Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Resource allocation and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California with budget reductions
(USC Thesis Other)
Resource allocation and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California with budget reductions
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY:
CASE STUDIES OF SCHOOL-LEVEL RESOURCE USE IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA WITH BUDGET REDUCTIONS
by
Alysia Jocelyn Hobbs
________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2010
Copyright 2010 Alysia Jocelyn Hobbs
ii
DEDICATION
“One today is worth two tomorrows; what I am to be, I am now becoming.”
Benjamin Franklin
A multitude of thanks are due to my family, both given and created. Love and
support has been granted from Mom, Dad, Grammie, and Tanya. Adventures with Amy,
Sherry, Kelly and Jeff provided a multitude of study breaks and desire to press on. Thank
you to the stellar educators I work with every day at Quail Summit Elementary that
impress me with their tender care of children. It’s amazing that a girl can fall in love
while writing a paper. Watch out for Ben and I – we’re going skydiving to celebrate the
completion of this one!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, many thanks are due to my faculty dissertation chair, Dr.
Larry Picus. His invaluable support and never-ending knowledge on this subject is
inspiring. I’m fortunate to have had the opportunity to learn from such an expert.
Second, I would like to thank my bosses and mentors, Dr. Cyndy Simms and Dr.
Nancy Hogg. I appreciate their belief in me and support as I juggled Quail Summit and
USC.
I would also like to thank the other three dissertation committee members for their
guidance and time. Dr. Nelson, thank you for taking time from your professional life to
read my dissertation and for providing your feedback as a practitioner. Dr. Hentschke,
thank you for providing unique insight into this topic.
Eight principals graciously shared their time and participated in this study. Many
thanks are in order for them. In each case, I learned from a gracious school leader with
tremendous depth of knowledge that went beyond the school doors.
Finally, I am so appreciative of my fellow graduate students with whom I was
fortunate to navigate the waters of USC. I’ve learned much from you all, and am so
pleased to know you.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review 19
Chapter Three: Methodology 67
Chapter Four: Findings 76
Chapter Five: Conclusions 122
References 133
Appendices:
Appendix A: Site Participation Letter 142
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 143
Appendix C: Complete List of Documents and Artifacts 152
Appendix D: Data Collection Protocol 153
Appendix E: Data Collection Codebook 159
Appendix F: Case Studies 169
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: California Students: Racial and Ethnic Distribution by Enrollment 26
and Percent
Table 2.2: Evidence Based Model Strategies 36
Table 2.3: National Staff Development Council’s Standards for Professional 60
Development
Table 3.1: School Demographic and Achievement Data for Study Schools 70
Table 3.2: School Expenditure Structure 72
Table 4.1: Study School Characteristics 78
Table 4.2: Core and Specialist Teachers – Actual vs. Evidence Based Model 116
Table 4.3: Intervention Teachers: Tutors, Extended Day, Summer School 117
Programs – Actual vs. Evidence Based Model
Table 4.4: Other Teachers: Instructional Specialists, Student Support – Actual 118
vs. Evidence Based Model
Table 4.5: Special Education – Actual vs. Evidence Based Model 119
Table 4.6: Professional Development – Actual vs. Evidence Based Model 120
Table 4.7: Administration and Instructional Facilitators – Actual vs. Evidence 121
Based Model
Table F1: School A Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year 170
Comparison
Table F2: School A Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year 170
Comparison
Table F3: School A Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year 170
Comparison
Table F4: School A Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars) 177
Table F5: School B Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year 182
Comparison
vi
Table F6: School B Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year 182
Comparison
Table F7: School B Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year 182
Comparison
Table F8: School B Elementary Response to Instruction Tiered Intervention Model 191
Table F9: School B Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars) 197
Table F10: School C Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year 198
Comparison
Table F11: School C Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year 198
Comparison
Table F12: School C Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year 199
Comparison
Table F13: School C Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars) 205
Table F14: School D Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year 208
Comparison
Table F15: School D Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year 208
Comparison
Table F16: School D Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year 209
Comparison
Table F17: School D Elementary Response to Instruction Tiered Intervention Model 213
Table F18: School D Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars) 218
Table F19: School E Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year 222
Comparison
Table F20: School E Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year 223
Comparison
Table F21: School E Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year 223
Comparison
Table F22: School E Elementary Response to Instruction Tiered Intervention Model 227
vii
Table F23: School E Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars) 229
Table F24: School F Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year 232
Comparison
Table F25: School F Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year 233
Comparison
Table F26: School F Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year 233
Comparison
Table F27: School F Elementary Response to Instruction Tiered Intervention Model 240
Table F28: School F Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars) 242
Table F29: School G Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year 246
Comparison
Table F30: School G Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year 246
Comparison
Table F31: School G Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year 246
Comparison
Table F32: School G Elementary Response to Instruction Tiered Intervention Model 253
