University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An investigation of standards-based education under the auspices of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: a case study of one small rural school district

(USC Thesis Other)

An investigation of standards-based education under the auspices of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: a case study of one small rural school district

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN INVESTIGATION OF STANDARDS-BASED EDUCATION UNDER THE
AUSPICES OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001: A CASE STUDY
OF ONE SMALL RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
by
Jason A. Moore
__________________________________________________________________
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
August 2007
Copyright 2007 Jason A. Moore
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family
Jennifer Mary Moore
Katharina Ashley Moore
Kaitlyn Avalon Moore
Dr. Kim P. Moore
Lynda L. Moore
Without whose love, patience, and support,
writing this dissertation would not have been possible.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the following people as without their help and support
this project would never have been completed. Dr. Lawrence Picus who agreed to
take on this group based on an idea brought up in class. Members of the Orange
County Group, Frank Mora, James D. Reed, Jennifer Carter, Lisa Cain, Kevin
Thompson, Kati Ramazani, Jami Parsons, Bruce Mims, FIGHT ON. My friends in
Palm Springs who not only put up with me in the beginning stages of this project but
have been great supporters of my continuing career, Brad Sauer, Sue Hilsabeck,
Terri Simon, Lisa Belliveau. I would like to extend a very special thank you to
Wendy Birhanzel who has been a guiding light and inspiration. Finally, I would like
to thank Nancy Ramirez and the staff of Tiefort View Intermediate School for your
help and support in completing this project.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………..…………………..ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………..………………..iii
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………………………….vii
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………….………………viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................1
CURRENT CONTEXT............................................................................................................................1
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .....................................................................................................................7
IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY...............................................................................................................9
ASSUMPTIONS...................................................................................................................................10
LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................10
DELIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................11
DEFINITIONS.....................................................................................................................................12
Assessment:.................................................................................................................................12
Benchmark: .................................................................................................................................12
Categorical Programs:.................................................................................................................12
Consumer Price Index (CPI):......................................................................................................12
Content Standards: ......................................................................................................................12
Core Based Statistical Area (CSBA):..........................................................................................13
Data-Driven Decision Making: ...................................................................................................13
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): ...................................................................13
Equity:.........................................................................................................................................13
Implementation: ..........................................................................................................................13
Innovation: ..................................................................................................................................13
Instructional Improvement:.........................................................................................................13
Instructional Leadership:.............................................................................................................13
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): ..................................................................................................13
Performance Standards: ..............................................................................................................13
Professional Development: .........................................................................................................14
Reform: .......................................................................................................................................14
Sanctions:....................................................................................................................................14
Small School District Association (SSDA):................................................................................14
Social Promotion:........................................................................................................................14
Stakeholder: ................................................................................................................................14
Standards-based Reform: ............................................................................................................14
Title I:..........................................................................................................................................14
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD):......................................................................................14
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY.........................................................................................................15
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................16
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................16
MULTI-AGE INSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................17
History.........................................................................................................................................18
Background..................................................................................................................................20
Assessment .................................................................................................................................21
STANDARDS-BASED EDUCATION ......................................................................................................24
v
History.........................................................................................................................................24
Current National Context ............................................................................................................27
California Context.......................................................................................................................29
HISTORY OF SCHOOL FINANCE .........................................................................................................31
Early School Finance ..................................................................................................................33
Increased Federal School Funding ..............................................................................................36
California School Funding ..........................................................................................................37
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................40
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................41
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................41
SAMPLE AND POPULATION ...............................................................................................................42
OVERVIEW OF STANDARDS-BASED CURRICULUM DISTRICT AND SCHOOL.......................................43
DISTRICT/SCHOOL PARTICIPANTS’ DESCRIPTIONS ...........................................................................45
OVERVIEW OF TRADITIONAL SCHOOL SETTING................................................................................46
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK..............................................................................................................50
FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH QUESTION ONE ..................................................................................51
FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH QUESTION TWO .................................................................................51
FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH QUESTION THREE ..............................................................................52
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS ...................................................................................................52
INTERVIEW GUIDES ..........................................................................................................................53
DOCUMENT REVIEW GUIDE..............................................................................................................54
DATA COLLECTION...........................................................................................................................54
DATA ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................................55
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................56
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ................................................................................57
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................57
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS RESEARCH QUESTION ONE:........................................................................59
Questionnaire ..............................................................................................................................59
Interview .....................................................................................................................................59
Observation .................................................................................................................................61
Summary: Research Question 1 ..................................................................................................62
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS: RESEARCH QUESTION TWO .......................................................................63
Questionnaire ..............................................................................................................................63
Interviews....................................................................................................................................65
Observation .................................................................................................................................67
Document Analysis .....................................................................................................................71
Summary: Research Question 2 ..................................................................................................72
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS: RESEARCH QUESTION 3 .............................................................................73
Questionnaire ..............................................................................................................................73
Interviews....................................................................................................................................75
Observation .................................................................................................................................76
Document Analysis .....................................................................................................................77
Summary: Research Question 3 ..................................................................................................77
DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................................78
Theme One: Resources allocated for Human Capital .................................................................79
Theme Two: Collaborative Model ..............................................................................................81
vi
Theme Three: Data Driven Decision Making ............................................................................81
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................82
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................84
SUMMARY OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................................84
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................................85
RESEARCH QUESTIONS .....................................................................................................................85
METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................86
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................................87
RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................90
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH OPEN ENDED HUMAN CAPITAL QUESTIONS
ADDED ..............................................................................................................................................104
APPENDIX B: DOCUMENT ANALYSIS ......................................................................................106
APPENDIX C: PARTICIPANT LETTER ........................................................................................107
APPENDIX D: OBSERVATION GUIDE ........................................................................................108
APPENDIX E: DOCUMENT REVIEW...........................................................................................109
APPENDIX F: CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH ....................................................110
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Percentage of students expected to achieve
proficient or better by the target year as measured
by Annual Measured Objective. . . … . . . . . . . ………. …… . . . . 03
Table 2: No Child Left Behind Program Improvement
Timeline if Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is not met ………………04
Table 3: NCES Statistical Information From Target School……………..…….09
Table 4: Shrader Elementary School District and Shrader
Elementary, Comparison Student Population Counts.....……….…. . . . 49
Table 5: Shrader Elementary School Enrollment by Ethnicity..................... 50
Table 6: ABC Elementary School Comparison Student
Population Counts……………………………………………..…..…….52
Table 7: ABC Elementary School Enrollment by Ethnicity…………...………..53
Table 8: Relationship of Data Collection Instruments to
Research Questions………. ……………………………………….……. .
54
Table 9: Relationship Between the Six Core Strategies
and the Research Questions…............................................. . . . ... . . . .55
Table 10.0: Classified Staffing at Traditional School…………………..……..71
Table 10.1: Teacher Assignment for Traditional School…………………..….72
Table 10.2: Classified Staffing at Standards-based School…………...……….73
Table 10.3: Teacher Assignment at Standards-based School…………...……..74
Table 11: Education, Social & Economic Benefits
of Including Students With Disabilities…………………….………96
viii
ABSTRACT
Over the past forty years education in America has been in a reform mode.
The latest reform has come in the form of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB). NCLB has dictated standards to all schools in the nation. While many
schools have joined the reform movement, few have made the systemic changes
necessary to sustain achievement. A particular concern among reformers is the
effect of standards reform on the urban and/or rural poor (Diegmueller, 1995).
This dissertation examines one rural school district’s efforts to develop a
standards-based education program. This school meets the federal criteria for both
poor and rural having 100% of its students qualifying for the free and reduced lunch
program. In addition, over 30% of the student population comes to school without
knowledge of the English language. In spite of these apparent disadvantages, the
school has achieved success as exhibited by a growth of over 100 points as measured
by the California Academic Performance Index (API).
A qualitative, descriptive-analytic case study methodology was employed to
provide an in-depth investigation of the school site’s implementation of fiduciary and
curricular matters. The study looked at three questions: (a) how human
resources were allocated (b) how financial and personnel decisions were made and
(c) could the school’s success be replicated.
ix
Three main themes which pointed to reasons for the school’s success
emerged in answer to the above questions. First, all of the school’s resources
focused on student achievement. Second, most curricular decisions were made in a
collaborative manner. Finally, all decisions were based on data.
Interestingly, and more importantly, two subjective motifs were also
revealed. The primary finding from this study is that the leader’s flexibility in
decision making throughout the school’s transformation was the single most
significant contributor to the school’s academic success. Secondly, the school’s
success was predicated upon a clear and unwavering vision of student achievement.
.
1
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
Education in America has been receiving critical reviews over the past 40
years. The most notable of the critiques have come from The Coleman Report
(Coleman, 1966), A Nation At Risk (National Commission on Excellence, 1983),
and most recently, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB 2001). NCLB is
seen by some as a critique of our public education system, and by others as a strong
federal effort to improve our ailing schools. The NCLB reports have emphasized the
failures in our public education system and offered solutions to build the minds and
character of every child from every background, in every part of America (NCLB,
2002). Every school and every district in this nation has been tasked with the
responsibility to make sure that no child is left behind. Taxpayers have demanded
accountability at every level of government. The question the average taxpayer
wants to know? What results are being seen as a result of large expenditures in the
area of education by local, state and the federal government? Do we need to spend
more money on our education system or do we need to change the way we educate
our students? This study looks at an alternate way to spend the monies allocated by
government for education and will focus primarily on an alternative curricular
program that will satisfy both the need and demand to "leave no child behind."
Current Context
2
In 2002 Congress and President George Bush reauthorized the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, last authorized in 1994 when William Clinton
was President. According to the administration, more than 130 billion dollars has
been allocated to public schools to address our neediest students, yet per the 2002
NCLB report, little or no gain had been made (NCLB, 2002).
NCLB addresses every area of public education; however, it lays a heavy
emphasis on reading in the K-3 population. NCLB directs schools to have their
students achieving at certain levels by certain benchmark dates (Table 1). If for some
reason this goal is not achieved, the school is deemed a failing school. Once the
moniker of "failing school" is attached to a school, sanctions and directives soon
follow per the NCLB legislation.
Schools are judged as being successful by meeting the Annual Measurable
Objectives (AMO). The AMO's are the percentage of students at each grade level
and in each school that score at a proficient or advanced level on the state measure of
proficiency. Unfortunately, the AMO numbers cannot be used to compare students
across states because each state is free to pick a test and to define proficiency. The
minimum expected percentage rates used by the federal government to determine a
school's AMO are given below in Table 1.
Table 1: Percentage of students expected to achieve proficient or better by the target
