of training in the Open Court Reading program
during the 2005-2006 school year. Teachers were trained in both the reading
comprehension portion of the program as well as the differentiation pieces that support
students who need extra support. Teachers were also shown how to use the assessments
that are embedded within the program.
All teachers at the school received training in the incorporation of academic
vocabulary during the 2007-2008 school year. The instructional delivery strategy of
Direct Instruction was incorporated with the academic vocabulary training.
Teachers at Creekside School have received explicit training in the area of writing
instruction. Teachers use a strategy known as Write From the Beginning to deliver
writing instruction. This strategy focuses on the pre-writing and drafting stages of the
writing process. Students are taught to orally rehearse the content of their pre-writing
before they begin drafting their ideas.
The school has the support of three on-site instructional coaches. These coaches
provide support in the areas of language arts, mathematics and English language
405
development. Each coach is trained to provide support in instructional delivery strategies
as well. Instructional coaches provide teachers with demonstration lessons.
Using Data to Inform Instruction
Teachers at Creekside School use a variety of data to inform instruction. CST
scores are used to evaluate instructional programs at the school level. These data are also
used to inform the instructional programs grade level teams are implementing.
Teachers use benchmark assessment results and a variety of authentic assessments
such as curriculum embedded assessments, student writing samples, and student
portfolios to monitor student progress throughout the year.
Data are analyzed collaboratively during monthly grade level meetings. One
member of the leadership team facilitates the data discussion with the teachers in a
particular grade level.
The principal will begin holding individual data conferences with teachers during
the 2008-2009 school year. During these conferences, the principal will question each
teacher about how he or she makes adjustments to instruction based on formative data.
Support for Struggling Students
Students at Creekside Elementary School who are struggling receive extra support
during the school day in a variety of ways. First, three extra certificated teachers have
been hired to lower class size for language arts and mathematics instruction. Second,
each grade level teaches language arts and mathematics at the same time to allow teaming
406
to occur. Finally, learning groups are differentiated based on the types of scaffolds
students need.
Teachers are expected to differentiate instruction within the learning groups as a
first level of support to struggling students. Instructional minutes for language arts
instruction were increased for 120 minutes to 150 minutes to provide thirty minutes a day
for differentiation.
Instructional aides are also employed at Creekside School. The leadership team
decides how the instructional aides will be used to support instruction at the school. The
aides are trained to provide help with decoding skills and math facts practice. Several
aides are also trained to provide support to English learner students using the SRA
McGraw-Hill intervention program.
While the school does not offer an official extended-day program, extra learning
opportunities are available to some students through a free, tutoring program. Creekside
School works with a local university to provide this program to identified students.
College students volunteer their tutoring services to satisfy a community service
component of their coursework. Creekside students are recommended for this program
based on individual student needs. The program offers one to one tutoring for students in
the areas of reading comprehension, decoding and mathematics.
Summer school is not offered to Creekside students as the school operates on a
year-round schedule. The school does not offer inter-session classes at this time due to
limited space at the site.
407
Professional Learning Communities
Teachers at Creekside School participate in collaborative opportunities at least
twice each month. One opportunity occurs during regular grade level meetings. A
member of the leadership team facilitates grade level meetings. Meeting topics include
data analysis, calibration of rubrics using student work and lesson planning.
Vertical collaboration takes place at least one time each month during staff
meetings. The principal or assistant principal will facilitate these meetings. Teachers
review data across grade levels, share writing samples from each grade level, and
articulate areas where students seem to struggle from one grade to the next.
Other Components to the Instructional Improvement Process
In addition to the work described above other components are in place at
Creekside Elementary School that support the instructional improvement process. These
components include parent involvement activities, a community volunteer program and
the use of technology to support instruction.
Four half-time parent liaisons are employed at Creekside School. These liaisons
provide translation and interpretation services for parents in the community. The liaisons
also facilitate parent education classes throughout the school year. Parent education
topics include helping children with their reading and math homework, use of computers
to support instruction, English language development, and other interests that parents
may have.
408
The staff at Creekside School has called upon members of the local community to
serve as volunteers for a special reading program. These volunteers visit the school at
least one time each month to read a story to students. The volunteers also use the story to
practice the comprehension skills the students are learning during their regular reading
program. The assistant principal and instructional coaches provide the volunteers with the
stories and comprehension activities.
Every classroom at Creekside Elementary School is equipped with at least five
computers for students to use. Students use this technology to conduct research and
prepare electronic presentations. Students also use the computers to illustrate and publish
their writing. Their published work is shared with other students and placed in their own
portfolios.
Resource Use Comparison of the Evidence Based Model (EBM) to Creekside
Elementary School
How does resource use at Creekside Elementary School compare to the Evidence
Based Model (EBM) for funding schools? Table One (below) compares the actual
resource use in Creekside Elementary School to that provided by a prototypical EBM
elementary school.