Table F33: School G Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars) 257
Table F34: School H Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year 261
Comparison
Table F35: School H Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year 261
Comparison
Table F36: School H Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year 262
Comparison
Table F37: School H Elementary Response to Instruction/Intervention Model 267
Table F38: School H Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars) 270
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: California School Funding Sources 2
Figure 2.1: Percentage of Student Population Classified as English Learners 27
Figure 4.1: API Scores for All Students – Three-Year Comparison 79
Figure 4.2: AYP Scores for All Students in English Language Arts – Three-Year 80
Comparison
Figure 4.3: AYP Scores for All Students in Mathematics – Three-Year Comparison 81
Figure 4.4: AYP Scores for All Students in Science – Three-Year Comparison 82
Figure 4.5: AYP Scores for Asian Students in English Language Arts – Three-Year 83
Comparison
Figure 4.6: AYP for Asian Students in Mathematics – Three-Year Comparison 84
Figure 4.7: AYP Scores for White Students in English Language Arts – Three-Year 85
Comparison
Figure 4.8: AYP Scores for White Students in Mathematics – Three-Year 86
Comparison
Figure 4.9: AYP Scores for Hispanic Students in English Language Arts – Three- 87
Year Comparison
Figure 4.10: AYP Scores for Hispanic Students in Mathematics – Three-Year 88
Comparison
ix
ABSTRACT
This study selected a purposeful sample of eight high performing southern
California elementary schools which achieved API scores above 900 over a three year
period. A review of instructional strategies for each study school during the improvement
process and resource allocation patterns was determined. Case studies of each school
include interviews and analysis of student performance data and resource allocations
choices. The findings were compared with the Evidence Based Model of school finance
adequacy. The findings suggest that although the resources available to the study schools
were significantly fewer than what the Evidence Based Model recommends, the schools
implemented many of the strategies as suggested in the body of literature on school
improvement. Effective strategies for implementing and sustaining school success
included setting the urgency for learning, goal setting, use of assessments, designing
multiple strategies to close the achievement gap (including use of Response to
Intervention and Professional Learning Communities), high quality leadership,
professional development, and time reallocation and use of incentives. Despite already
limited school resources, the schools faced significant budget reductions for the current
year and impending additional cuts due to the bleak economic outlook. Implications for
school leaders and policymakers are discussed.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem of Adequate Educational Resource Allocation
Nearly 20% of the United States population is involved in the public education
system in some capacity, whether as a student, teacher, administrator, or financial vendor
which supports the school process (Hill, Roza, & Harvey, 2008). Funding a student’s
education is a joint effort. States provide approximately 47% of the funds, local education
agencies about 44%, and the federal government supports about 9% of the total cost
(Snyder, Dillow, & Hoffman, 2008). Figure 1.1 illustrates how California’s schools are
jointly funded, a combination of federal, state, and local monies. School finance issues
are of paramount concern to all levels of the educational system, and how these resources
are allocated may determine students’ success. Research has focused on understanding
the role of school resources in student outcomes and how school resources might be more
evenly distributed to improve student outcomes (Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory, 2003). In the current times of economic instability, will each school’s
capacity to serve students be compromised?
Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) conducted a study on real per-pupil expenditures
between 1890 to 1990 and found a substantial trend of steady increases of 3.5% each
year. While these costs are primarily in real teacher wages, many of these expenditures
are due to the rising costs of special education services and other expenditures outside of
the classroom. These substantial increases in spending are difficult to track and appear to
have been used ineffectively as student achievement outcomes have not significantly
improved (Odden et al., 1995). Odden et al. (1995) assert that the task at hand is to align
2
school resources to secure student outcomes, thus ensuring schools are designed to
produce high levels of student achievement.
Figure 1.1 California School Funding
Source: EdSource (2008a)
The Evidence Based Model (EBM) is a school finance model seeking to
adequately fund schools to promote high levels of student achievement (Odden & Picus,
2008). The model provides a policy-based approach to resource allocation which
provides the foundation for school success built upon best practices for instruction for
elementary, middle, and high schools based on a school’s demographics, language and
instructional needs (Odden & Picus, 2008). The EBM ensures this school budget is built
from ground up and is designed to provide schools with a budgetary model for success.
However well-designed, this model has never been fully implemented, although several
states are implementing components of this model.
State, 58.80%
Lottery, 1.30%
Local Misc, 6.20%
Local Prop
Taxes, 21.40%
Federal
Gov,
12.30%
3
With the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
of 1965, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 significantly focused the
responsibility of schools and districts to help all children achieve at high levels. NCLB
required all states to establish standards for student learning and to monitor students’
progress through these standards toward an ever-increasing proficiency timeline. Since
the passage of NCLB, two dramatically different policy movements have shaped
education. First, the act implemented standards-based reform that tied curriculum,
professional development, and assessments to standards set by each state. Second, the
accountability movement regularly measured student growth for mastery of these
standards and assigned rewards and punishments to schools based on student growth
(Hannaway, McKay, & Nakib, 2002).