year as measured by Annual Measured Objective (AMO).
3
*ELA = English/Language Arts
(Source: NCLB, 2002)
Schools that meet their Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) as seen in
figure 1 have taken the first step toward making the all important Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP). Schools that do not make the AMO's are considered to have not
made Adequate Yearly Progress. Such schools are referred to as "Program
Improvement" schools and are subject to the sanctions doled out in accordance with
the timeline given in figure 2 below. NCLB sanctions are predicated upon a school
accepting federal funds. Schools that do not accept federal funding may be listed as
"Program Improvement," but are not subject to the sanctions listed below.
Table 2: No Child Left Behind Program Improvement Timeline if Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) is not met (NCLB, 2002).
4
The sanctions against schools/district for failure to make AYP are formulaic;
however, they are not standard across the states. For example, in order to meet the
AYP in California each school/district must first meet the state Academic
Performance Index (API). The API calculations for the state of California are a very
complicated process and are based on many varied factors. The following is an
excerpt from Edsource Online explaining the process:
5
For a school with a Base API score below 800, the annual growth
target is 5% of the difference between 800 and its Base score. (The
idea is that a school should be able to close the gap between its
current score and the state goal by 5% in one year. The farther a
school’s score is from the goal, the greater its growth target.) For
example, a school with a Base score of 500 would have a growth
target of 15 because that is 5% of the difference between 800 and 500.
The growth target for schools with Base scores of 800 and above is to
maintain their scores at 800 or above. Subgroup growth targets are
generally 80% of the school’s target. So for a school with a Base
score of 500, the subgroup targets would be 12 (80% of 15 = 12).
Beginning with the 2006 Base API (released in March 2007), all
subgroups as well as the school as a whole will be expected to
improve by at least 5% of the difference between each of their scores
and 800 or a minimum of 5 points, whichever is greater. For example,
if English learners at a school scored 700 in the 2006 Base API, their
growth target score in 2007 would be 705 (800 - 700 = 100; 100 x 5%
= 5; 700 + 5 = 705). If the overall 2006 Base API for their school is
760, the school-wide growth target would be 765 because of the 5-
point minimum requirement.
The API does not reflect individual students’ test-score growth. It
summarizes a school’s performance in one year (Base) and compares
it to the school’s performance in the following year (Growth), but the
groups of students in each year are different. For example, in a K–5
elementary school, the Base API would include scores of fifth graders
who would not be attending the school during the Growth API year.
(http://www.edsource.org/pub_edfct_api.cfm)
While API originally came with its own set of rewards and punishments,
California has, for all practical purposes, attempted to fold its state program into the
federal (NCLB) program as evidenced by California Education Code 60602 sub-
section(5):
“Develop assessments that are comparable to the National
Assessment of Educational Progress and other national and
6
international assessment efforts, so that California's local and
state test results are reported in a manner that corresponds to the
national test results. Test results should be reported in terms
describing a pupil's academic performance in relation to the
statewide academically rigorous content and performance standards
adopted by the State Board of Education and in terms of employment
skills possessed by the pupil, in addition to being reported as
numerical or percentile scores.”(California Education Code 2007)..
California responded to the federal NCLB legislation by developing "world
class" state standards and a rigorous curriculum that adheres to the standards and by
directing all school districts to adhere to these standards or risk losing both Federal
and State funding for the school and district. The state however, left the specific
details of instruction and NCLB implementation to local district school boards. Most
medium-sized and large school districts have put on their reform hats and have
implemented the new curriculum and have made changes in the instructional
program that include data based decision making. However, they are unable to make
the broad, sweeping, and systemic changes needed due to the realities of entrenched
boards, bureaucrats and unions. Many districts have found innovative ways in which
to address the needs of NCLB. This study looks at one of those districts.
The requirements of the federal program are very specific and include such
items as how schools spend federal funds, what training and background teachers
should have, and how parents should be involved in the school and educational
program. The penalties are severe for schools not making AYP and include required
tutoring, transporting students to a non-program improvement school, and, in year
7
five, placing the school under alternative governance (NCLB, 2002). The Federal
Government's carrot (federal title funding) and stick (sanctions, including a loss of
funding and school reorganization) program has made an absolute demand on each
state to develop a set of standards that will ensure that all students are proficient in
every subject by the year 2013 (Table 1, P.3).
Purpose of the Study
One of the best ways to study resource allocations and systemic change is to
"follow the money." Looking at how money allocation is handled in a district is an
indicator as to the strength of the academic programs offered. The purpose of this
study is to understand how small rural schools allocate the funding received from
federal, state and local sources. Rural school is defined by the United States Census
Bureau as;
“Territory, population, and housing units not classified as urban
constitute "rural." In the 100-percent data products,"rural" is divided
into "places of less than 2,500" and "not in places." The "not in places"
category comprises "rural" outside incorporated and census designated
places and the rural portions of extended cities. In many data products,
the term "other rural" is used; "other rural" is a residual category
specific to the classification of the rural in each data product” (U.S.
Census Bureau).
Additionally, the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) has
given the school studied a Locale/Code of “rural” using their own and the census
bureau classification (Table 3).
Table 3: NCES Statistical Information From Target School
8
School Name:
Shrader Elementary
District Name:
Shrader Elementary
County:
San
Bernardino
School Characteristics
Grade Span: (grades KG - 6)
KG1 2 3 4 5 6
Total Students: 126
Classroom Teachers (FTE): 7.0
Student/Teacher Ratio: 18.0
Type: Regular school
Locale/Code:
Rural, inside
CBSA / 8
Status:
Currently
operational
Charter: no Magnet: no
Title I
School:
yes
Title I School-Wide
Program:
yes
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment by Grade:
KG 1 2 3 4 5 6
Students 20 15 23 26 13 14 15
Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity:
Amer Ind/
Alaskan
Asian Black Hispanic White
Students 1 0 6 95 23
Enrollment by Gender:
Male Female Unknown
Students 60 65 0
Free lunch eligible: 120Reduced-price lunch eligible: 3Migrant Students: 0
The study documents the spending and resource allocation strategies of one
small school district in Southern California in relationship to personnel, curriculum,
food services, and facilities. The most important aspect of this study will focus on
the academic program being offered the students in this K-6 school district.
9
The district, with school board approval, has adopted a curriculum that is
entirely standards-based. There is no social promotion; in fact, no student may
advance to the next set of standards until the previous set has been mastered.
Therefore, no student will take the required state test in the third grade until the
student has mastered the third level of state standards. The research questions
addressed by this study are:
1. How are human resources allocated to focus on state and federal
academic standards?
2. How are decisions made to allocate resources (human, financial, etc.) in
order to meet state and federal academic standards?
3. Is it feasible or advisable to transfer the rural district financial and
educational design to larger school districts and maintain the strengths of
the program?
Importance of the Study
This study may serve as a resource for a varied audience. For the rural district
administrator it will show how each student is funded within their school system.
This will assist the rural administrator in determining where monies have been
allocated and a course of action in future budgeting. Rural district administrators will
also be able to determine a dollar amount being spent on each of the programs
offered at the school, including professional development, and a per classroom cost.
10
The data generated by this study will also serve school site council members,
as well as board members, when deliberating and approving future budgets.
Understanding the complexities of the budget process should illuminate areas of
need within the budget and allocation of resources that may need to be adjusted.
This study will be important to statewide organizations such as the Small
School District Association (SSDA) who are advocates for the rural schools in
California. The data provided will direct the legislative actions that they pursue.
Assumptions
For this study, the following assumptions are made:
1. The measures are reliable and valid indicators of the constructs to be studied.
2. The data will be accurately recorded and analyzed.
3. The purposes, processes, and elements of the framework studied have a
degree of applicability and generalizability to schools and districts throughout
the state.
4. The research, data gathering, and findings and conclusions of the study
represent “good research.”
Limitations
11
This study will encompass a single rural school located in San Bernardino
County, California. The district/school currently has 120 students and a full-time
staff of six. The study will examine a history of the school's financial status as well
as personnel placement history. With the hiring of a new Superintendent in July of
2005, a current look at the financial status and staffing was analyzed. Finally, the
study concluded in October of 2006 when API and AYP numbers were published
and disseminated. The results of the study are limited to a one year study; any
results may be skewed by the short term nature of the study.
Delimitations
Because this case study is a descriptive, analytic case study, the data gathered
is delimited to one small rural school district. The district was selected purposefully
based on pre-selected criteria: It was considered representative of small rural
districts in California who have initiated reform measures based on the requirements
of NCLB. The size of the sample is delimited to the district superintendent, six
teachers and two classified staff members. This small sample size may limit the
ability to generalize the study’s results to other settings. The short period of data
collection is also a delimitation as it only provides a snapshot of the innovation and
not a long term view of the district’s efforts. The short time frame of the study does
not allow for longitudinal analysis of student assessment data; findings of this study
12
are delimited to the district leaders’ understanding of how the innovations are
affecting teaching and learning.
Definitions
Academic Performance Index (AP)):
California’s numerical indicator of student achievement, used as a basis for a
comparative ranking of schools statewide.
Accountability:
A designed effort or system that hold districts, schools, and/or students
responsible for student performance. Accountability systems typically consist of
assessments, public reporting of results, and rewards or sanctions based upon student
performance over time (Elmore, 2002).
Annual Measurable Objective (AMO):
A set of state established benchmarks for monitoring changes in
performance among and across student subgroups, schools, and districts.
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP):
A statewide accountability system mandated by the NCLB Act of 2001 which
requires each state to ensure that all schools and districts make adequate yearly
progress.
Assessment:
A measurement of a student’s particular skill or knowledge that may be written,
oral, or performance in nature. Standardized assessments are administered and
scored in exactly the same way for all students and are designed to measure specific
skills and knowledge.
Benchmark:
An articulated expectation of student performance at specific grades, ages, or
developmental levels.
Categorical Programs:
Programs such as Title I which have been created through state or federal
legislation and explicitly targets and funds for a specific purpose.
Consumer Price Index (CPI):
A program that produces monthly data on changes in the prices paid by urban
consumers for a representative basket of goods and services.
Content Standards:
13
As the foundation of a standards-based system, content standards describe what
content knowledge and skills students must master (American Federation of
Teachers, 2001).
Core Based Statistical Area (CSBA):
In 2000, the Census adopted the term “Core Based Statistical Area” (CBSA),
which refers collectively to metropolitan statistical areas and (the newly introduced
concept of) micropolitan statistical areas.
Data-Driven Decision Making:
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 data on function, quantity and quality of inputs, and how students learn to
suggest educational solutions (Massell, 2000).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA):
Also known as NCLB. ESEA is to provide all children with a fair, equal, and
significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education.
Equity:
Educational impartiality that ensures all students receive fair treatment and have
access to the services they need in order to receive a high quality education.
Implementation:
The translating of an idea into action in order to accomplish the specified goal.
Innovation:
An effort, strategy or plan whose goal is to improve instruction by changing what
currently exists.
Instructional Improvement:
A change in the structures or opportunities that enable quality teaching that
results in improved learning (Gilbert et al., 2002).
Instructional Leadership:
An influence that guides the activities that impart knowledge or skills to
students.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB):
A United States Federal law that reauthorizes a number of federal programs
that aim to improve the performance of America’s primary and secondary schools by
increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts and schools, as
well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children
will attend (Spring, 2004).
Performance Standards:
14
The level of performance that students are expected to demonstrate in relation
to the content standards; such as, basic, proficient, or advanced levels of performance
(Hambleton, 1999).
Professional Development:
Opportunities for staff to develop new knowledge and skills that will
improve their teaching ability. Also termed “staff development” in some literature.
Reform:
A change effort that is undertaken to improve the educational system.
Sanctions:
The consequences imposed for not meeting expected performance outcomes
in some accountability systems.
Small School District Association (SSDA):
An organization established in 1983 in order to advocate the concerns,
welfare, and special needs of small school districts throughout California.
Social Promotion:
Students who are promoted without regard to their achievement.
Stakeholder:
Any person with an interest in the operation and outcomes of the specific
education system, including administrators, teachers, parents, students, and
community members.
Standards-based Reform:
The change to an educational system that utilizes subject matter benchmarks
to measure student achievement. Assessments that are aligned with standards to
measure student performance, in accountability systems that provide rewards or
sanctions to districts, schools, and students based on student performance. Full
implementation of all three components standards, assessment, and accountability is
also termed standards-based accountability.
Title I:
A program that provides financial assistance to schools with high numbers or
high percentages of poor children to help ensure that all children meet challenging
state academic standards.
Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD):
The difference between what a child can do with help and what he or she can
do without guidance (Vygotsky, 1978).
15
Organization of the Study
Chapter One of this study introduces and provides an argument for studying
the school/district’s role in improving student learning through innovations brought
about by No Child Left Behind. Included in Chapter One is the introduction, the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study and the research questions, the
importance of the study, the study’s limitations and delimitations, and the definition
of terms. Chapter Two is a comprehensive review of the current literature on issues
that provide the foundation and context for the study. Chapter Three discusses the
methodology of the study, including a rationale and description of the sample, data
collection techniques and instruments, and data analysis strategies. Chapter Four
presents the findings, including an analysis and discussion of research questions and
the related findings. In Chapter Five, the final chapter, the findings are summarized,
and conclusions are drawn about what the findings mean and what implications they
have for future research. References and appendixes follow the final chapter to
conclude the study.
16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Introduction
“America’s public schools have utterly failed the poor.” (Carter 2000). Over
half of low income 4
th
graders cannot read with understanding (Donahue, et al. 1998)
Almost two-thirds of low income 8
th
graders cannot multiply or divide two digit
numbers (Education Week 1998). Teachers, administrators, and parents use various
excuses for these startling statistics. The most common ones reverberate through the
halls of each school building in America; the student comes from a broken home, the
parents are really poor, the education system is racist, and I never used that stuff in
real life, why does my student need to learn it (Carter, 2000).
The attack on the American education system has not come from just parents
and teachers. In fact, our own government attacked the education system in 1983
with the much vaunted A Nation at Risk: “Our nation is at risk. Our once
unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological
innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world…the education
foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of
mediocrity…” (A Nation at Risk, 1983).
The latest assault on the public education system comes, once again, from the
federal government. With the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 by George Bush in 2002 the stage has been set for Federal
17
control of the American public education system. However, a few ground-breaking
districts have studied the tenets of the NCLB legislation and made changes in the
way that students are educated. These districts have taken the NCLB legislation and
deduced that they can no longer educate students in the same way. The innovations
that have been instituted throughout the districts may have impact on the future of
education. The innovations come in the form of multi-age instruction, true
standards-based education, and fiduciary changes that maximize student learning and
minimize top heavy district office structures.
Multi-age Instruction
Multi-age instruction takes place when students are placed in classrooms
based not on age but on ability and emotional maturity. Many students who are
involved in multi-age instruction are frequently regrouped for different curricular
activities rather than being “consistently segregated by chronological age” (Gaustad,
1997). "In a multi-age classroom children of differing ages work together with
each child participating to the best of his or her abilities" (Osin & Lesgold, 1996).
Accordingly, the practice of multi-age instruction acknowledges that students learn
at different rates and in different ways (Gaustad, 1997).
Unfortunately, multi-age classrooms are often confused with multigrade
classrooms. However there are differences: multi-age classrooms do not recognize
grade levels of students. Additionally, in multi-age classrooms the curricular
18
program is directed to the entire group, rather than being distinctly separated by
grade level. In a multigrade classroom different grades are taught by one teacher
with separate curricula for each grade (Montes, 1996).