409
Table 1: Resource Comparison
Creekside Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical
Elementary School
Creekside
Actual Status
EBM to Creekside
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
School
Characteristics
School configuration K-5 K-5 Equals EBM
Prototypical school
size
432 1059
2.5x larger than
Prototypical Site
Class size
K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 19.5
1-3: 19.5
4-6: 35
K: 1.3x larger
1-3: 1.3x larger
4-6: 1.4x larger
Full-day kindergarten Yes No
Number of At-Risk
(free & reduced
lunch)
178 731
553 more than
Prototype
Number of ELL 225 692
467 more than
Prototype
Personnel Resources
Core teachers 25 45 62 (+17)
Specialist teachers
20% more:
5.0
3 12 (+9)
Instructional
Coaches
2.2
1 per 200 students
3 5 (+2)
Library/Media Staff
Librarians/media
specialists
1.0 1 Equals EBM
Library Aide 0 .5 .5 over EBM
Technology Aide 0 0 Equals EBM
Extra Help
Certificated
Tutors
1.0 and an
additional 1.0 for every
100 at-risk students: 2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
0 8 (+8)
Title I Teachers 0 3 3 over EBM
Title I Aides 0 6 6 over EBM
Teachers for ELL
students
1 per 100 ELL students 0 7 (+7)
ELL Aides 0 7.5 7.5 over EBM
410
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Creekside Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Creekside
Actual Status
EBM to Creekside
Comparison &
Resource Suggestions
Extra Help (continued)
Services for gifted
students
$25/student 0 $26,475.00
Extended Day
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
0 6
Summer School
1 per 15 eligible students
anticipated (50% of at-
risk population)
0
6
Teacher for Mild
SDC
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
1 7.6 (+6.6)
Aide for Mild SDC
0.5 aide position for every
150 ADM
1.5 3.5 (+2)
Teacher for
Severely
disabled
students
1 teacher position for
every 150 ADM
0 State Funded
Aide for Severely
disabled
students
1 aide position for every
150 ADM
0 State Funded
Professional Development
Professional
Development
10 summer days
Additional:
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
$43,200.00
2 days that occur
before the school
year begins. Plus
$25,000.00 for
subs and stipends
and $4,500.00
for materials
EBM would give 8 more
days plus $105,900.00
for other expenses
411
Table 1 (continued) Resource Comparison
Creekside Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
School Element EBM
Prototypical Elementary
School
Creekside
Actual Status
EBM to Creekside
Comparison & Resource
Suggestions
Other
Personnel
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
10 days per
teacher
Equals EBM
Pupil support staff
1 Guidance Counselor
Plus
1 Pupil Support Staff
Position for every 125 at-
risk students:2.4
At-risk weight: 0.13
3.5 7 (+3.5)
Non-Instructional
Aides
2.0 1.5 5(+3.5)
Administration
Principal 1 1 Equals EBM
Assistant Principal 0 1 1.5 (+.5)
School Site
Secretary
2.0 1 5 (+4)
Clerical 0 3 3 more than EBM
Parent Liaison 0 2 2 more than EBM
For the most part, resource use at Creekside Elementary School falls well short of
the resource recommendation described by the EBM. Major differences occur in the areas
of core teachers, specialist teachers, extra help personnel, professional development, class
size, and pupil support staff. Also, the EBM recommends full day kindergarten while
Creekside Elementary provides a three-quarters day kindergarten program. Creekside
Elementary uses over the recommended amount of instructional aides and over the
amount of substitute days teacher receive for personal benefit.
412
Lessons Learned
This section of the case study will use the following eight areas that have been
adopted from Odden et al., (2006) to provide evaluate the instructional improvement
strategies that are taking place at Creekside Elementary School: (1) focus on educating all
students, (2) data driven instruction, (3) rigorous curriculum that is aligned to state
standards, (4) effective professional development, (5) restructure the learning
environment, (6) support for struggling students, (7) effective instructional leadership,
and (8) professional learning communities and opportunities for collaboration.
Focus on Educating All Students
While the staff of Creekside School shares a common motto for student success,
the principal believes it is time to revisit the school’s mission and vision statements. He
believes that it is time to regroup so that school can continue meeting AYP criteria in the
years to come.
Data Driven Instruction
A variety of data are used to inform the instructional program at the school.
Standardized test data are used to evaluate the school’s instructional programs across the
school and within grade levels. Authentic assessment data are used to monitor student
progress through the year. These data include curriculum embedded assessments, student
work samples, student writing, and information kept in student portfolios. The principal
plans to meet with each teacher during the 2008-2009 school year to discuss how each
teacher uses data to inform instruction.