At this time, California is under unprecedented budgetary constraints, thus leaving
the school systems in the precarious situations of identifying the best possible solutions to
ensure student success despite ever-limited resources. After examining ten elementary
schools, the researcher will describe how high performing schools plan to maintain high
student achievement in times of economic stress and compare these resources against the
Evidence Based Model.
Background of the Problem
School finance, broadly examined in the literature, is rather controversial.
Increased accountability under No Child Left Behind has only added to the growing
pressure for schools to define how they spend the tax funds received. Indeed
policymakers and taxpayers alike are concerned with the growing expenditures to public
4
education despite flat or declining student outcomes (Picus & Wattenbarger, 1996).
Public education is arguably one of the most important responsibilities of the community
and nation to promote citizenry and ensure continued innovation and productivity by our
future generations. However, little has been done to inform the public of the wise
application of monies spent toward education, and there is little information available on
how dollars are allocated at the school site. This study seeks to identify how high
performing schools are allocating their resources to maintain high student achievement
during times of fiscal instability.
Odden and Picus (2008) state that educating a child is an enormous enterprise,
accounting for the largest portion of most state and local governmental funds. Despite the
funneling of these resources to school districts large inequities exist between schools,
districts, and states (US Census Bureau, 2008). While on average, districts receive
approximately $9,138 per student, this range is significantly different across the states –
New York resident students receive allotments of $14,884 each year while Utah resident
students receive $5,437. This is in part due to the remarkable variance in contributions
made by each state, exacerbating funding inequities. The state of Hawaii finances the
greatest contribution at 89.9%, which contrasts the lowest, Nebraska (31.4%) (US Census
Bureau, 2008). Finally, local educational agencies also contribute varied funding which
further exacerbate these resource levels as identified in the US Census Bureau report
(2008) that Illinois receives the highest levels of local revenue, 59.1%, to Hawaii’s 1.8%.
Such funding variations highlight vast funding inequities that exist between states.
5
Compounding inequitable levels of funding, school districts also struggle to
control spiraling costs, such as staffing and special education. In an effort to identify
appropriate funding levels, Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) reviewed educational spending
in four areas: student enrollment, instructional staff per-pupil and school year length, the
price of instructional staff, and other spending. The authors found that input costs have
increased steadily over the last century, approximately 3.5% each year and that this has
resulted in an expansion of accountability objectives and varying levels of effectively
spending school resources. Much of this spending growth has simply covered the cost of
educating an ever-increasing population. In addition, reduction in class sizes and rising
labor market wages have both increased the number of teachers and their incomes over
time. However, some of these monies are directed toward the mushrooming costs of
special education, which accounts for a disproportional share of the growth in school
expenditures. While different handicapping conditions account for different funding
levels, on average educating a student with a special education designation costs
approximately 2.3 times what a general education student costs. However, while costs are
increasing, declining enrollment and tighter local government budgets apply pressure to
school systems wrought with tension to ensure investment returns in the way of student
achievement.
Odden, Monk, Nakib, and Picus (1995) propose the long term task of schools “is
to get schools to act more like producers of high levels of student achievement than like
consumers of educational resources” (p.1). The largest share of increased spending in
education has primarily been used to hire new teachers to both reduce class size and
6
provide additional “pull out” instruction for students with disabilities. The authors argue
that neither strategy successfully boosts student achievement over the long term. Further,
school spending patterns, though unequal, are remarkably consistent on a national level:
60% of every educational dollar is spent on instructional services; 8-10% is spent on
educational expenditures such as professional development, student services, and
curriculum; and 9-11% is used to maintain physical buildings.
Odden et al. (1995) proposed the entire system must be comprehensively
restructured from the ground up to educate all students to high standards. To begin, the
issue of widely varying per-pupil expenditures must be addressed for all students. The
authors suggested decentralizing power throughout the entire system to secure control
over budgets to local schools allotting decision making to those closest to the students.
How schools are funded often limits flexibility of a school to meet the needs of all
learners at high levels.
This need for complete restructuring of the school refinance system is echoed
throughout the literature. Hannaway, McKay, and Nakib (2002) state that while reform is
likely to impact resource allocation patterns, it is not sufficient to merely alter
reallocations in schools. During their study, the authors also found that approximately
60% of education monies were allocated toward instruction. They discovered that in
infusing all new monies toward instructional purposes is a necessary condition to direct
additional monies for instructional purposes. In other words, additional monies added
into school systems do little to improve student achievement. It appears that school
districts may not have the full understanding necessary to reallocate resources to
7
proactively meet the needs of all learners; further, inadequate spending levels do not
allow districts to fully direct monies to all of the resources needed to impact learning.
Hill, Roza, and Harvey (2008) at the Center for Reinventing Public Schools
discussed the antiquated system which plagues our schools. The authors liken the current
school finance system to an outdated computer – no amount of updates to the current
system will enable it to run with any increased efficiency. This lack of efficiency leads to
frustration and very little discretion to determine how school monies are actually spent.
Hill, Roza, and Harvey (2008) state this lack of control and efficiency promotes false
confidence in a broken system ill-suited to meet the needs of students.