Multigrade classrooms are often brought about as a response to declining
enrollment. This is usually a forced decision made by administration and not one of
choice made by the student or parent. Multi-age classes are organized for the purpose
of benefiting different age children without segregating by grade levels (Veenman,
1996).
History
One room school houses placed the early seeds for multi-age instruction. The
early school house model allowed for peer tutoring and for the students to learn from
each other. Students of all ages attended school together and the instruction was
tailored to each of the student’s individual needs (Grant, et al., 1995).
In the mid 1800’s, the graded school system was introduced to America by
Horace Mann. Mann believed that a democracy required educated citizens (Grant,
et a1.,1995). Mass public education called for an efficient means of handling a
growing population of students. The answer was to divide students by age and the
graded system was born (Gaustad, 1992).
19
This system was accepted across the United States and has remained the
standard to present (Goodlad & Anderson, 1987). In the 1950s through the 1970s an
attempt was directed at matching an understanding of child growth and development
with nongradedness. The Open classroom and team teaching were reflections of this
movement in education (Anderson, 1993).
In the 1990s, reform movements by educators and the public have tried to
meet the needs of a widely diverse society. Nongraded primary education has
been one response to these needs (Gaustad, 1992). Mixed-age models of
education are based on the developmental theories of Jean Piaget, Jerome Bruner,
and others. These theories recognize that children learn at varying rates. One
child's mental age may vary from another child by as much as four years.
Proponents of multi-age education stress the importance of extending the age
range in a classroom to accommodate this variance in mental age. A policy of not
retaining a child in a set grade, but allowing that child to progress in the same
classroom over a period of time encourages a positive, successful, situation for a
child, rather than one of failure (Cushman,1996). Anderson and Pavan (1993)
listed an acceptance and respect for individual differences in the pupil
population as a first point in their operational definition of nongraded schools.
They included with this a focus on a wide variety of instructional approaches
to respond to individual student needs. As teachers became more familiar with a
20
student’s needs, interests and abilities, consideration was given to providing
individualized learning opportunities that matched that child's uniqueness. The
objective of assessment in the multi-age classroom is to focus on individual
progress over time rather than comparing one student's progress to another
student's achievement. Emphasis is moved away from competition and
comparison to authentic assessment (Bingham, et al,, 1995).
Background
In a synthesis of research in the area of multi-age instruction, Johnson and
Johnson cited evidence that interactive involvement among classmates may be one
of the most cost effective “support systems” for increasing academic achievement.
According to Slavin (1992), “Under the right motivational conditions, peers can
and, more important, will provide explanations in another’s proximinal zones of
development [as described as Vygotsky], and will engage in the kind of cognitive
conflict needed for disequilibration and cognitive growth [as described by Piaget]”
(p.1166).
Authentic assessment is not just one method of assessing. It includes many
ways of looking at a student's progress. Observations, portfolio collections, and
interviewing are examples of this holistic assessment. Each method brings the
teacher's understanding of how learning takes place to the child's expression of their
acquired knowledge (Routman, 1994).
21
Assessment
Attention needs to be given to development of a system of assessment. The
assessment program needs to include management techniques for reporting progress
to parents, as well as the state mandated testing. Within the uniqueness of a multi-
age classroom teachers interact with a wide variety of students and ability levels,
therefore a comprehensive, user friendly system of assessment that does not
overburden the teacher or take away from precious instructional time needs to be
employed (Anderson & Pavan, 1993).
One assessment system that many multi-age classrooms use is a portfolio
system. A portfolio system will meet the assessment criteria by enabling teachers to
collect information in an ongoing fashion as a part of daily learning. Portfolio
assessment accomplishes three main goals: documenting student growth and
progress, supporting and guiding instruction, and communicating information about
students to teachers, parents and students (Stone, 1995).
Another way to assess student growth and plan instruction, especially in
California, is the use of a standards-based report card. The standards-based report
card is a booklet that lists each standard and sub-standard for the grade level. With
this tool teachers check off each standard mastered and a constant report is available
for teachers to plan instruction, and for parents and students to keep track of current
22
progress towards mastery of the set goals (Grant, 1995; Stone, 1995; Mazzuchi &
Brooks, 1993).
Drawbacks
There are drawbacks to embarking on the path of the multi-age model. The
multi-age model is labor intensive and requires more planning, collaboration, and
professional development than the conventional graded classroom (Miller, 1996;
Gaustad, 1992; American Association of School Administrators, 1992; Cushman,
1993). As with any quality program, sufficient planning time must be arranged to
meet the needs of both teachers and students. Insufficient planning, staff
development, materials, support, and assessment procedures will impact the success
of the multi-age program (Fox, 1997; Miller, 1996; Nye, 1993).
Teachers who have not received professional development on working with
different ages in the same classroom may be unfamiliar with the necessary steps and
planning required to be successful. The teacher new to the program may confuse the
multi-age classroom with a split class structure and try to teach a different
curriculum for each grade level in the class. This is a sure path towards failure
(Stone, 1995). Focusing on the needs of individual children and using a multi-age
curriculum are essential in multi-age classes.
For the administrator of a multi-age classroom great care must be taken when
determining the composition of a classroom. Multi-age classroom must be kept as
23
heterogeneous as possible. Administrators should shun ability grouped classes and
grouping high achieving students with lower achieving older students (Stone, 1995).
Katz (1996) addresses some of the potential risks of mixed-age grouping:
“Younger children may feel intimidated or overwhelmed by more competent
classmates, and they may become burdens to older ones by continually
asking for help. Older children may not be sufficiently challenged in the
classroom, and they may become overbearing or bossy with younger
children. To remedy these situations, teachers can offer reassurance to
younger children that skills will develop over time; teachers also can
encourage younger children to practice skills on their own instead of
interrupting the older children. Likewise, teachers must remember to provide
challenges for the older and more experienced children; this approach is
important in every classroom, even when student age is not a factor” (Stone,
1995; Katz, 1992).
With regard to potential behavioral problems, the risk of bullying in mixed-
age groups actually is less than in traditional graded schools because older students
develop leadership skills and patience when working with younger children.
The classroom size and layout may not be conducive to multi-age practice.
The room should be large enough to provide adequate space for individual, small-
group, and large-group work. The room arrangement should establish areas for
learning centers and provide separate sections for active and quiet activities.
Children should have easy access to learning materials and manipulatives (Fox,
1996).
One of the pitfalls that many new multi-age programs fall into is the lack of
ongoing evaluation. Program evaluation will provide valuable feedback and
24
indicates whether set goals are being reached. In addition to monitoring student
progress, schools can use an evaluation and self assessment tool to evaluate their
own progress in implementing various components of the multi-age classroom.
Simply grouping students of varying ages together in a classroom will not
yield the results that are desired, or that research has documented. In order to obtain
these benefits thoughtful planning must occur, all elements must be incorporated into
a school plan (Katz, 1992).
Standards-based Education
History
With political pressures mounting and parents calling for private and charter
school vouchers, the federal government made the unprecedented decision to throw
its hat into the education arena. Traditionally the role of education had always fallen
to the states. Through federal funding and initiatives, the standards-based education
model was born.
In 1989 President Bush called together the governors of the 50 states to
establish some general goals for education. The governor’s commission published
The National Education Goals Report: Building a Nation of Learners. When
President Bush presented his plan to Congress he stated: “When some of our
children have trouble locating America on the map of the world, it is time for us to
map a new approach to education” (Bush, 1989). One of the declared goals was for
25
educators to map out what students should know upon completion of each grade
level. The report presented did offer some general goals to be reached by the year
2000. These goals were very broad and did not offer a practical way to achieve
them. For instance goal four reads: “By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in
the world in science and mathematics achievement” (National Education Goals
Panel, 1991).
After the summit of governors, two separate groups were established to make
sure the goals were implemented; the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) and
the National Council on Education Standards and Testing (NCEST). With the
establishment of these two groups there was a national scramble from many of the
national subject matter organizations to set standards in their own areas (Marzano &
Kendall, 1998).
It is generally agreed among researchers that the former Assistant Secretary
of Education, Diane Ravitch, was the chief architect of the modern standards
movement in the United States. Ravitch, in her book National Standards in
American Education: A Citizen’s Guide (Ravitch, 1995) states:
“Americans…expect strict standards to govern construction of
buildings, bridges, highways, and tunnels; shoddy work would put
lives at risk. They expect stringent standards to protect their drinking
water, the food they eat, and the air they breathe…Standards are
created because they improve the activity of life (p. 8-9).”
26
The standards movement became a huge media event and prompted many
critics and many researchers to speak out. One of the issues raised by the critics of
national standards was the lack of resources. “Theodore Sizer, founder of the
Coalition of Essential Schools, noted that in many classrooms, “The maps on the
walls still call [Zaire] the Belgian Congo. Those are the things that just cry out for
attention.” (Diegmueller, 1995).
Other critics worried that the national standards movement would oppress
those students that were already doing poorly. One such critic, Michael Apple, said
“National standards and national testing are the first steps toward educational
apartheid under the rhetoric of accountability.” (Diegmueller, 1995). Still more
critics complained that standards were another attempt at failed reform, the content
of the standards lacked diversity, and that too much material was being taught
(Marzano & Kendall, 1998).
In 1994 President Clinton introduced the Goals 2000 Act of 1994 with the
idea of preparing America to compete in the twenty-first century global economy.
The idea behind the Goals 2000 Act was to introduce a national framework for
educational reform. In addition, the Goals 2000 Act was to improve teaching and
learning as well as provide educational opportunities in an equitable manner (USDE,
1998). Part of President Clinton’s political platform for re-election was a promise to
“fix” the educational system in America; Goals 2000 was the way he kept his
27
promise to the country. In an era where students were being promoted to the next
grade level based on age and not on ability level, President Clinton challenged every
school district to adopt high standards [and] abolish social promotion.
Also in 1994 Congress passed the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA),
which amended the original ESEA. The reauthorization of the original 1965 statue
brought major reform to current education law and practice (Robelen, 2001). These
reforms changed Title I compulsory education for disadvantaged students. The
reauthorized ESEA also required states to develop academic content and
performance standards and student assessments that aligned with the developed
standards. Finally, the IASA required an accountability system that ensured the
academic standards would be met. The IASA required that these reforms be applied
to all public schools throughout the country, including children with identified
disabilities and students not deemed proficient in the English language. A failure to
comply with the federal statute would result in a loss of federal categorical funding.
Current National Context
In 2001 President Bush followed in his predecessors’ footsteps and
introduced more sweeping reforms in his reauthorization of the ESEA. The label
President Bush placed upon these reforms, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), presented
his philosophy regarding education in America. Upon the introduction of these
28
reforms, President Bush stated, “too many children in America are segregated by low
expectations, illiteracy, and self doubt” (Bush, 2002). President Bush challenged
educators to implement reform based on data received from assessment results, and
on research based curricular practices. President Bush also called for the same
things that every President has called for since the beginning of the space race, “We
must address the low standing of American test scores among industrial nations in
math and science, the very subjects most likely to affect our future competitiveness”
(Bush, 2002).
The NCLB Act has forced many states to change their entire accountability
systems that were developed under the Improving America’s School Act of 1994
(Olson, 2002). NCLB introduced the requirement that schools and districts in each
state demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). AYP is defined by each
individual state based on the state defined standards for proficiency. Each state was
mandated to define what would qualify students as being far below basic, below
basic, basic, proficient, or advanced. The goal for each state is to have 100% of
students at proficient or above by the year 2014. NCLB has raised the educational
stakes for all schools in the United States of America. If AYP is not achieved by
either the individual school, or by the district as a whole, the federal government and
the state will impose sanctions against the school or district to force improvement in
educational practices (Cawelti & Protheroe, 2003). The requirements of NCLB has
29
many school districts searching for answers on how to improve instructional
strategies and teaching methods in order to meet the tenets of NCLB.
California Context
The California Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) passed in 1999
was California’s answer to statewide accountability. The PSAA established the
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program, as well as the Academic
Performance Index (API). The API is a system that measures schools against each
other and has a top score of 1000 with a goal set by the state of 800. When the
STAR program was established, it relied heavily on standardized, norm-referenced
tests in order to measure the API. However, the PSAA had a built in transition plan
to phase out norm referenced tests and to initiate the California Standards Test (CST)
and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) to determine how well
schools are meeting the state defined standards (EdSource, 2000).
As part of the API, a rewards and sanctions system was also put into place for
meeting or not meeting the established goals. Some of the incentives included
monetary incentives for schools through the Governor’s Performance Award (GPA)
and for teachers through the Staff Performance Incentive Award. The sanctions
imposed by PSAA for failure to meet the growth targets were imposed through the
Immediate Intervention/Underperforming School Program (II/USP). California was
confident that the systems already in place, STAR, CST’s, and the CAHSEE were
30
sufficient to determine AYP (OCDE, 2003). However, California did not delineate
the subgroups of poverty, English Language Learners (ELL) or special needs
students into the API which is required by the AYP.
Standards-based Reform
The high stakes accountability systems now in place in the United States
have been the impetuous for standards-based reforms throughout the country. The
requirements imposed by NCLB have had many positive effects on the education
system as a whole. A plethora of studies show that attitudes and beliefs among
educators and parents have changed. The efforts being put forth by educators to
“leave no child behind” have put a new focus on developing the teacher, and have
centered on establishing equity and equality for all students not just the academically
achieving student (Gilbert et al., 2002). In this era of NCLB, teachers are no longer
allowed to teach in isolation. Instead they are part of collaborative groups that strive
to develop systems and procedures to assist all students. Additionally, administrators
are recognizing the need to tailor professional development to the needs of the
teachers. No longer is professional development different every week or month,
instead it is meaningful and sustained.
Although there have been great strides made toward meeting the goals of
NCLB, there are those who have resisted the changes imposed by NCLB. Resistance
has come from many sources: some teacher’s unions who feel the necessity to
31
protect teachers from doing more work for the same pay: Many of the teachers who
were teaching prior to the imposition of NCLB had low expectations for certain
groups of students; Educators who have been in the profession for a number of years
and have seen reforms come and go, and think that this too will pass; Administrators
who have been in the profession for a number of years and who are now being asked
to be educational leaders as well as administrators; District office personnel who are
having a hard time budgeting the required resources to fully implement NCLB.
No Child Left Behind is due to be reauthorized in 2007, and according to
President Bush and his Secretary of Education Margret Spelling, there will be little,
if any change to the current context of NCLB. School districts across the nation are
looking for ways to improve the education of their students in order to meet the
stringent educational standards imposed by NCLB.
History of School Finance
Originally education in the United States was the sole purview of the local
community in which the school was located. In fact, the first school finance laws
were enacted by Massachusetts in 1642 and 1647 and required that all towns and
villages maintain a public school. The law in Massachusetts required every town or
village to either establish a school or pay a monetary fee to a larger town to provide
educational services to its children. The law also required towns with fifty or more
students to hire a teacher that would exclusively teach reading and writing. Towns
32
with at least one hundred families were required to establish a secondary school.
The schools were to be “…supported by masters, parents, or the inhabitants in
general, thereby establishing one of the first systems of financing schools through
local taxation” (Odden & Picus, 2000).
Massachusetts laws were at the forefront of educational reform when, most
communities carried over the system that they knew from England. England’s
system relied on the private citizen to pay for their own child’s education. Thusly,
most early schooling in the United States was heavily religious and private. The goal
of these early schools, outside of Massachusetts, was to educate the student enough
so that Bible study was possible. It took over forty years before another of the
colonies, New Hampshire, passed another education law.
Over the next one hundred years, many more schools were being established
by individual communities and supported by local taxation. As the colonies were
absorbed into the United States there was a much stronger interest in education. The