413
Rigorous Curriculum Aligned to State Standards
Teachers implement the district-adopted programs with fidelity. The principal and
assistant principal conduct regular classroom observations to hold teachers ensure
teachers are providing standards-based instruction.
Effective Professional Development
Teachers participate in two full days of professional development each year.
Professional development focuses on curriculum and instructional delivery. Three on-site
instructional coaches provide regular and on-going support to teachers. These coaches
also provide demonstration lessons to teachers.
Restructured Learning Environment
Instructional minutes been adjusted to allow more learning time in the area of
language arts. Schedules have been adjusted to ensure that teachers within grade levels
teach language arts and mathematics at the same time. Schedules have also been arranged
to ensure that language arts instruction is not interrupted for assemblies, music, physical
education and other non-core instruction.
Support for Struggling Students
Struggling students receive support during the school day from their regular
classroom teachers and from instructional aides. Instructional aides have been trained to
provide support in the areas of reading comprehension, decoding, English language
development, and math facts.
414
A small number of students benefit from one-to-one tutoring that is provided by
college tutors. These tutors volunteer their time to help the children of Creekside School.
Tutoring support is provided for reading comprehension, decoding and mathematics.
Intersession classes are not provided at this time due to limited space on the
school campus.
Effective Instructional Leadership
Effective instructional leadership seems to be in place at this school. Leadership
team members include the principal, assistant principal, Title I teachers, and instructional
coaches. These leaders support grade level teams during meetings. The principal hopes to
include grade level teachers on the leadership team to help deepen the leadership capacity
of all teachers.
Professional Learning Communities
Teachers at Creekside Elementary School participate in collaborative discussions
at least twice each month; during grade level meetings and staff meetings. Grade level
meetings are facilitated by leadership team members. Topics include data analysis, lesson
planning and calibration of rubrics.
Teachers have an opportunity to meet in vertical groups during staff meetings.
These vertical discussions are facilitated by the principal or assistant principal.
Discussions include data analysis, student work across grade levels and more.
415
Future Implications
The staff at Creekside Elementary School identifies several additional resources
they would need to make adequate yearly progress in 2009 and the years that follow. To
ensure students begin their school career with the skills they need to succeed, they would
like to see a full day kindergarten made available to every incoming student.
They would also like to see class size lowered in fourth and fifth grades. The
teachers believe that class sizes are far too large to provide effective instruction to the
student population that makes up Creekside School.
The principal would like to have more time devoted for professional development.
He believes that two days per year is not enough to meet the needs of his teachers.
The principal also believes that daily instructional minutes need to be increased.
He states that there is no way to “get in” all the content area instruction that must be
covered. Students are not receiving instruction in all of the science and social science
standards because there is just not enough time.
Further, the principal would like to have the help of an assistant principal. An
assistant principal would help support the principal with both managerial and
instructional duties.
Finally, the staff believes that it is time to adopt new language arts, mathematics
and English language development programs. According to teachers, the current language
arts program does not provide enough explicit instruction in academic vocabulary. The
mathematics program moves too quickly…teachers need to teach one or two new
416
concepts everyday. The program the school uses for English language development, SRA,
is not an English language development program.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
Aligning educational resources and strategies to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model
PDF
Resource allocation and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California with budget reductions
PDF
Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: Case studies of school level resource use in California middle schools
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools
PDF
Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies in rural single-school elementary districts
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of six California schools within two school districts
PDF
The allocation of resources at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers: What is adequate?
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of non-title I schools
PDF
Better is as better does: resource allocation in high performing schools
PDF
Evidence-based resource allocation model to improve student achievement: Case study analysis of three high schools
PDF
Resource allocation in successful schools: case studies of California elementary schools
PDF
Allocation of resources and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California Title I Program Improvement middle schools
PDF
School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools
PDF
School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement
PDF
Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of five California schools
PDF
Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress: a gap analysis of five southern California elementary schools
Asset Metadata
Creator
Corulla, Alicia Marie
(author)
Core Title
Resource use and instructional improvement strategies at the school-site level: case studies from ten southern California elementary schools
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Policy, Planning and Administration)
Publication Date
04/08/2009
Defense Date
03/02/2009
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
accountability,adequacy,evidence,instructional improvement,OAI-PMH Harvest,resources,school finance,school funding
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Picus, Lawrence O. (
committee chair
), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (
committee member
), Nelson, John L. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
acorulla@ggusd.us,corulla@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2067
Unique identifier
UC1421160
Identifier
etd-Corulla-2712 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-219900 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2067 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Corulla-2712.pdf
Dmrecord
219900
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Corulla, Alicia Marie
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
accountability
adequacy
instructional improvement
resources
school finance
school funding