California’s predominant educational needs to educate such a large, diverse
population at high levels place the state in a precarious position. More students
matriculate through California’s schools than any other state; approximately one in eight
students in the United States are educated in California (EdSource, 2008). By a large
margin, California ranks first in students that speak a language other than English at
home and has the highest percentage of children who live with a head of household that
has not completed high school (EdSource, 2008). California’s large, diverse population
presents formidable challenges to overcome in order to provide a high quality education
for all students.
To further complicate matters, a variety of court decisions and ballot propositions
place control of school finance decisions squarely in the hands of state policymakers
(EdSource, 2008). Between the proportion of local property taxes and state share of
revenues, California controls approximately 80% of total school revenues (EdSource,
2008). EdSource (2008) reported that for the last thirty years per-pupil expenditures have
8
been consistently below the national average – in 2005-06, California’s students received
approximately $614 less per pupil.
At the same time, California’s level of student achievement is not impressive.
Under NCLB student achievement performance level expectations, California has a
larger number of schools nationally not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
EdSource (2008) also reported California ranks among the lowest of the states on the
National Progress of Educational Progress (NAEP); however, recalculation of the scores
indicates it scores near the U.S. average when the English learner scores are excluded.
Mediocre student achievement paired with low levels of per-pupil expenditures
underscores the need for a change in resource allocation funding levels and accountability
reform.
Not only do California’s schools rely upon their policymakers to allocate monies
but also depend upon these decision makers to agree on a state budget in a timely
manner. By July 1 every year, California’s school districts must adopt their annual
spending plans with school board approval. This is largely dependent upon what the state
budget allots for each district (EdSource, 2007). However, policymakers in Sacramento
do not often agree on state budgets in a timely manner, leaving the burden on state
leaders to make educated guesses for budgetary allocations (EdSource, 2007). Intraparty
politics can outweigh policy concerns when state officials are tasked to create a sound
budget; serious constraints of fluctuations in revenue, unpopularity among voters to
increase taxes, and balancing ballot initiatives which create spending guarantees for
particular programs heavily weigh upon state officials while formulating the state budget
(EdSource, 2007). When policymakers constructed the 2007-08 state budget, education
9
was provided with the funding required under Prop 98 and one-time funds to maintain
most programs, creating a “hole” in future budgets (EdSource, 2007). A budget shortfall
was predicted at $8 million for the year 2008-09; however, this shortfall was actualized at
$42 billion for 2009-10 (EdSource, 2007; State of California, 2009). Compounding issues
of budgetary reductions and the need to respond to an ever-diverse student population
demands attention for the area of school finance. Indeed, there is much work to be done.
Statement of the Problem
There is a lack of understanding about how to begin to address adequate levels of
school funding. In particular, an area that requires further research is the research-based
best practices and procedures states, districts, and schools should use in times of
economic instability. Nationally, students are inequitably and inadequately funded, and
there is inadequate knowledge of how to best teach students to ensure high levels of
achievement.
“States will never educate all students to high standards unless they first fix the
finance systems that support America’s schools. These systems dictate how much is
spent, who gets what, how resources are used, and which outcomes are tracked.
Unfortunately, the way they do these things no longer matches the results we expect from
schools” (School Finance Redesign Project, pg.1).
Due to this lack of understanding, it is difficult to suggest strategic
recommendations for schools and school districts to both manage unstable funding and
create high levels of student achievement. As costs continue to rise in public education,
pressures for increased accountability also grow (National Forum on Educational
Statistics, 2007). Greater accountability ushers in a larger set of voices to be addressed:
10
the public, oversight bodies (e.g., school boards, legislatures, policy makers, and
education agencies), researchers, those are involved in the lending process (e.g., investors
and creditors), and leadership of school systems at the district and school site level
(National Forum on Educational Statistics, 2007). Each of these groups shares common
needs, yet differing needs create pressures for school systems to meet. For example, all
are concerned with the design and implantation of programmatically and fiscally
effective programs (National Forum on Educational Statistics, 2007). This is a critical
time to address the needs of schools to manage fiscal reductions and seek out research-
based, practical solutions for achieving high levels of student achievement. Indeed, we
must set our course to design a comprehensive school system which proactively allocates
resources for all students.
Purpose of the Study
This study explores the use of instructional resources at the school level during
the 2009-2010 school year in California in order to contribute to the fields of school
finance, school resource allocations and equitable school finance policy. With the intent
of contributing to the fields of school finance policy and instructional resource allocation,
research conducted in this study will reflect two important school-based input factors: 1)
instructional improvement strategies, and 2) alignment of resource allocation with this
research to improve student achievement levels on a national level. Eight school sites will
be examined to determine how their instructional visions align with resource allocations
and the Evidence Based Model. The audience of this study is educators, school
administrators, and school finance policymakers who identify learning targets for school
11
sites, districts, LEAs, and state funding. Strategies for supporting students at high levels
of learning despite state funding reductions will be identified and discussed.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Through school site budget analysis, this study will reveal the how the
instructional vision of administration shapes resource allocation and how budget
reductions have altered this vision. The following research questions will contribute to
the collection of data in a California database, supportive of ongoing research:
1. What are the current improvement strategies observed at the school level?
2. How do you allocate the resources available at the school to implement the
instructional strategies?