government was very interested in a citizenry that could take part in the newly
established democracy (Odden & Picus, 2000).
In the early 1800’s Thomas Jefferson proposed a system of free public
elementary schools. While his proposal was not adopted, a later version proposed
through the work of Horace Mann and Henry Bernard, the public school movement
was born (Campbell et al., 1990).
33
Early School Finance
The early design for school financing revolved around the community where
the school was located. A schoolhouse could be established if there were six or more
families in a community that were willing to contribute to the upkeep of the one
room school. This financial structure was prevalent until about 1826 when
Massachusetts established the local school board. The school board was to function
as a separate government body from the state government (Campbell et al., 1990).
“Control over schools was a problematic aspect in crafting statewide education
systems. The resolution to the control issue was creation of boards of education that,
it was argued, would function in place of parents and the church” (Odden & Picus,
2000).
In 1848 Boston established the first school that was segregated by grade
levels. The twelve classroom school accommodated eight grade levels. By the end
of the 1800’s the separated grades model was the norm and not the exception. This
school model took fiscal control away from the parents and the church and gave
control of fiduciary responsibility to the local school boards.
Concurrent to the establishment of the multiple grade level schools, another
movement was underway to establish state control over education. State
constitutions were being re-written to establish state government responsibility over
the financial solvency of schools. Today every state in the union has provisions in
34
their state constitutions that relate to providing a free public education to all children
(Odden & Picus, 2000).
With the financial control and responsibility for financing schools firmly in
the grasp of each state, the question started to arise about equality and equity in the
schools. The state recouped the costs for the school’s governance through property
taxes, which was sufficient until the end of the 1920’s and the beginning of the
1930’s. The great depression during this time caused state governments to rethink
how schools were being financed.
Most states chose to levy sales and income taxes to support the education
system. The instability of local, state and national economies during this time caused
the state to play a larger role in the funding of school systems. In fact, the states
share of school funding between 1930 and 1950 increased from approximately 17%
to 40% (Mackey, 1987).
As the public school movement gained speed and support, the private and
religious schools were being pushed out of the system. In 1929 a case was heard
before the Supreme Court, Pierce V. Society of Sisters, that established the legality
of private schools as a viable alternative to the public school system. In fact, this
ruling was cited as recently as 1995, as charter schools and voucher school systems
have vied for a piece of the public education pie (Campbell et al., 1990).
Federal Involvement
35
In 1965 the federal government decided to pass legislature that impacted
funding for the public education system. The Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) which was sponsored by the President Lyndon Johnson as part of his
war on poverty has greatly impacted federal financing of public education. In 1975
the ESEA was bolstered by the passage of the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act which covered all children suffering from a disability.
Title I of the ESEA was established to provide for students from poor and
minority families. The financing provided was allocated to local districts who gave
the funds to local schools, who spent the monies in whatever way they deemed
necessary, so long as the money was accounted for. Title I funds, in the 1980’s were
reduced and in 1988 changes were made in the Title I funding. The changes enacted
in 1988 required that schools not only specify how students were identified as
needing the funds but how the students would reach the specified academic goals. In
1994 Title I was again changed to require schools to specify the academic standards
and assessment mode to be used to show progress of the students receiving Title I
funding (Jennings, 2005).
Finally, in 2002 Title I again changed and was incorporated into the NCLB
Act. Title I funding is dependent upon schools making their AYP on a regular basis.
If a school does not meet its NCLB obligation, the student can transfer out of the
underperforming school and attend a school that is making its AYP. The Title I
36
dollars allocated to that student follows the student to his/her new school of
attendance. In 2000, over 90% of schools in the United States received some form of
Title I funding from the federal education budget of sixteen billion dollars (Puma, et
al. 1993).
Increased Federal School Funding
School funding has kept pace, for the most part, with inflation in the United
States. In 2000, public k-12 education spent over $340 billion dollars and employed
over five million people (Augenblick, 2001). The United States, on average, spends
between $6,043 and $7,764 per student. This ranks third in the world for education
spending (NCES, 2002).
One of the prevailing issues in public education is whether the monies being
spent on education is accomplishing the goal of educating students effectively. A
portion of the funds allocated to education are going to supplement school breakfast
and lunch programs, transportation, and for class size reduction programs (Rothstein,
2006). According to the NCES, the funds that are allocated to states presents its own
disparities. For instance, California spent $6,045 per student during the 1998-1999
school year, while New Jersey spent $10,748 per student.
Nearly half of the funds for public education come from property taxes
(Biddle & Berliner, 2002). Due to the variances in property taxes and real estate
values across the country, disparity exists in funding depending on where you live.
37
Many of the disparities exist in the school facilities provided to students, while
others are reflected in teacher experience and class size.
According to Biddle and Berliner opposition to equal funding across the
nation has met opposition because many feel that they should not be responsible for
funding schools that their students do not attend.
California School Funding
Over the past 30 years California’s public school financial system has
changed significantly due to a variety of laws, court decisions, and ballot measures.
The following section provides a brief chronological summary of the various Senate
bills, ballot measures and Constitutional amendments that have influenced the way
California public schools are financed today.
In 1972, the Legislature established revenue limits for California public
schools. These revenue limits placed a ceiling on the amount of tax money each
district could receive per pupil. The 1972–73 general purpose spending level became
the base amount in determining each district’s annual revenue limit. This was the
beginning of the shift from local to state control of school finance (Ed Source, 2005).
Serrano v. Priest is the 1976 California Supreme Court decision that found
the existing system of financing schools unconstitutional because it violated the
equal protection clause of the state Constitution. The court ruled that property tax
rates and per pupil expenditures should be equalized and that, by 1980, the difference
38
in revenue limits per pupil should be less than $100 (Serrano Band of Indians). This
difference in revenue limits has subsequently been adjusted for inflation and is
currently about $350. In equalizing funding, districts are divided into three types:
elementary, high school, and unified. They are then further broken down into small
versus large districts to ensure that appropriate funding comparisons are made.
Special-purpose or categorical funds are excluded from this calculation (Odden,
Picus, 2004).
In response to the Serrano v. Priest decision, the California Legislature
passed Assembly Bill (AB) 65. It created an annual inflation adjustment based on a
sliding scale in order to equalize revenue limits among districts over time. Higher
inflation increases went to districts with low revenue limits, with lower inflation
adjustments for high revenue-limit districts. AB 65 also established the Early
Childhood Education Program, predecessor to the School Improvement Program
(SIP) and several other categorical programs (Ed Source, 2005).
This constitutional amendment approved by California voters in 1978 limits
property tax rates to 1% of a property's assessed value. Increases in assessed value
per year are capped at 2% or the percentage growth in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI), whichever is less. According to this law, new taxes, such as a parcel tax, must
be approved by two-thirds of local voters (Picus, 2004).
39
In response to Proposition 13, the Legislature established a formula for
dividing property taxes among cities, counties, and school districts. This shielded
schools from some of the measure’s effects. In the process, the state replaced the lost
property taxes and effectively took control of school district funding.
In 1979 voters approved Proposition 4, a Constitutional limit on government
spending at every level in the state, including school districts. No agency’s
expenditures can exceed its Gann limit, which is adjusted annually for changes in
population and the lesser of either the national CPI or California’s per capita
personal income.
Senate Bill (SB) 813 in 1983 provided additional money to school districts
through equalization of revenue limits and new categorical programs, more rigorous
graduation requirements, longer school day/year, and higher beginning teachers’
salaries. It also established statewide model curriculum standards.
Senate Bill 813, approved in November 1988, guarantees a minimum funding
level from state and property taxes for K–14 public schools in a complex formula
based on state tax revenues. Proposition 98 also requires each school to prepare and
publicize an annual School Accountability Report Card (SARC) that covers at least
13 required topics, including test scores, dropout rates, and teacher qualifications. A
two-thirds vote of the Legislature and a signature from the governor are required to
suspend Proposition 98 for a year (Picus, 2004).
40
Included in this constitutional amendment was a change in the inflation index
for the Gann limit calculation, effectively raising the limit. Additionally, the
minimum funding guarantee for education (Proposition 98) was changed to reflect
the growth of California's overall economy. Proposition 111 accomplished this by
shifting the adjustment for inflation from the growth of per capita personal income,
which historically has tended to be a lower amount, to the growth in state per capita
General Fund revenues plus one-half percent (Ed Source, 2005).
Summary
NCLB has forced school systems across the nation to take a close look at the
way in which education is being delivered to students. This current reform measure
has forced districts to become more adept at instituting innovative ideas and research
in the form of multi-age instruction, standards-based education, and fiduciary
changes that maximize student learning.
41
CHAPTER THREE: Research Methodology
Introduction
This chapter describes the methodology, the sample, the instrumentation, the
data collection and the data analysis process of the current study. The purpose of
this study is to understand how a small rural school allocates the funding received
from federal, state and local sources. The study intends to document the spending of
one small school district in Southern California in relationship to personnel,
curriculum, food services, and facilities. A comparison school was chosen to show a
relationship between a small school (125 students) and an average sized elementary
school in the county (414 students). The most important aspect of this study focuses
on the academic program being offered the students in this K-6 school district.
Three research questions address the purposes of this study:
1. How are human resources allocated to focus on state and federal
academic standards?
2. How are decisions made to allocate resources (human, financial, etc.)
in order to meet state and federal academic standards?
3. Is it feasible or advisable to transfer the rural district financial and
educational design to larger school districts and maintain the strengths
of the program?
42
A qualitative, descriptive-analytic case study methodology was employed to
provide an in-depth investigation of a school site’s implementation of fiduciary and
curricular matters (Creswell 2003). The qualitative process is central to this study
as, according to Denzin and Lincoln (as cited in Creswell 1998, p. 15), it is “multi-
method in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject
matter.” Additionally, Denzin and Lincoln go on to explain “qualitative researchers
study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or interpret
phenomena in terms of meanings people bring to them.”(p.34). This methodology
has been selected in order for the researcher to use multiple data sources for a single
case study, including interviews, and existing documents.
Interviews were conducted utilizing interview guides to convey the details of
the study through the viewpoint of the participants. In addition, existing documents
were analyzed using a document guide to collect data related to the study. Both the
interview guides and document review guides were designed on the basis of the
research questions and themes of the study aligned with a conceptual framework.
The district, school, and interview participants were given pseudonyms to ensure
anonymity. However, the content of information is factual.
Sample and Population
This study focused on a single elementary school in a centrally managed
elementary district (K-6) to learn how a school within a centrally managed school
43
district determines and implements financial and curricular programs for the
stakeholders at the school site to increase student achievement. Purposeful sampling
was utilized to make the selection on the basis that the school and the district have
both been recognized as high achieving and having an instructional improvement
plan that focuses on increasing student achievement.
The selected school was also purposefully chosen on the following criteria:
Implementation of a wholly standards-based curriculum; the school is located
rurally; the school has less than 130 students; A new curricular program was
implemented for the 2005-2006 school year. Schools and their respective
elementary districts that were believed to meet the same criteria were identified and
considered and rejected by the researcher (Standards-based school).
In addition, a baseline school was chosen for comparison of data and
responses. This selected school was purposely chosen on the following criteria:
School is meeting or exceeding its API and AYP goals; the school is located in the
same county as the standards-based school; the school is running a traditional
education program and not a wholly standards-based program (Traditional School).
Overview of Standards-based Curriculum District and School
Shrader Elementary School (SES) is an elementary school with 125 students
in kindergarten through grade six located in San Bernardino County, California. The
County has a large, diverse population of over 427,000 students. The district
44
employs twelve staff members and operates one kindergarten through grade six
school.
The school selected for the study, Shrader Elementary School, has one full-
time administrator and six highly-qualified, as defined by California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing (CTC), full-time teachers. The administrator and the school
district provide targeted professional development for the teachers to support the
standards-based curriculum. Tables 4 and 5 provide demographic information for
Shrader Elementary School District and Shrader Elementary School.
Table 4:
Shrader Elementary School District and Shrader Elementary, Comparison Student
Population Counts
Student Population Counts (District and School Level)-2005-2006
As % of Enrollment
Student
Populations
School
Count
District
Count
School District Statewide
EL: English
Learner Students
39 39 31.2% 31.2% 24.9%
Free/Reduced
Price Meals for
Children
125 125 100% 100% 50.8%
Special Education
0 0 0% 0% 10.1%
Total Students 125 125
45
Table 5:
Shrader Elementary School Enrollment by Ethnicity
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment by Grade:
KG 1 2 3 4 5 6
Students
20 15 23 26 13 14 15
Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity:
Amer Ind/
Alaskan
Asian Black Hispanic White
Students
1 0 6 95 23
Enrollment by Gender:
Male Female Unknown
Students
60 65 0
Free lunch eligible: 122
Reduced-price lunch eligible:
3
Note: Details may not add to totals.
Source: CCD Public school data 2004-2005 school year
Note: "N/A" means the data are not available or not applicable.
District/School Participants’ Descriptions
Superintendent - The Superintendent has served in this position for one year.
He has been employed in various districts in Southern California. His service to
other districts includes; assistant superintendent of business, assistant superintendent
46
of personnel, principal, and teacher. The Superintendent of this school district also
serves as personnel director, business director and principal of the school.
Teachers – There are six teachers at the site and all six took part in the study.
The teachers participated in face to face interviews. The teachers agreed to be
interviewed and district/site permission was obtained.
Overview of Traditional School Setting
ABC Elementary School (AES) is an elementary school located in San
Bernardino County, California, the school has 414 students. The County has a large,
diverse population of over 427,000 students. The school employs 27 staff members
and consists of kindergarten thru fifth grade students.
The school selected for the study, ABC Elementary School, has one full-time
administrator and 19 highly-qualified full-time teachers. The administrator and the
school district provide targeted professional development for the teachers to support
a standards-based curriculum. Tables 6 and 7 provide demographic information for
ABC Elementary School.
47
Table 6:
ABC Elementary, Comparison Student Population Counts
Student Population Counts (School Level)-2005-2006
As % of Enrollment
Student
Populations
School
Count
District
Count
School District Statewide
EL: English
Learner Students
78 608 18.8% 22% 24.9%
Free/Reduced
Price Meals for
Children
209 1237 50.5% 44.8% 50.8%
Special Education
32 273 9.9% 0% 10.1%
Total Students 414 2764
48
Table 7:
ABC Elementary School Enrollment by Ethnicity
Enrollment Characteristics
Enrollment by Grade:
KG 1 2 3 4 5
Student
s
87 64 68 60 67 68
Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity:
Amer
Ind/
Alaskan
Asian Black Hispanic White
Student
s
3 23 61 112 215
Enrollment by Gender:
Male Female Unknown
Student
s
228 186 0
Free lunch eligible: 186
Reduced-price lunch eligible:
23
Note: Details may not add to totals.
Source: CCD Public school data 2004-2005 school year
Note: "N/A" means the data are not available or not applicable.
Instrumentation
The conceptual framework was collaboratively selected and utilized by a
University of Southern California thematic dissertation group. The thematic
dissertation was comprised of eleven students who met during the summer of 2006 in
49
a seminar program led by Lawrence Picus, Ph. D., Professor of School Finance. The
thematic dissertation group selected Odden & Picus’ evidence-based model, with an
emphasis on six core strategies to improve student achievement. Two of the
thematic team members worked together to develop the purpose of the study,
research questions, and co-created the instruments used for data collection to
correspond with the research questions which focused on effective professional
development and the conceptual framework. During the summer the data collection
instruments were refined and pilot tested before fall, 2006, to reinforce the alignment
with the purpose of the study and the research questions. Table 8 demonstrates the
matrix showing the relationship of data collection instruments and the research
questions.
Table 8:
Relationship of Data Collection Instruments to Research Questions
Data Collection Instrument
RQ 1: How are
human
resources allocate
d to focus on state
and federal
academic
standards?
RQ 2: How are
decisions made
to allocate
resources
(human,
financial, etc.) in
order to meet
state and federal
academic
standards?
RQ 3: Is it
feasible or
advisable to
transfer the rural
district financial
and educational
design to larger
school districts
and maintain the
strengths of the
program?
Interview Guide
X X X
Document Review Guide
X X X
Observations
X X X
Human Capital Open-Ended
Questions
X X X
50
Conceptual Framework
The Conceptual Framework with the six core strategies related to the research
questions is visually depicted in Table 9.

Table 9:
Relationship Between the Six Core Strategies and the Research Questions
Six Core
Strategies
(6 R’s)
RQ 1: How are
human
resources allocated
to focus on state
and federal
academic
standards?
RQ 2: How are
decisions made to
allocate resources
(human, financial,
etc.) in order to
meet state and
federal academic
standards?
RQ 3: Is it feasible
or advisable to
transfer the rural
district financial
and educational
design to larger
school districts and
maintain the
strengths of the
program?
1. Recalibrate
Goals
X X
2. Re-engineer
Schools
X X X
3. Redesign
Teacher
Development
X X X
4. Reinforce
achievement
X
5. Retool
Schools’
Technology
X
6. Restructure
Teacher
Compensation
X
51
Framework for Research Question One
The first research question asked, “How are human resources allocated to
focus on state and federal academic standards?” Two of the six core strategies from
the conceptual framework evidenced-based model provided the basis for data
collection in regards to how the Shrader Elementary School District and Shrader
personnel are utilized for attainment of state standards. Re-engineering of schools
focused on how personnel and resources are effectively used to provide academic
resources to the teachers to increase student achievement. Effective curricular
programs were examined to see how personnel are utilized in delivery of standards-
based education at the school site in reference to the restructuring of the curricular
programs. Structured Interviews were conducted with multiple participants, using
interview guides to understand how personnel are used to meet state standards.
Framework for Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “How are decisions made to allocate
resources (human, financial, etc.) in order to meet state and federal academic
standards?” Structured interviews with the multiple participants in conjunction with
the six core strategies were used to address the allocation of resources for attainment
52
of state and federal curricular standards. The recalibrating of goals provided a basis
for data collection regarding the school’s goals for student achievement that included
allocation of resources for the attainment of state and federal curricular goals.
Framework for Research Question Three
The third question asked, “Is it feasible or advisable to transfer the rural
district financial and educational design to larger school districts and maintain the
strengths of the program?” All of the six core strategies served as a foundation for
this research question. Each of the six core strategies emphasized the need for
organizational capacity at the school site to promote student learning. In addition,
the focal point for all six core strategies was the use of resources, allocations, and
strategies to increase student achievement. Structured interviews with multiple
participants, with the interview guide were conducted to answer this research
question. Additionally, documents were analyzed with the document review guide to
provide data in relation to the research question.
Data Collection Instruments
Three instruments were developed jointly by the research team to collect data
which would address the three research questions under the lens of the conceptual
framework in relation to the impact of meeting the curricular goals of the state and
federal mandates at the school site. The Interview Guides, The Human Capital
Open-Ended Questions and the Document Review Guide were utilized to provide the
53
data for the study. All of the data collection instruments were field tested with
subjects outside the sample to measure the effectiveness and accuracy of the
instruments.
Interview Guides
The interview guides reflected each research question and incorporated the
six core strategies from the conceptual framework to guide interviews from the
multiple participants. Each interview guide consisted of interview questions and
corresponding probes that were developed over the duration of several meetings.
The interview guide (Appendix A) was utilized to conduct interviews to study
financial and curricular development. The interviews were conducted with a total of
seven individuals at the standards-based school site:
Superintendent/Principal
Six teachers
Interviews were also conducted at the traditional school site with a total of 9
individuals:
Principal
Eight teachers
Structured interviews were conducted in 30 to 60 minute interviews from the
multiple participants. All participants were interviewed at the school site. Follow up
questions and e-mail was allowed to provide clarification.
54
Document Review Guide
The Document Review Guide (Appendix C) was designed to analyze existing
documents that related to the research questions in the study. During the collection
and analyzing of the documents, the Document Review Guide was utilized to link
data to the research questions, the themes, and the conceptual framework of the
study. Data that was analyzed consisted of school, district, and state documentation
that related to the study.
Table 8 on page 54 demonstrates the matrix showing the relationship between
the data collection instruments and the research questions.
Data Collection
Data collection for this study was conducted between November 2006 and
January 2007. Prior to the collection of data, procedures were followed with respect
to gaining access to the school site and school district by requesting permission from
the Superintendent of both the traditional and the standards-based school. The
researcher also met with the site principals to determine the procedure to conduct the
site interviews.
The collection of data from the instruments was conducted over a three
month period. The consent forms were signed by all of those interviewed.
Interviews with the site teachers were all held in one day at each respective site. The
other interviews were conducted on days and times convenient for the interviewees.
55
Documents were analyzed and sorted on an ongoing basis throughout the three
month period.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to understand how a small rural school
allocates the funding received from federal, state and local sources. The study
documents the spending of one small school district in Southern California in
relationship to personnel, curriculum, food services, and facilities. The most
important aspect of this study focused on the academic program being offered the
students in this K-6 school district (standards-based school).
Data collection was addressed and analyzed utilizing the three research
questions in relation to the purpose, themes and conceptual framework in the
following ways:
Qualitative Data
Interviews were conducted, taped, and transcribed. The transcriptions were
coded and sorted to identify the common themes related to the purpose of the study,
research questions aligned with the conceptual framework and educational literature
pertaining to the study.
56
Document Review Guide
Documents were reviewed and sorted using the Document Review Guide and
input into a spreadsheet in an effort to compare the data to the other data that was
collected. The analyzed data was categorized in association with the research
questions and the conceptual framework.
Data collection from the two instruments; interviews from a variety of
participants and analyzing a range of documents were triangulated to confirm
findings for internal validity (Patton, 2002). The Interview Guides and Document
Guide was field tested for reliability. Furthermore, the consistency of using the
Interview Guides and Document Review Guide protocols ensured reliability of the
study.
Summary
The research methodology that was used for the study is discussed in this
chapter. This discussion outlines the sample and population, the conceptual
framework in relation to the research questions, instrumentation, data collection
process, and the analysis of the data used for the study. The findings resulting from
the analysis of the data collected are provided in chapter four.
57
CHAPTER FOUR: Analysis of Findings
Introduction
In response to the demands for reform of the current education system,
California responded to the federal NCLB legislation by developing “world class”
state standards and a rigorous curriculum that adheres to state developed academic
standards. The state, however, left the specific details of instruction and NCLB
implementation to local school boards. The Local Education Agency (LEA)
responded by implementing the new curriculum and developing data collection
techniques that assist in making curricular decisions. While many districts have
found innovative ways in which to address the tenets of NCLB and the state
developed standards, no studies have been done that indicate LEA’s have made the
transition to a true standards-based system. One small rural district is making the
adjustment. This study examines this pioneering district.
This chapter presents an analysis of the data collected for the current study.
The purpose of the study was to examine how a small rural school district allocates
its human and financial capital to offer a unique academic program whose main
focus is state standards. Qualitative case study methodology was used to collect data
from a small rural K-6 district whose approach to student advancement is based
solely on academic achievement, as opposed to, age based advancement.
58
The case study was designed to investigate the following questions:
1. How are human resources allocated to focus on state and federal academic
standards?
2. How are decisions made to allocate resources (human, financial) in order to
meet state and federal academic standards?
3. Is it feasible or advisable to transfer the studied district’s financial and
educational design to larger school districts and maintain the strengths of the
program?
These data were collected over a three month period of time but spans a period of
two years. The data collection included interviews, observations, and document
analysis. Interviews were conducted with each member of the faculty, including the
superintendent, assistant superintendent, and six teachers. School site observations
included attending back to school night, daily observations of teachers in the
classroom setting, shadowing administrative personnel and observation and
interviews with business personnel. Finally, various documents were analyzed
including: publicly available achievement data, internal benchmark testing, report
cards, budget data, board of education meeting minutes, and various other school
site data. The following is a presentation of each research question, corresponding
data, and discussion of the findings as they relate to the study.
59
Analysis of Findings Research Question One:
Research Question One: How are human resources allocated to focus on
state and federal academic standards?
Questionnaire
Question one from the Human Capital Open-Ended Questions (Appendix A)
provided insight into how research question one relates to how resources are
allocated to focus on learning. All of the respondents noted that both the certificated
and classified staff was streamlined to allow the maximum amount of human
resources to focus on student achievement. One survey respondent noted “All of the
funds we are allocated go towards making this unique program successful for our
students.” Another respondent stated “The teachers here all put in extra time for
after-school tutoring and other extra curricular activities.” Finally, a respondent
noted “When administration sees that something is not working they make a change
immediately.”
Interview
Interview Question One delved deeper into how resources are allocated to
focus on learning. All staff interviewed stated that the school administration, school
board and the site council decides all budget decisions, including money spent on
human capital. Administrator A, shared “All of decisions are based on a
60
combination of current research, collected data and budgetary constraints.”
Administrator B added, “When a need is recognized by an administrator or staff
member we work very hard to provide whatever is needed to meet the goals and
objectives of the school.”
The interview process helped to define the goals of the school, which align
with the federal No Child Left Behind mandate as well as state standards. The
superintendent stated, “We promised our parents and students a standards-based
curriculum and that is exactly what we are doing.”
Teacher C noted that “It has been a hard transition to go from a traditional
type of education to a true standards-based one. In this system all of our students are
working at their current ability level.”
In order to garner more insight, a probing question was asked about the
structures that are in place to sustain the standards-based system. The interviewees,
as a whole, identified the administrative support as being the key to the success of
the program. Teacher A stated, “I know that I can count on the administrators to be
in my room at least once a day and most days more that that.” Teacher B
commented on the same aspect, “If I need someone to help me with a lesson or give
an honest critique, the administrator is always available to come into my room. That
kind of hands on approach is refreshing.” Finally, Teacher D explained, “The
students, parents and staff all know what is expected of them. There is not a lot of
61
gray area. You are expected to come and either teach or learn. Failure is never an
option.”
The principal remarked, “I constantly monitor the program for effectiveness,
I am looking for student engagement. I know my teachers are delivering the
standards that they have been tasked to convey, the key is making sure the students
are grasping the information.”
Observation
Observations conducted over a period of five days, provided insight into how
the school uses its resources to focus on learning. Initially, the researcher observed
the activities of teachers before the school day. This teacher activity started about
sixty minutes prior to the start of the student day. While the activity at first mirrored
any other teacher before school, with copying, getting coffee, making contact with
other staff, that is where the similarities ended. Thirty minutes before the start of the
official school day students started arriving and going to their classrooms. In each
classroom that I observed before the start of the day the students were engaged in
various projects. These projects ranged from working on unfinished science projects
to worksheets with math or language arts skills. There was a teacher in each room to
offer help, suggestions, or for tutoring. At the beginning of the actual school day
95% of the students had already been at school for fifteen to thirty minutes and the
teachers for at least sixty minutes.
62
The researcher, after the opening bell, was able to shadow the principal. The
principal, having been in the classrooms before school, made a brief stop in the
office to check for anything that needed his immediate attention. Having nothing of
immediate importance to tend to, the principal started his classroom visitations. The
students in the classroom have been trained to ignore anyone that comes into their
room unless asked a direct question. So as the principal entered each room the
students did not pause, nor did the teacher, in their activity. The principal asked
students questions about what they were learning and why. Most students were able
to respond with both what they were learning and the reason they needed to know it.
After the principal had finished with the classrooms he returned to the office
to return phone calls. At lunch time the principal is responsible for supervision of
the students so that his teachers have a half of an hour uninterrupted lunch.
The researcher was then able to be present at a staff meeting. These staff
meetings take place on Friday afternoons, which is a minimum day for the students.
During the staff meeting various subjects were discussed including best practices for
writing, boosting vocabulary and a presentation from a representative of Reading
First.
Summary: Research Question 1
In summary, the data collected, as it relates to the first research question,
revealed that the human resources are allocated at this school site to focus on both
63
state and federal academic standards. The detailed sharing of best practices in staff
meetings, the constant availability of teachers for project help and tutoring, as well
as through other observations it was evident to the researcher that the focus on
student achievement is of paramount importance to administration, teachers and
staff.
Analysis of Findings: Research Question Two
How are decisions made to allocate resources (human, financial) in order to meet
state and federal academic standards?
Questionnaire
Question two from the Human Capital Open-ended Questions provided
insight into the second research question investigating where differences may lie in
schools that are following a traditional age-based model and an academic standards-
based model. The teachers who returned questionnaires from the standards-based
school felt that their school made decisions to spend available resources wisest way
possible to promote the program. For example, money was spent on field trips to
participate in both revolutionary and civil war time period re-enactments to
supplement the 4
th
-7
th
grade curriculum. These field trips were overnight excursions
that took the student back to the time period through food, clothing and living
conditions.
64
Another area that teacher respondents noted was that because of the size of
the school, less than 125 students, the school did not receive as much funding as
larger schools. Teacher A responded, “Because this is a small school we do not get
as many funds as the bigger schools so we do well with what we have.” While this
was the belief of most teachers because of their limited experience with the budget,
the superintendent explained to this researcher that the school received more funding
per student, but because small school districts have an equal number of state and
county mandatory financial obligations, that the net result is small schools have less
to spend on students than bigger districts.
Respondents also noted that the funding does not allow for a lot of support
personnel, for instance there is a superintendent/principal who also does personnel,
and business. Finally, it was noted that the teachers themselves pick up any short
falls by volunteering their time to tutor students, be advisors for clubs and to coach
intramural sports teams. Teacher C wrote, “Sometimes the teachers are here until
five o’clock at night to make sure the students excel.”
The questionnaires returned from the more traditional school-setting also felt that
the monies that were allocated to the school were spent in a responsible way.
However, the underlying theme from the traditional program indicated that they felt
that the district was not giving them all of the money they were entitled to. Teacher
F stated, “I know that there is more money, I think the district hides it so they can
65
buy things like district cars.” This was a common theme among respondents of the
traditional, bigger school-setting. An additional theme from this school-setting was
that a lot of stipends for grade level chairs, and extra-curricular activities were taking
away money that could be spent on paraprofessionals. “There is a lot of things the
school pays for that have nothing to do with making sure kids learn their basic
facts…,” quipped one respondent.
Interviews
The interview question designed to elicit the perception of how human resources
are utilized in the standards-based system was answered in a similar manner by both
administration and staff. The interviewee was asked to describe how the school was
organized. All of the teachers at the standards-based school responded in a similar
fashion, describing that the only administrator was the superintendent/principal who
also acted as director of personnel and business manager.
The organizational structure then went to teachers, and then secretaries and
finally, the custodian and cafeteria worker/bus driver. Teacher B noted,
“Everyone here has multiple responsibilities, I have never worked in
a school where I have any other responsibility other than to close my
door and teach. In this school I get to know my students a lot better
because of the time I spend with them outside of the regular
classroom setting.”
The responses from the traditional school setting were somewhat different. One
of the interviewees pulled out an organizational matrix that was 3 pages long that
66
described the structure of the district. Another respondent said, “I have only been
here less than a year, so I really only know who my grade level chair and secretaries
are. I know the principal’s name but I only see him about once a month.” A number
of teachers did note that there a lot of teachers who do double duty as coaches and
academic advisors for clubs. These teachers receive a stipend of $400.00 to
$1,500.00 depending on the activity.