3. How did the allocation of resources change in response to the recent budget
reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school site aligned with or
misaligned from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence Based
Model?
The researcher’s hypothesis is that each successful school has identified the
essential strategies necessary to ensure high levels of student achievement and has
located internal and external resources to maintain these programmatic interventions and
strategies with fidelity. A comparison of the Evidence Based Model will indicate how
successful schools maintain the essential components to continue to produce high levels
of student learning.
12
Significance of the Study
Considering California’s low per-pupil expenditures, growing financial
instability, and high cost of living, schools must allocate resources with particular
efficiency to maximize student learning. This study examines how eight high performing
elementary schools across a variety of school districts effectively identify the
instructional strategies most pertinent to improving student achievement. With
consideration of California’s low ranking of per-pupil expenditures, resource allocation is
particularly important with regard to high student achievement. This study will examine
how successful schools use strategies that work to meet the demanding demographic and
linguistic challenges they face, and describe how they allocate all of their resources to
improve student achievement. Strategies for supporting students at high levels of
learning despite state funding reductions will be identified and contribute to the literature
available to educators and policymakers tasked with the mission of school improvement.
Furthermore, as state policymakers that seek to better utilize California’s limited
resources for student achievement, the Evidence Based Model serves as the theoretical
framework for this study which seeks to provide additional understanding how
educational professionals and state policymakers can build successful models of school
finance. Research-based strategies will be identified and individual schools will be
studied. Commonalities or discrepancies will be discussed in accordance with the
Evidence Based Model. Recommendations for alignment of school resources to improve
student achievement will be discussed.
13
Limitations
This study is based on eight high performing elementary schools located in
Southern California during a time of fiscal crisis as of September 2009. Each school had
varying financial inputs, general and categorical funding, and student demographics. Data
were collected from September to October 2009. Generalizations do not extend beyond
the eight schools identified and studied. For this reason, while patterns and trends may be
able to inform similar school instructional vision and resource allocations, there is much
work to be done.
A major limitation of research based on these data is that it is conditional to a
particular time. Each interviewee related information based on that particular time; in a
time of economic instability, budgetary classifications are both shifting and unknown.
This snapshot of eight schools is representative of a uniquely difficult time in California
in sharp contrast to a longitudinal study of school finance.
Further sampling issues emerge with the bias inherent to data collection in a
group of volunteers. Each interviewee was coping with the ongoing stress of staff
reductions and identifying alternative strategies for meeting students’ needs despite a lack
of funding. This results in an evolving understanding of that particular school budget.
While the sampling issues limit generalization to the eight high performing elementary
schools analyzed, these data will be valuable in understanding the impact of budgetary
reductions on continuing the work of improving student achievement.
Delimitations
The current study reviewed instructional strategies and the connection to
resources allocation in order to implement them at a purposeful sample of ten high
14
performing elementary schools in Southern California in September 2009. The
researcher sought schools with Annual Performance Index (API) scores over 900. Many
of the schools had received awards such as, but not limited to, National Blue Ribbon and
California Distinguished School. Data identified included open enrollment and public
elementary schools, and excluded privately managed, charter, magnet, or voucher
schools. Since this study surveyed individual schools’ instructional visions and the
alignment of school resources to implement strategies for school improvement, excluded
from this study are non-school public resources managed at the district level including
student transportation, building maintenance and operations, district office staffing and
operations, child care operations, and food service. Outside the scope of this study were
also school bond expenditures and additional district finance corporations.
Primarily, interviews were held with each school’s principal. Participants were
asked a series of specific questions from the Evidence Based Code Book as well as open-
ended questions based on the Evidence Based Model. In most cases, participants supplied
documents supportive of resource allocation for data triangulation. The researcher
received professional development to conduct structured interviews with preset and open-
ended interview questions.
Definition of Terms
1. Adequacy: School finance theory which aligns student academic performance
expectations (determined by a state’s curriculum standards, NCLB, and measured
by a state’s testing system with a goal that all but the most severely disabled
students will achieve at proficient or advanced levels) with the necessary funding
to support to achieve these outcomes (Odden & Picus, 2008).
15
2. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires
schools and districts to measure and report individual students’ annual progress
toward 100% proficiency in language arts and mathematics by 2013-14. Progress
is measured for the school and district met its Annual Measurable Objectives
(AMO), demonstrated 95% participation on standardized tests, met target
Academic Performance Index (API), and, for high schools, met target graduation
rates.
3. Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): Target performance of students whose
state test results
4. Annual Performance Index: The cornerstone of the state’s academic
accountability requirements; measures academic performance of schools on a
numeric index ranging from 200-1000.