One of the main differences that the interview process uncovered was the
amount of uncompensated time spent with the students. At the smaller standards-
based school, all of staff spends numerous hours a week with the students enriching
their education without extra pay, whereas at the traditional school, most teachers
expect to be compensated for anything above their contractual hours. Most of the
interviewees of the standards-based school mentioned the focus on advancing the
students through the standards. Teacher A stated, “Tutoring is part of the school
setting. Parents know that the students are going to be there after the regular school
day, they have come to expect it.”
The principal agreed, “We are always looking at the data and as we look at each
data set, we determine where our efforts are paying off and where we need more
concentration, as it elates to student tutoring.”
One of the other noticeable differences is in the special education programs of
each school. The traditional school has both a resource specialist program (RSP)
67
with a dedicated teacher, as well as a special day class (SDC). Each of these classes
has a paraprofessional in each room. The standards-based small school has neither
of these teachers. Students with these needs are included in the general education
program and are working at their standards-based level. The principal from the
standards-based school explains, “Because we have all of our students working at
their proficiency level, there is not a need for a separate classroom for students who
are struggling because of a disability. If we were at a school that promoted students
to the next level because of their age, that would not be the case.”
Conversely, the principal of the traditional system stated, “Students who have a
disability need specialized help that regular education teachers are not equipped to
handle. The state and federal budget does cover some of the cost for these
programs…”
Observation
Observations at each school attempted to examine how the school allocated
human resources. While observing at each site the researcher noted how personnel
were engaged throughout the day and this focused primarily on support personnel.
The following tables show the relationship between the traditional school setting
and the standards-based setting in terms of personnel allocation.
68
Table 10.0 Classified Staffing at ABC Elementary (Traditional School)
Classified Staff
ABC Elementary School
School
Number of
Staff
Percent of
Total
Paraprofessionals 2 25.0%
Office/Clerical 2 25.0%
Other 4 50.0%
Total 8 100%
Classified Staff definitions
Source: California Department of Education,
Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS, assign05
8/18/06, cdifab05 8/24/06, sifade05 8/23/06)
69
Table 10.1: Classified Staffing at Shrader Elementary School (Standards-based
School)
Classified Staff
Shrader Elementary School
School District
Number
of Staff
Percent
of Total
Percent
of Total
Paraprofessionals 4 80.0% 57.1%
Office/Clerical 1 20.0% 28.6%
Other 0 0.0% 14.3%
Total 5 100% 100%
Classified Staff definitions
Source: California Department of Education,
Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,
assign05 8/18/06, cdifab05 8/24/06, sifade05
8/23/06)
70
Table 10.3 Teacher Assignment for ABC Elementary (Traditional School)
Teachers by Type of Assignment
ABC Elementary
Number of
Teachers
Full-Time
Equivalents
Self-Contained
Classroom
16 16.0
Subject Area
1
0 0.0
Vocational
Education
0 0.0
Special Education 2 2.0
Other
2
2 2.0
Total 20 20.0
1
Also includes Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate teachers.
2
Could include resource, Independent Study or
Alternative/Opportunity program teachers, among
others.
Assignment definitions
Source: California Department of Education, Educational
Demographics Office (CBEDS, assign05 8/18/06,
sifade05 8/23/06)
71
Table 10.4: Teacher Assignment at Standards-based School
Teachers by Type of Assignment
Shrader Elementary School
Number of
Teachers
Full-Time
Equivalents
Self-Contained
Classroom
6 6.0
Subject Area
1
0 0.0
Vocational
Education
0 0.0
Special Education 0 0.0
Other
2
0 0.0
Total 6 5.5
1
Also includes Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate teachers.
2
Could include resource, Independent Study or
Alternative/Opportunity program teachers, among
others.
Assignment definitions
Source: California Department of Education, Educational
Demographics Office (CBEDS, assign05 8/18/06,
sifade05 8/23/06)
Document Analysis
To garner a clear understanding of the financial workings of both the
traditional and the standards-based school, the personnel budget for both schools
were analyzed. According to the analysis, the standards-based school is spending
72
more money per student than larger school districts. The standards-based school is
spending $12,662 per student while the traditional school is only spending $7,008
per student. This data is somewhat skewed and slightly suspect because the
standards-based school is also a district and so the district and school funds are more
co-mingled than in the traditional/district. Based on the analysis of available data
from the respective districts this is due to heavy spending on teacher salaries, debt
service and district personnel from the traditional based system. While there is no
reliable financial data reported by the school site, a fiduciary statement is reported to
the state on a yearly basis by the district.
Summary: Research Question 2
In summary, the main differences in the human capital allocation between the
standards-based school and the traditional school was the actual use of the personnel
as well as the overall monies being spent on personnel. The traditional school has
more resources available through the district coffers. For instance, the traditional
school district pays for all special education programs and custodial personnel
through district funds, not through school allocations. In contrast, the standards-
based school is the only school in the district and does not have the available
resources that the traditional district does.
73
Analysis of Findings: Research Question 3
Is it feasible or advisable to transfer the studied district’s financial and
educational design to larger school districts and maintain the strengths of the
program?
Questionnaire
Survey question three asks “How would you change your current education
system to support mastery of state and federal academic standards?” With this
inquiry the researcher gained insight on how we create a school system that is 100%
focused on standards-based instruction and how we effectively allocate resources to
that end.
The responses from this portion focused on three main themes. The first theme,
and most prevalent at both schools, was, “Our school system works great for our
students. I would not change anything.” This was mimicked by over half of the
respondents.
The second theme that emerged was that change was necessary. From the
traditional school setting, Teacher C stated, “I have such a wide range of students in
my classroom, some are two to three grades below grade level while some are above
grade level, it makes it very difficult to meet all of their needs. If I were to make a
74
change it would be to homogeneous groups.” Variations of this theme were
repeated from many of the teachers from the traditional school setting.
The teachers at the standards-based school were more concerned with the social
aspect of student development. Teacher A wrote, “While I think that our system is
beneficial for students academically, I worry that they are not always developing
socially. One of the students is 12 years old and working at academic level seven
[third grade], so the student is not able to socialize with his/her peers or discuss age
appropriate content.” This concern is one that is mentioned in research as one of the
pitfalls of a multi-aged classroom. Sandra J. Stone points out in her book
“Foundations For Successful Multi-age Classrooms”, that the multi-age classroom
must be as heterogeneous as possible. “Administrators should shun ability grouped
classes and grouping high achieving students with lower achieving older
students.”(Stone, 1996).
If analyzed as a whole, both schools want one of two things. First, they would
like to be left alone to teach the way they have always taught, or second they would
like a classroom that they are able to teach one academic level of student at a time.
The questionnaire touched on the surface of a sensitive question and was further
explored in the interviews.
75
Interviews
Interview question one probed deeper into what the interviewees thought
standards-based education really is. The typical response from the teachers and
administrator from the traditional setting centered around the teaching of the grade
level standards in the classroom. “I teach the standards in my classroom everyday.
Most of the time they get the concept but there are so many to get through I don’t
always have time to wait for everyone to fully understand the concept.” said Teacher
B. The principal of this school has been at the school for almost one year and
expressed concern that mastery of the skills was not occurring for all of his students.
“I really want these students to succeed, but with thirty-three students in one class,
all at different instructional levels, it is hard for the teachers to promote mastery for
all students.”
In an attempt to clarify how mastery is achieved, the researcher asked the
principal of the traditional school setting how the students show mastery of a
particular standard. “We use benchmark testing, state testing and teacher made tests
and teacher observations.” Following this theme farther, the researcher asked what
the procedure is when a student does not show mastery of a skill. “If a majority of
the class passes mastery, the teacher moves on to the next standards. The teacher
does offer tutoring and homework to students who are not performing at grade level
but unless it is a glaring deficiency, generally they move to the next standard.”
76
The same set of questions was asked of the teachers and principal at the
standards-based school. Teacher C stated,
“We are all about standards here, our report card is almost 50 pages long and
holds every language arts and math standard in it from kindergarten through
sixth grade. So to answer your question, standards-based education is making
sure every student masters every standard before you move on to the next set of
standards.”
The principal also provided insight into a standards-based education. “A
standard based education at this school means that each student progresses through
the standards at their own pace and can advance to the next set of standards
regardless of the time of year.” When asked about showing mastery the principal
replied, “The teachers have developed tests that prove mastery of a certain standard,
each student must receive an 80% or better in order to show mastery.”
Finally, the researcher asked the standard based school principal if the education
system the school is engaged in would transfer to a bigger school district. He
replied,
“Yes, it would actually be easier to run at a bigger school because
teachers would be able to be more specialized in what they teach. In a
system like this team teaching is the key because some students excel
in math or language arts but are not at the same level in each
individual subject.”
Observation
Observations at each school showed the difference in the systems. At the
traditional school the students were taught as a whole class and in classrooms in the
77
upper grades 4-5 there were 30 to 33 students. The teacher delivered the lesson to
the students and then had them complete individual independent practice.
At the standard based school there were no more than 22 students in any
classroom and most had less than 20 at all grade levels. The teacher did not do any
whole group instruction, instead the students were divided into ability groups and
each group received a different lesson. At the conclusion of the lesson, the students
engaged in a discussion followed by a writing exercise concluding with independent
practice.
Document Analysis
Both schools were required to complete the California Assessment Test
(CAT6) which measures the proficiency of the students. The traditional school
raised its test scores from the previous year by 3 API points but failed to make its
AYP. The standard based school raised its API by 110 points and also made its
AYP. The growth that the standards-based system made in its first year of the
standards-based program is the 3
rd
highest gain in the state of California for the
2005-2006 school year.
Summary: Research Question 3
In summary, both school systems have a clear vision of what is expected of their
students by the state when it comes to academic standards. The traditional system
seems to be leaving students who work at a slower pace behind, with little hope of
78
filling in any gaps in their educational process. The standards-based school moves
students through each standard no matter how long or little time it takes. The
standards-based school does not promote students to the next level of standards until
one set has been fully mastered regardless of age or time of year.
Discussion
The three research questions launched in the case study were:
1. How are human resources allocated to focus on state and federal
academic standards?
2. How are decisions made to allocate resources (human, financial, etc.) in
order to meet state and federal academic standards?
3. Is it feasible or advisable to transfer the rural district’s financial and
educational design to larger school districts and maintain the strengths of
the program?
Three very distinctive thematic trends surfaced not only in the surveys, but
were later corroborated through the data collected from interviews, observations, and
document analysis. Findings for each of the research questions were based upon
careful analysis and the triangulation of data; the combination of documents,
surveys, interviews, and observations. The findings were subsequently reviewed and
analyzed, resulting in the emergence of the major themes in the following summary
79
of findings. The literature review in Chapter Two supports the findings in this case
study.
Themes
Findings for each research question were determined following a careful
analysis of the data. The wealth of rich data lent itself to the emergence of the
following three themes:
1. Resources allocated for Human Capital focus on Instructional
Improvement – Most prevalent throughout the data was the belief that the
human capital at the school site is streamlined to focus student
achievement of state and federal academic standards.
2. Collaborative Model – The belief that without the administration working
collaboratively and in concert with the teaching staff, the standard based
system will not be successful.
3. Decision making was data driven. All decisions at the school site
regarding instruction and professional development needs were based on
student data.
Theme One: Resources allocated for Human Capital
The teachers and administration at the school site aggressively pursue
gathering and analyzing available data. The staff at this school meet formally on a
weekly basis to analyze data and to make decisions about the instructional program.
80
An outside consultant is employed to help analyze data from the Reading First
program. The staff analysis is used to make changes to the program and to assign
tutoring and other types of in-school support to the students.
In addition, the certificated staff has been reconfigured numerous times in
order to capitalize on the teaching strengths of the staff. For instance, Teacher C
started teaching math and science at the beginning of the school year, and is now
teaching social studies and language arts. This change, according to the
administration, was made to “…utilize the staff to benefit their strengths and match
the teaching style of the teacher to the students.”
In order for sustained growth to occur, the data analysis must be coupled with
professional development to capitalize on the data. Friday afternoons are set aside
for not only the analysis of data, but for professional development. The professional
development is concentrated to capitalize on data and how to improve student
achievement. Professional reading with discussion has been incorporated into the
weekly meetings, Results Now: How We Can Achieve Unprecedented
Improvements in Teaching And Learning by Michael J. Schmoker, was the first to be
discussed. “The staff needs to be kept current on the research that helps schools
excel, if we can incorporate the relevant research into our daily practice we will
become more proficient at our craft.” stated the administrator.
81
Theme Two: Collaborative Model
“I see this school as my family, we are always talking to each other and
bouncing ideas off one another, there has not been a day where I do not talk to every
person at this school at least once.” This quote by teacher B is indicative of an
educational community where the entire staff is concerned and devoted to the
success of the program and the students in it. The sense of empowerment is fostered
in the school through collaboration and communication among the entire staff. The
staff is in constant collaboration with each other. This includes administration and
classified staff, to improve the instructional program.
The collaborative model that is in place at this school is fostered through a
number of activities, including: professional reading, sharing of best practices,
school-wide articulation, observation and feedback from peers. The sense of
community that permeates this school has allowed meaningful collaboration to take
place. The collaboration has improved instruction which led to higher test scores.
Theme Three: Data Driven Decision Making
All decisions at the school site regarding instruction and professional
development needs were based on student data. The data collected took many forms
including: benchmark tests, daily writing samples, comprehension tests, standards
mastery tests and unit tests. The results of these varied mechanisms are compiled by
administration and teachers and shared at weekly meetings. The resulting
82
discussions drive changes or modifications in the focus of the instructional program.
Complete records are kept by each teacher of student progress towards meeting
mastery of standards. These records are also shared with parents at least quarterly at
formalized parent-teacher conferences or as needed.
In addition, the principal makes daily visits to each classroom to ascertain if
additional support or materials are needed in the classroom in order to foster
academic growth. Students failing to make adequate academic growth, as
determined by the staff, are referred to tutoring and in-school remediation. The
students and parents are also made aware of their progression through the standards
and where extra help may be beneficial.
Summary
The data from this school has shown that a small school that has changed it’s
educational program from the traditional age based system to one that is based solely
on academic achievement can make educational gains within the framework of state
and federal mandates for NCLB. Additionally, based on the data, not only is it
feasible, but advisable, for this type of system to permeate the educational arena.
This chapter reviewed the findings, analysis, and interpretation of the data for
this study. The data collected and analyzed provided evidence to answer the study’s
three research questions. Three common themes were extrapolated from the findings
and shared by the researcher. Chapter 5 will conclude the study by summarizing the
83
purpose and methodology, sharing the overall findings, and making
recommendations for further study.
84
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion
This chapter is divided into four major sections that provide an analysis and
discussion of the study. The first section presents a summary of the study that
includes a brief statement of the problem and a review of the procedures utilized in
conducting the investigation. The second section deals with the findings of this
particular study. The third section offers recommendations for school sites. The
final section addresses the researcher’s suggestions for further research.
Summary of the Study
Since the publication of A Nation At Risk (National Commission on
Excellence, 1983), education has been in reform mode. The most recent reform in
the educational arena has come in the form of the federally mandated No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB has tied federal funding to concrete
performance indicators. Included in the NCLB mandate is the requirement that each
state develop state standards for performance. Many schools in California have
chosen to meet the state standards by continuing with the traditional age-based
education model. However, one small rural district has shifted its focus away from
an aged based model and focused on educating its students based solely on state
standards. This model dictates that students be able to show mastery of standards at
each level before moving to the next level, regardless of age.
85
Research supports the existence of multi-aged classrooms that focus entirely
on a standards-based education system. While schools who fail to meet state and
federal guidelines for academic growth claim this failure is due to lack of funding,
background of students, and lack of parental involvement, this school is succeeding
while facing the same difficult demographics and low funding levels.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate how this small rural school
allocated the funding received from federal, state and local sources. This research
was designed to study and document the spending of one small school district in
Southern California in relationship to personnel, curriculum, and facilities. The most
important aspect of this study was to focus on the academic program being offered
the students in this K-6 school district.
Research Questions
1. How are human resources allocated to focus on state and federal
academic standards?
2. How are decisions made to allocate resources (human, financial, etc.) in
order to meet state and federal academic standards?
3. Is it feasible or advisable to transfer the rural district’s financial and
educational design to larger school districts and maintain the strengths of
the program?
86
Methodology
A qualitative, descriptive-analytic case study methodology was employed to
provide an in-depth investigation of the target school site’s implementation of
fiduciary and curricular matters (Creswell 2003). The qualitative process is central
to this study as, according to Denzin and Lincoln (as cited in Creswell 1998, p. 15),
it is “multi-method in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its
subject matter.” Additionally, Denzin and Lincoln go on to explain “qualitative
researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of or
interpret phenomena in terms of meanings people bring to them.” This
methodology was selected in order for the researcher to use multiple data sources for
a single case study.
Interviews were conducted utilizing interview guides to convey the details of
the study through the viewpoint of the participants. In addition, existing documents
were analyzed using a document guide to collect data related to the study. Finally, a
survey was designed to elicit open ended responses from participants. The interview
guide, survey and document review guide were designed on the basis of the research
questions and themes of the study aligned with a conceptual framework. The
district, school, and interview participants were given pseudonyms to ensure
anonymity. However, the content of information is factual. Triangulation and
analysis of the data provided answers to the three research questions.
87
Discussion of Findings
This case study was designed to investigate (a) how human resources are
allocated to focus on state and federal academic standards, (b) how decisions are
made to allocate resources in order to meet state and federal academic standards, and
(c) is it feasible or advisable to transfer the rural district’s financial and educational
design to larger school districts and maintain the strengths of the program.
A thorough review of the literature provided an understanding of multi-age
instruction, standards-based education, and state and federal education finances. The
review also elucidated what key elements were present in the case study school.
Through surveys, interviews, observations, and documentation, an
examination of fiduciary resources and the program’s feasibility were analyzed.
The literature supported the key elements and themes found in the case study.
The themes became clearly evident as the data was analyzed. Through the analysis
of the data three themes were identified as key elements for the successful school
program. These themes are as follows:
Theme 1: Resources allocated for Human Capital focus on Instructional
Improvement
This school uses its resources differently than most traditional education
systems. The case study school only spends 55% of its total budget on personnel
costs.
88
Theme 2: Collaborative Model
Most curricular decisions are made as a collaborative staff. The standards-
based system is predicated on teachers knowing exactly where the strengths and
weaknesses of the students are. Without collaboration this type of school system
would quickly break down and become ineffective.
Theme 3: Decision Making was Data Driven
At the case study school, very few decisions are made without first consulting
the data. Teachers are academically aware of where each student is and what is
needed in order for the individual student to progress through their academic level.
Non-quantifiable issues that emerged from the evaluation of the above
themes were:
1. Fluidity and a vision with a clear purpose of academic achievement
are two of the most important elements to successful program implementation and
continuation. These two subjective factors continually emerged as being of primary
importance. The school’s leadership was able to first establish a clear vision for
student achievement and then to change details and spending “on the fly” to
accomplish that vision. In study after study (Marzano, 2002; DuFour, 1997),
successful programs were not successfully replicated by subsequent schools and
districts, even when they followed the objective parameters (e.g., focus on standards
89
and student learning, data driven decision making, and collaboration). This failure
by subsequent programs is often blamed on the “charismatic leader syndrome.”
However, this study indicated that the ability to replicate a successful program is
possible without charisma “per se,” but may be dependent upon the school and
district leaderships’ ability to change flexibly to address the vision.
2. Special education programs need to be part of the general education
setting. Special education should not be a barrier to success for a school system. In
using a true standards-based system, all students are working at their own
educational level. There is not a need for special classes or programs for students
with disabilities. Students in a true standards-based system will be working at their
own academic level and will progress as they are able through the academic levels.
As evidenced by the following table compiled by Cassandra Cole (Center for
Evaluation and Education Policy, 2006)
90
Recommendations
The following recommendations are made as a result of the conclusions and
findings of this study. These recommendations should assist the standards-based
school to move forward in a positive manner as well as assist traditional education
91
systems in determining the feasibility of adopting a true standards-based system for
the students that fall within their responsibility.
1. Financial and human resources need to be focused on student learning. This
focus does not necessarily manifest itself in additional salary for teachers, but
may be spent generally to benefit the instructional program, curriculum
development, or professional development. However, while the budget is a
numeric expression of school and district priorities, it should be noted that the
spending in any given year will vary according to the school’s priorities and
needs. This phenomenon provides rich and fertile ground for longitudinal studies
in the future to determine the most effective overall spending patterns.
2. Use data to drive decision making. Each and every curricular decision should be
made based on data. In order to improve the delivery of a standards-based
education to individual students, data must be constantly consulted and
disseminated in order to educate each student at his/her level.
3. Collaboration must be utilized between all stakeholders. Administration,
teachers, parents and students must all be part of the collaborative model. The
student needs to know how s/he learns and that there is a purpose for his/her
education. Parents need to be kept informed of the academic process and to have
a clear understanding of what they can do to assist their student and the
professional educator. Teachers need to collaborate with parents, students and
92
administration to make sure that materials and methods of delivery are assisting
the student. Administration needs to be an integral part of each collaborative
process so that appropriate staffing and academic movement occurs for the
students.
4. With regards to special education students: Districts may want to consider
integrating Mild/Moderate students into the regular education population. This
category of students, by definition, has abilities within the normal range.
Nevertheless, these students are having difficulty approaching the standards at
the same rate as other students. It may be that within the standards-based system,
students will need more time on specific standards... and this should be allowed
without any testing penalty. In addition, special education dollars should be
spent developing prescriptive approaches that the student him/herself can
integrate into his/her learning styles and habits rather than on psychological
profiles that, while interesting, do nothing to address the student’s ability to
approach and successfully master the standards in accordance with his/her
ability.
5. On the issue of flexibility and fluidity within the leadership structure,
recommendations are more difficult. This is due to the intangibility of the
subject matter. In the case of the target school, all of the stars had aligned. The
superintendent/principal was experienced and naturally flexible, the school board
93
set policy and “got out of the way,” and the teachers union was adaptable and
small enough to change as necessary to meet the vision. This is not always the
case with other schools or districts. Nevertheless, for success to occur, the
researcher recommends that states set policies and pass legislation that allow and
encourage flexibility, in the same way that battlefield commanders are given the
flexibility to move troops and make day to day decisions within the policies set
by the Congress. Within the education community, this may mean that national,
state, and local policy organizations (Congress, state legislatures, school boards)
need to provide financial and curricular flexibility to local superintendents and
principals to execute a plan within the vision of “No Child Left Behind.”
Suggestions for Further Research
The recommendations outlined below are based on a careful evaluation of the
themes that emerged from the interviews, observations, questionnaires, document
evaluation and the literature review.
Recommendations for future research:
1. Future investigations should include a larger sample of true standards-
based programs, preferably from both higher and lower economic school systems,
with an emphasis on the operation of flexible leadership within a set vision.
94
2. Future investigations should evaluate the success of Mild/Moderate
special education students in the true standards-based system.
3. Future investigations should track this school’s progress over a five to
seven year period of time in order to determine the sustainability of the true
standards-based system when given the flexibility of local leadership.
4. Future investigators may envision a system with a maximum amount
of flexibility on the local level by postulating a system with a specific vision within a
broad policy free from stymieing regulation and micromanagement at the legislative
and policy-making levels, providing maximum flexibility in funding, personnel
placement, and instructional approach.
95
REFERENCES CITED
Anderson, R.H., & Pavan, B.N. (1993). Nongradedness: Helping it to happen.
Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing.
American Federation of Teachers. (2001). Making Standards Matter 2001. Retrieved
September 12, 2006, from http://65.110.81.56/pubs-
reports/downloads/teachers/msm2001.pdf.
Assembly Bill 65 (2002). Establishes the Reading First program. Approved
September 2002.
Augenblick, John. (2001). Calculation of the Cost of an Adequaate Education in
Maryland in 1999-2000 Using Two Different Analytic Approaches. Denver,
CO: Augenblick and Meyers.
Biddle, Bruce J., & David C. Berliner. (2002). Unequal School Funding in the
UnitedStates. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 48-59.
Bingham, Anne A., Peggy Dorta, Molly McClaskey, and Justine O’Keefe. Exploring
the Multiage Classroom. York, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers, 1995.
Bush, G.H. (1989). Building a better America, Address on Administration Goals to
Joint Session of Congress: Presidential Speeches Archive,
http://www.geocities.com/americanpresidencynet/archive.html
Bush, G.W. (2002). Foreword, No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, D.C.: The
White House. Available from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-
child-left-behind-gehnd.html.
California Department of Education. (2003, August). Performance level tables
for the 2003 California Standards Test and the California Alternate
Performance Assessment. Retrieved October, 21, 2005, from
96
http://www.cde.ca.gov/statetests/star/resources/star03perflvls.pdf.
California Department of Education. (2006). Demographic Viewable Reports-
Statewide.
Campbell, R. E., Cunningham, L. L., Nystrand, R. O., & Usdan, Y. (1990). The
organization and control of American schools (6th ed.). Columbus, OH:
Charles E. Merrill.
California Education Code. (2007). EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 60600-60603. Retreived March 19, 2007 from
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=60001-
61000&file=60600-60603
Carter, S. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty
schools. Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation.
Cawelti, G. & Protheroe, N. (2001). High student achievement: How six school
districts changed into high-performance systems. Arlington, VA:
Educational Research Service.
Cole, Cassandra., (2006). Closing the Achievement Gap Series: Part III What is the
Impact of NCLB On the Inclusion of Students With Disabilities?.
Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. Available at:
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80
/37/03/34.pdf
Coleman, J. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Office of Education/
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: US
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Coleman, J., Campbell, E., Hobson, C., Mcpartland, J., Wood, A., Weinfeld, F., &
York, R. (1996). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
97
Creswell, J. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
EdSource (2005). Schools on the move. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource, Inc.
Retrieved July 3, 2006, from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_abs_simstu05/cfm/move.htm.
Cushman, K. (1993). The whys and hows of the multiage primary classroom. In D.
Sumner (Ed.), Multiage classrooms: The ungrading of America's schools.
Peterborough, NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Cushman, K. (1996). Networks and Essential Schools: How trust advances learning.
Horace, 13(1). Retrieved June 6, 2003, from
www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/41
Cushman, K. (1999a). The cycle of inquiry and action: Essential learning
communities. Horace, 15(4). Oakland, CA: Coalition of Essential Schools.
Retrieved June 6, 2003, from
www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/74
Cushman, K. (1999b). Teacher preparation and renewal: Creating conditions for
better practice. Challenge Journal, 3(2). Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute
for School Reform. Retrieved June 10, 2003, from
www.annenbergchallenge.org/pubs /cj/v3n2/pg1.html
Denzin, N.K & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). Entering the field of qualitative research.
In N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Ed.) Strategies of qualitative inquiry.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 1-34.
Diegmueller, K. (1995, April 12). Running out of steam. Struggling for standards:
An Education Week special report. Washington DC: Education Week.
Donahue, P. L., Voelkl, K. E., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). The NAEP
1998 reading report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
DuFour, R. (1997). The school as a learning organization: Recommendations for
school improvement (Vol. 81).
98
EdSource. (2000, May). One year later: California’s Public School Accountability
Act. EdSource.
EdSource (2006). Similar students, different results: Why some schools do
better? Palo Alto, CA: EdSource, Inc. Retrieved July 12, 2006, from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_abs_simstu05.cfm.
The Elementary and Secondary School Act. Public Law 89-10 (April 11, 1965).
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Retrieved August 19,
2006, from http://www.shankerinstitute.org/downloads/bridging_gap.pdf.
Fox, C.L. (1996, February). Multiage program proposal. In School program study
guide: The multiage classroom. Unpublished guide developed for the
Michigan Department of Education.
Fox, C.L. (1996, February). Self-study instrument for schools. In Developing a plan
of action: The multiage classroom. Unpublished guide developed for the
Michigan Department of Education.
Fox, C.L. (1997). The multiage nongraded model. Unpublished presentation
materials.
Gaustad, J. (1992, August). Nongraded primary education. ERIC Digest [Online].
Available:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED3476
37
Gaustad, J. (1997, June). Building support for multiage education. ERIC Digest
[Online]. Available:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED4096
04
Gilbert, S., Hightower, A., Husbands, J., Marsh, J., McLaughlin, M. W., Talbert, J.
E., et al. (2002). Districts as change agents: Levers for system-wide
instructional improvement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved
July 23, 2004, from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/pdfs/inprogress/aera-
districtsaschange.pdf
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Pub. L. 103-227
99
Goodlad, John I., and Robert H. Anderson. The Nongraded Elementary School.
Revised Edition. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University,
1987.
Grant, J., Johnson, B., & Richardson, I. (1995). Multi-age Q&A . 101 practical
answers to your most pressing questions. Peterborough, NH: Crystal Springs
Books.
Hambleton, R. (1999). Setting performance standards on assessment and criteria for
evaluating the process. Paper presented at the Edward F. Reidy Interactive
Lecture Series, Providence, RI. Retrieved September 12, 2006, from
http://www.nciea.org/publications/setstandards_hambleton99.pdf.
Jennings, J. (2000). Title I: Its legislative history and its promise. Phi Delta Kappan,
81(7), 516-522.
Katz, L.G. (1992). Nongraded and mixed-age grouping in early childhood programs.
ERIC Digest [Online]. Available:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED3511
48
Katz, L.G. (1996, Fall/Winter). Addressing the potential risks of mixed-age
grouping. TheMAGnet Newsletter on Mixed-Age Grouping in Preschool and
Elementary Settings, 5(1).
Mackey, W. and Siguán, M (1987) Education and Bilingualism. London: Kogan
Page in association with UNESCO.
Marzano, R.J., & Kendall, J.S. (1998). Awash in a sea of standards. Aurora, CO:
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning
Massell, D. (1998). State strategies for building capacity: Four strategies, CPRE
Policy Brief RB-32: Retrieved August 12, 2006, from
www.cpre.org/publications/rb32.pdf.
Mazzuchi, D., & Brooks, N. (1993). The gift of time. In D. Sumner (Ed.), Multiage
classrooms: The ungrading of America's schools (pp. 39-41). Peterborough,
NH: Society for Developmental Education.
Miller, B.A. (1996, January). A basic understanding of multiage grouping: Teacher
readiness, planning, and parent involvement required for successful practice.
The School Administrator, 1(53), 12-17.
Montes, F. (1996). A synergistic multiage model for minority students. IDRA
Newsletter, 23, 6-8.
100
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform. A report to the nation and the Secretary
of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Supplemental Notes. Retrieved
March 19, 2007 from.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/supnotes/n01.asp
National Education Goals Report (1989). The Road to Charlottesville: The 1989
Education Summit. U.S. Government Printing Office
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 115 STAT 14251 6 plus many subsections
(2002).
Nye, B. (1993, Summer). Questions and answers about multiage grouping.
Educational Research Service (ERS) Spectrum, 38-45.
Orange County Department of Education. (2003). State and federal accountability
[PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved June 3, 2006, from
http://ocde.k12.ca.us/assessment.
Odden, A.R., & Picus, L.O. (2000). School Finance: A policy perspective. Boston,