5. Annual Measurable Objectives: Target percentage of students that must reach
proficient or advance performance levels on state accountability test results as
determined by NCLB.
6. Average Daily Attendance: The total number of days of student attendance
divided by the total number of days in the regular school year. A student attending
every day during the school year equals one ADA. ADA is typically lower than
enrollment due to transience or illness. The state collects ADA counts at the
district level but not at the school level.
7. California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS): An annual report of basic
student and staff data including student enrollment, graduates, dropouts, course
enrollment, enrollment in alternative education, Gifted and Talented Education,
16
and more. Statistical information about schools, teachers, and students is collected
from each public school on a specific day in October.
8. California Standards Test: California’s state accountability assessment in which
grades 2-11 are tested in a variety of subjects, including English language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies.
9. Categorical Funds: State and federal funds allocated above revenue limits and
designated for students with special and specific needs, such as disabilities, and
for special purposes and programs.
10. Encroachment: Required programs which cost more than funding is provided for,
thereby requiring the use of unrestricted funds intended for all students to benefit
a particular population of students.
11. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965: United States federal
legislation which funds primary and secondary education, authorizes professional
development, instructional materials to support educational programs, and
promotes parental involvement.
12. English Learner: Designation for students not yet fluent in English; these students
are provided to access the regular instructional programs offered at the school.
English language proficiency is assessed annually with the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT).
13. Equity: Equalization of funding across per-pupil expenditures.
14. Evidence Based Model: Alignment of research-based best practices and student
needs with school resources to produce high levels of student achievement.
15. Expenditures: what is spent
17
16. Free/Reduced Price Meals: Federal program to provide food to low income
students.
17. General Fund: As an accounting term, General Fund refers to all general use
expenditures not required or permitted by law to be accounted for in a separate
accounting category.
18. No Child Left Behind Act: This 2001 reauthorization of the federal Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) places comprehensive accountability
requirements on all states, with increasing sanctions for schools and districts that
do not make Adequate Yearly Progress toward proficiency in English/language
arts and mathematics or that fail to test 95% of all students and all significant
subgroups. In California, those sanctions currently apply only to schools and
districts that accept Title I funding.
19. Proposition (Prop) 13: An initiative amendment to the California Constitution
which was approved by voters in June 1978 to restrict property taxes to no more
than one percent of “full cash value”. Further, it defines assessed value and
requires a two-thirds vote to change existing or levy special purpose taxes.
20. Proposition (Prop) 98: A voter-enacted amendment to the California Constitution,
Prop 98 receives special status during annual budget revisions and ensures
education receives a minimum level of state funding each year and is designed to
keep pace with the economy.
21. Revenue: All amounts of money received by a school system from external
sources, including new of refunds and other correcting transactions.
18
22. Revenue Limits: The amount of dollars per student that a school district receives
and is determined by the prior year’s limit plus the inflation adjustment (e.g.,
COLA).
23. Socioeconomically Disadvantaged: Students who participate in the free/reduced
price lunch program.
24. Special Education: Students with identified learning or emotional needs or
physical disabilities which have Individual Educational Plans (IEP) and programs
designed to meet these needs accordingly.
25. Taxes: Compulsory contributions enacted by a school system for public purposes,
except for employee and employer assessments for retirement and insurance
purposes. All tax revenue is classified as general revenue and is received from
taxes imposed by a government.
The first chapter of this study has presented the introduction, background and
statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions, and the significance
of the study. Assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and definition of terms will also be
addressed. Chapter 2 is a review of the literature, addressing the Evidence Based Model.
Chapter 3 presents the study’s methodology, including the research design, instruments,
and rationale. Further, Chapter 3 culminates in a description of the procedures for data
collection and analysis. Chapter 4 presents the results of the study. Chapter 5 provides a
discourse related to study results and evaluates and the related conclusions.
19
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
California’s school districts have continued to respond to a growing array of
demands and challenges. This review of the literature will inform this study. By linking
how knowledge of instructional vision and strategies can shape resource allocation
decisions. The first section reviews the growing role of school finance in the state and
provides a history of national educational finance, including the role accountability has
played in shaping school resource allocation. The second section begins with a discussion
of equity and adequacy and provides information on the four adequacy models that
estimate levels of funding designed to ensure high levels of student achievement. The
third section provides an overview of the school level factors which contribute to
improving student achievement. This includes setting the urgency for learning, goal
setting, designing multiple strategies to close the achievement gap (including use of
Response to Intervention and Professional Learning Communities), high quality
leadership, professional development, and time reallocation and use of incentives.
Research Questions
This study of the literature will be designed to inform this school finance study.
How the instructional vision and strategies of school administration shapes resource
allocation will be identified in this study. Answers to the research questions will
contribute to the collection of data in a California database, supportive of ongoing
research. The questions are as follows:
1. What are the instructional improvement strategies observed at the school
level?
20
2. How are resources allocated available at the school to implement the
instructional strategies?
3. How did the allocation of resources change in response to the recent budget
reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence Based Model?
The following literature review will shape what information is gathered and
analyzed during this study.
Creating the Context for School Financial Crisis
One in every eight students in the United States matriculates through California’s
schools, presenting local schools with a growing array of demands and challenges
(EdSource, 2008). Despite California investing less per-pupil in their educational
systems, teachers have worked diligently to implement standards-based instruction and
assessment (Hatami, 2006). No Child Left Behind required states to adopt “challenging
academic content standards” designed to identify what children needed to know at
rigorous instructional levels and corresponding assessments aligned with these standards
(Linn, 2008). Despite initial gains in student achievement as measured by the federal
expectation of proficiency on the National Assessment of Educational progress,
California’s reform initiatives may be slowing (Picus, 2006). Policy Analysis for
California Education (2006) stated there were two crucial issues for California’s
policymakers: 1) to thoughtfully balance state and federal policies with resources needed
and 2) to align reform policies to close the achievement gap between all student
subgroups.
21
The current challenges faced by individual schools are rooted in demographic
changes and continued efforts at school reform. The 1960s and 1970s prompted a variety
of initiatives to equalize the quality of schools (Education Week, 2005). Following the
Civil Rights Movement, legislators created the Early Childhood Education program, the
Miller-Unruh reading program, and bilingual education initiatives (Hatami, 2006). Prior
to the 1970s, California maintained a foundation approach to school finance which
guaranteed each school district a fixed amount of revenue per pupil in exchange for
levying a certain tax rate (Picus, 2006). School districts that were not able to raise that
amount through local taxes received state aid to make up the difference; however, if this
level did not match the needs of the schools, local districts were forced to raise their own
property tax base to increase the balance (Picus, 2006). As a result, considerable
differences existed between the school districts across the state.
The per-pupil base revenue limit made up of both local and state funding was
established in the 1970s and has been adjusted each year for inflation (Education Week,
2005). This dramatic change began with the Serrano v. Priest (Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.
3d 584, 487 P.2d 1241, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601, 1971) decisions. In 1976, the California
Supreme Court found that the existing system of funding was unconstitutional;
identifying a violation in the Equal Protection Clause of the State Constitution, Serrano v.
Priest ruled state property tax rates and per-pupil expenditures should be equalized
(Education Data Partnership, 2007b). In two major decisions, Serrano I (1971) and
Serrano II (Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal. 3d 728, 557 P.2d 929, 135 Cal. Rptr. 345), (Serrano
II) (1976), reh. denied, Jan. 27, 1977; as modified Feb. 1, 1977 cert. denied, 432 U.S. 907
(1977), the California Supreme Court ruled the school finance system unconstitutional
22
and a violation of tax protection principles (Merrow, 2004). The court found that less
affluent communities had higher tax rates to generate a lower per-pupil expenditure, and
wealthier communities would have high tax rates and yet still generate a higher per-pupil
expenditure. The legislature came up with a plan to equalize these school revenues. A
cap on the rate of growth in per-pupil expenditures in wealthy districts, balanced with
redistribution of some of their local property taxes to poor districts proved to be a success
in kind, as per-pupil revenue limits reached within a $350 range for 97% of the states’
students, excluding categorical funds from this calculation (Merrow, 2004).
Categorical grants were established to distribute earmarked monies to schools.
Today, approximately one half of state revenues for schools are distributed through
categorical programs targeting for particular categories of children, special programs and
special purposes (Picus, 2006; Educational Data Partnership, 2008). These monies are
granted in addition to individual school district’s general purpose revenue, almost always
restrictions exist. Substantial inequities are perpetuated across school districts as this
continues to ensure dramatic variations in resource allocations available to students
across the state, resulting in an elaborate system where there is little relationship between
the identified student needs and the allocation of resources (Picus, 2006). Merrow (2004)
stated there were 88 different categorical programs, all of which require schools to spend
a large amount of staff time on accounting and how each dollar is spent. The largest
categorical grant is special education, and as with all categorical programs, participation
in the program can be voluntary (Educational Data Partnership, 2007a).
The notion of school reform centered on equalizing school finance through the
1980s (Hatami, 2006). Since 1978, the decision about how much money school districts
23
receive and the origin of the money itself has been determined by the California governor
and Legislature (Education Data Partnership, 2004a). Proposition 13 was passed by an
overwhelming majority of voters in 1978 and was another dramatic shift between schools
and the state. Limiting property taxes to just one percent of the assessed value, and by
defining the assessed value of each house and how much it can grow, Proposition 13
bound the state’s revenue capacity and handed control of all property taxes to the State
Legislature (Picus, 2006). Property tax revenue increases do not benefit most schools
because their general purpose income is capped by revenue limits, with the exception of
basic aid districts which are able to receive and keep property tax revenues in excess of
their revenue limit (Educational Data Partnership, 2004a).