MA: McGraw Hill.
Odden, A., & Picus, L.O. (2004). School finance: A policy perspective (3rd edition).
New York: McGraw Hill.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., & Fermanich, M. (2003). An evidence-based approach to
school finance adequacy in Arkansas. Report prepared for the Interim
Legislative Committee on Educational Adequacy. North Hollywood, CA:
Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Fermanich, M., & Goetz, M. (2005). An evidence-based
approach to school finance adequacy in Arizona. Report prepared for the
Rodel Charitable Trusts.
Osin, L. & Lesgold, A. (1996, Winter). A proposal for the reengineering of the
educational system. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 621-656.
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods.
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
101
Picus, L.O., Odden, A., & Fermanich, M. (2003). A professional judgment approach
to school finance adequacy in Kentucky. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O.
Picus and Associates.
Pierce, Governor of Oregon, et al. v. Society of Sisters; Pierce, Governor of Oregon,
et al. v. Hill MilitaryAcademy, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
Proposition 98. (1988). Establishes a minimum level of funding for schools. Passed
by California voters 1988.
Puma, M. J., Jones, C. C, Rock, D., & Fernandez, R. (1993).
Prospects: The congressionally mandated study of educational growth and
opportunity (interim report). Bethesda, MD: ABT
Associates.
Proposition 111 (1990). The Traffic Congestion Relief And Spending Limitation Act
Of 1990. Passed 1990 by California Voters.
Ratvich, D. (1998). A new era in urban education? Policy Brief #35. Washington
DC: Brookings Institute.
Robelen, E.W. (2001, November 28). States sluggish on execution of 1994 ESEA.
Education Week.
Rothstein, J. (2006a), “Good Principals or Good Peers? Parental Valuation of School
Characteristics, Tiebout Equilibrium, and the Incentive Effects of
Competition among Jurisdictions”,NBER Working Paper, 10666,
forthcoming American Economic Review.
Rothstein, J. (2006b), “Does Competition Among Public Schools Benefit Students
andTaxpayers? A Comment on Hoxby (2000)”, NBER Working Paper,
11215, forthcoming American Economic Review.
Routman, Regie. 2003. Reading Essentials. Portsmouth, N.H. Heinemann.
Routman, Regie. 2001.Conversations. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.
Routman. Regie. 1996. Literacy at the Crossroads. Portsmouth,N.H. Heinemann.
102
Senate Bill 813, (1983). Equalization of revenue limits and new categorical
programs, more rigorous graduation requirements, longer school day/year,
and higher beginning teachers’ salaries. It also established statewide model
curriculum standards.
Serrano v. Priest (Superior Court for Los Angeles County, CA 1971).
Serrano v. Priest (I), 487 P.2d 920 (Superior Court for Los Angeles County, CA
1976).
Serrano v. Priest (II), 557 P.2d 920 (California Court of Appeals 1982).
Serrano v. Priest (III), (Second District Court of Appeals 1985).
Sizer, T.R. (1995). Silences. Daedalus, 124(7), 77.
Slavin, R. (1992). Response: The nongraded elementary school. Educational
Leadership, 50, 24.
Spring, J. (2004). American Education (11
th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Stone, S. (1995). The primary multiage classroom: Changing schools for children.
Unpublished manuscript.
Stone, S. (1996) Creating the multiage classroom. Glenview, IL: Good Year Books
United States Census Bureau. (2000). 92368 Fact Sheet. Retrieved March 19, 2007
from.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=86000US92
368&_geoContext=01000US%7C86000US92368&_street=&_county=&_cit
yTown=&_state=04000US06&_zip=92368&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeo
Div=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=860&_submenuId=factsheet_1
&ds_name=null&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keywor
d=&_industry=&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y
U. S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind: A desktop reference.
Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Veenman, Simon. (1995). Cognitive and Noncognitive Effects of Multigrade and
Multi-Age Classes: A Best Evidence Synthesis. Review of Educational
Research, 65(4), 319-381.
103
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
process. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E.Souberman, Eds).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
104
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH OPEN ENDED HUMAN
CAPITAL QUESTIONS ADDED
Research
Questions
Interview Questions
Research Question One:
How are resources
allocated to focus on
student learning at high
performing, high
poverty schools?
Who determines how money is spent on human capital?
Probing Questions:
Are multiple stakeholders involved in the decision-making process?
What criteria are those decisions based upon?
Was there consensus on the allocation of resources for human capital?
What are the specific goals and objectives of the school?
What are the key pieces of the school program?
Probing Questions:
What structures are in place to sustain the kind of instruction and student support you feel best
represents your school’s values?
Research Question Two:
Where do the
differences lie in human
resource allocation
between high
performing and low
performing, high
poverty schools?
Tell me how your school is organized.
Probing Questions:
Staffing
Coaches
Aides
How are the positions outside classroom teachers funded?
Research Question
Three: Is it feasible or
advisable to transfer the
rural district’s financial
and educational design
to larger school districts
and maintain the
strengths of the
program?
Is the standards-based system transferable to a large school setting?
Probing Questions:
How do you show mastery
People involved
Monetary issues
105
APPENDIX A (CONT): INTERVIEW GUIDE WITH OPEN ENDED
HUMAN CAPITAL OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS ADDED
1. How do you feel the allocation of resources to human capital at this school
contributes to the high student achievement?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
2. How do you think your school utilizes their personnel more effectively or
efficiently than other schools?
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
3. How would you change your current education system to support mastery of
state and federal academic standards?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
106
APPENDIX B: DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
Title of
Document
Date
Type of
Document
Author/Decision-
Maker
Location of
Source
How closely is
the document
related to the use
of personnel to
increase student
achievement?
How closely is
the document
related to
funding sources
and resource
allocation for
human capital?
Documents
reflecting
relationship
between human
capital and
student
achievement?
Linkages stated
within document
to improve
student
achievement
Reflections
107
APPENDIX C: PARTICIPANT LETTER
September 4, 2006
Dear Teacher/Principal/Counselor/District Administrator:
My name is Jason A. Moore and I am currently working on a doctoral dissertation study for
the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) program at the University of Southern California. I am conducting a
qualitative case study at your Elementary School during the fall and spring semesters of 2006-07.
During that time, I will be conducting interviews with various stakeholders, doing observations at
various times, and looking at data regarding the school’s organizational structure, leadership style,
and resource allocations as it relates to overall student achievement and the use of human capital. My
focus is to try and understand how these high poverty schools utilize human capital, if it is particularly
successful with certain types of students and why and, if so, determine if it can be replicated and
brought to scale in other settings.
To learn more about the schools, I will be speaking with various individuals and looking at
supporting documents such as test scores, budget reports, minutes from faculty meetings, and mission
statements. I would like to conduct a private, audio-taped interview with you at your convenience in
the location of your choosing. This interview should last approximately twenty to thirty minutes, and
all of the information will be anonymous. Nothing that you share with me will be identifiable to you.
The names of all individuals and the school’s name will be masked for your privacy. Anything I learn
from you during the interview will be reported in my research in a general way about the school, not
by your name or by subject area taught.
The school district and site administration have approved my presence at the school and have
agreed to allow my research here. However, your participation in this interview is voluntary and is
optional for you. There are no repercussions for non-participation. My intention is to better
understand the schools, how they promote student achievement and the roles of the individuals who
work at each site.
If you agree to the short interview, please contact me and let me know the time and location
of your preference. I will be in contact to confirm our appointment. Should you have any additional
questions about this project, you may contact me or my faculty advisor. Thank you in advance for
your time and cooperation with this study.
Sincerely,
Jason A. Moore, Principal Investigator Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, Faculty Advisor
USC Ed. D. Student Professor, USC Rossier School of Educ
(Cell ) 760-617-1763 Office 213-740-2175
jasonmoo@usc.edu lpicus@usc.edu
108
APPENDIX D: OBSERVATION GUIDE
Site Observations: 3-5 days
Plan: Schedule observations around scheduled school activities/events
1. Faculty meeting
2. Leadership meeting
3. Parent meeting
4. Support staff meeting
5. Grade level meeting
6. School-sponsored student activity
a. After school program
b. Tutoring
c. Classroom instruction
7. Shadow support staff member
8. Shadow principal
9. Teacher workroom
10. Library
11. Technology
12. Before school
13. Recess
14. After school
109
APPENDIX E: DOCUMENT REVIEW
Necessary documents to review:
School Plan
School Accountability Report Card (SARC)
School Handbook
Home/School Compact
School Activities Calendar
School Budget
Additional documents that might be useful:
CST/CAT6 school assessment reports
Daily schedules
Mission statement/ Vision statement
Teacher credentialing data
School bulletins/ newsletters
Promotion/retention records
Leadership team meeting minutes
School site council minutes
Professional development calendar
110
APPENDIX F: CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall 904 C
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4039
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
******************************************************************
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
AN INVESTIGATION OF TRUE STANDARDS-BASED EDUCATION UNDER
THE AUSPICES OF THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001: A CASE
STUDY OF ONE SMALL RURAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Jason A. Moore, Ed.D.
student candidate, Principal Investigator and Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, Faculty
Advisor, from the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California because you are an employee of one of our target school sites. The results
of this research will contribute to a doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a
possible participant in this study because you have some first hand knowledge about
the school(s) or the agreement that supports the existence of the school(s). A total of
fifteen subjects will be selected to participate. Your participation is voluntary. You
should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether or not to participate
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand how small rural schools allocate the
funding received from federal, state and local sources. The study intends to
document the spending of one small school district in Southern California in
relationship to personnel, curriculum, and facilities. The most important aspect of
this study will focus on the academic program being offered the students in this K-6
school district. The district, with school board approval, has adopted a curriculum
that is entirely standards-based. There is no social promotion; in fact, no student may
advance to the next set of standards until the previous set has been mastered.
111
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:
Audio-taped Interviews
You will be asked to participate in one 30 minute interview in which the researcher
will be asking you information related to the leadership and organizational structure
of the school, related duties of your position, decision making processes at the school
related to curriculum and instruction, resource allocations. There will be four main
questions related to the main focus of the study. Each question will be followed with
several clarifying questions which will provide the researcher with additional detail
about the topic.
This meeting will be a private meeting between the researcher and the subject in a
location and at a time of the subject’s choosing. This will be on a voluntary basis
and prior written consent will be obtained before proceeding.
The subject may also choose to be interviewed without being audio-taped. In this
case, the researcher will take written notes during the interview as a means to record
the information.
Provide Documents to the Researcher(s)
The researcher is specifically interested in studying documents related to the purpose
of this study. The researcher will be making copies of the desired items and using a
template to analyze the document’s connection to these purposes, which will lead to
a greater understanding of the organization. Although this is not intended as an
exhaustive list, these items might include:
a) School and District Accountability Report Cards (SARC)
b) STAR test scores/API/AYP reports
c) Monthly Attendance reports
d) Total enrollment information broken down by ethnicity
e) Budget reports for site, district
f) Minutes from School Site Council, PTA, Faculty meetings
g) Memos to staff related to professional development
112
h) Memos to staff related to master schedule issues
i) Master Schedule
j) 2005 CBEDS Report
k) Staff Roster and FTE report
l) Other items related to the organization, leadership, resource allocations as
needed
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
The researcher(s) do not anticipate any physical, financial, social, legal or
psychological risks that might result from participation in this study. All interview
questions and documents needed for analysis should be related to the subject’s day to
day job and would not call for the subject to reveal private information or breach
confidentiality in any way that might harm his/her professional reputation or
jeopardize his/her job.
Participation is voluntary and the subjects will not be coerced into participation.
Should any questions call for the subject to discuss something that might cause
him/her undue stress or psychological distress, he/she has the right to withdraw from
the interview at any point with no repercussion.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not benefit from this research study.
The potential benefits to society include the contribution to educational research on
the topic.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
113
Personal information, research data, and related records will be coded by the
researcher in a way that does not personally identify any of the individuals being
interviewed. The code will only be known to the researchers. The information
gained in this research will be stored electronically on the researchers’ personal
computer for a period of three years, or until approximately May 2010, at which time
it will be erased permanently. No unauthorized persons will have access to this
information. The researchers, including Jason Moore and Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, are
the only authorized personnel who will have access to the information during this
time and it will only be used for educational purposes.
When the results of the research are published or if it is discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If audio-tape
recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will be
protected or disguised. You have a right to review the audio-tapes before and after
they are transcribed for purposes of accuracy, if you so choose. These tapes will be
destroyed after three years. Your identity will be masked in the final dissertation.
Nothing you share will be identifiable to you personally.
You may choose to be interviewed without being audio-taped. In that case, the
researcher will take only written notes instead to record the information and will
mask your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain in the
study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise
which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
the Primary Investigator, Jason Moore, at 760-617-1763 or by email at
jasonmoo@usc.edu. You may also speak to the Faculty Advisor, Dr. Lawrence O.
Picus, at 213-740-2175. You may also contact him via mail at the Rossier School of
Education, WPH 904 C, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4039 and by email at
lpicus@usc.edu.
114
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT
I understand the procedures described above, and I understand fully the rights of a
potential subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have
been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.
I agree to be audio-taped during the interview(s).
I disagree to be audio-taped during the interview(s).
Name of Subject
Signature of Subject
Date
115
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative and
answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the information
described in this document and freely consents to participate.
Jason A. Moore
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same as subject’s)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Over the past forty years education in America has been in a reform mode. The latest reform has come in the form of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB has dictated standards to all schools in the nation. While many schools have joined the reform movement, few have made the systemic changes necessary to sustain achievement. A particular concern among reformers is the effect of standards reform on the urban and/or rural poor (Diegmueller, 1995).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

A community struggling to create a charter school: a rural case study

PDF

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

Mandated privatization through program improvement: a case study of the relationship between Action Learning Systems and the Buena Park School District

PDF

How improving schools allocate resources: a case study of successful schools in one southern California urban school district

PDF

Successful resource allocation in times of fiscal constraint: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California elementary schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

PDF

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

PDF

The middle college high school: a case study

PDF

In the implementation of standards-based reform: what is the leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth?

PDF

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

PDF

Two-way bilingual education in a post-1998 California elementary school

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 five California schools

PDF

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

PDF

Rural school equity in California: a leadership perspective

PDF

Developing standards-based Chinese curricula in international schools: a gap analysis for Eagle American School

Asset Metadata

Creator Moore, Jason A. (author)

Core Title An investigation of standards-based education under the auspices of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: a case study of one small rural school district

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/05/2007

Defense Date 05/01/2007

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

Tag California,Education,finance,OAI-PMH Harvest,standards

Place Name California (states), USA (countries)

Language English

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

Creator Email jasonmoo@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m507

Unique identifier UC1428521

Identifier etd-Moore-20070605 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-494476 (legacy record id),usctheses-m507 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Moore-20070605.pdf

Dmrecord 494476

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Moore, Jason A.

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