The funding system which developed as a result of Proposition 13 is the origin of
today’s current school finance system. The California Legislature set revenue limits for
districts in 1972, according to each district’s expenditures on general education programs,
thus creating substantial variations between districts (Educational Data Partnership,
2007b). These revenue limits have been adjusted over time based on student enrollment
and the cost of living adjustments (Picus, 2006). Serrano v. Priest required the state to
make each district’s general purpose money nearly equal per-pupil (Educational Data
Partnership, 2007b). Student revenue limits are jointly funded by property taxes and state
funds, making up the difference between the revenue limit guarantee of Proposition 13
and property tax collections (Picus, 2006). Categorical program funding is in addition to
the school district’s resources (Education Week, 2005).
A constitutional amendment passed by voters in 1988 further complicated the
financial formulas (Educational Data Partnership, 2004b). Proposition 98 guaranteed that
24
school funding keep pace with student enrollment changes and per capita income (Picus,
2006). Proposition 98 included three tests that schools receive a minimum share of the
state budget each year, based on the condition of the state’s economy; in years of
“normal” state revenue growth, K-14 education receives at least the same amount as the
previous year with minor adjustments in average daily attendance (ADA) and per resident
personal income – approximately 40% of the state’s budget (Picus, 2006). “Fair share”
formulas are designed to protect the revenue limits for each district when growth is low,
thus entitling education to the same amount allocated the previous year (EdSource, 2009).
In difficult economic years, the state can provide a lesser amount. Inflation
adjustments are the annual change, whether the increase or decrease, in the per capital
General Fund revenues and include a half percent of the prior year’s Proposition 98
spending amount (EdSource, 2009). Suspension of Proposition 98 is only permitted with
a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and governor’s agreement (Educational Data
Partnership, 2007b). Proposition 98’s purpose was to ensure adequate funding to schools,
or providing a floor of funding levels. In practice, Proposition 98 has served as a ceiling
for educational spending (Picus, 2006).
With the passage of each of these measures, the state steadily centralized power of
the school finance system (Hatami, 2006). EdSource (2008) asserts that this level of
control is unusual for a state; the amount of money districts receive is largely determined
by policymakers, not voters or school districts. Any instability in the health of the state’s
budget considerably influences decisions made about educational spending. During the
2004-05 school year, public funds were distributed in the following manner: 47% state
sources, 29% local property taxes, 9% federal sources, 8% other local sources, 8% parent
25
government contributions (EdSource, 2008). Combined with the portion of local property
taxes that are distributed to local school districts but set at the state level, the state
controls about 80% of total revenues to schools (EdSource, 2008; Hatami, 2006).
Obstacles in Student Accountability
Analysts assert the state’s decline in student achievement is due to the steady
leaching of resources from schools that was the result of the Serrano v. Priest, economic
hard times due to the downturn from the defense industry layoffs, curricula
experimentation with “whole language” and “new math”, and a dramatic influx of second
language learners that outpaced the individual school’s ability to address language
acquisition needs (Kirst, 2002; Hatami, 2006). Many school reforms were necessary to
respond to changing student demographics. Table 2.1 illustrates the dramatic change of
student demographics over thirty years (EdSource, 2009). As a result, the state system
declined (Hatami, 2006). California educates more than one third of the nation’s English
learners; approximately 24% of students in California’s public schools are classified as
English Learners (EdSource, 2008). California’s English Learners comprise 37% of the
total English Learner populations in the United States, and Figure 2.1 illustrates where
the rest of these students are educated (EdSource, 2009).
26
Table 2.1 California Students: Racial and Ethnic Distribution by Enrollment and Percent
Ethnicities 1981-82 1990-91 2001-02 2007-08
African-
American
399,171 9.9 426,356 8.6 512,996 8.3 466,141 7.4
Asian/
Pacific
Islander
221,899 5.5 414,676 8.3 535,714 8.8 555,946 8.9
Filipino 64,425 1.6 109,650 2.2 150,360 2.4 167,385 2.7
Hispanic/
Latino
1,045,186 25.8 1,702,363 34.4 2,717,602 44.2 3,056,616 48.7
Native
American/
Alaskan
32,647 0.8 38,112 0.8 53,314 0.9 47,543 0.8
White 2,282,828 56.4 2,259,317 45.6 2,138,085 34.8 1,790,513 0.8
Multiple/
No
Response
NA NA NA NA 39,304 0.6 191,325 3.0
Total
Enrollment
6,147,375 4,950,474 6,050,895 6,275,469
Sources: California Department of Education (2008); EdSource (2009)
In response to demographic changes and curricular inadequacies, Governor
Wilson introduced the Standardized Testing and Reporting System in 1996, which began
the work of developing standards for each curricular area for every grade level (Kirst,
2002). A commission was developed to implement academically rigorous state standards
and corresponding assessments in core subject areas at each grade level. Growing
concerns about the lack of accountability led the state to purchase the Stanford 9, a
nationally normed assessment that was not aligned to the state standards (Herman,
Brown, & Baker, 2000). Governor Gray Davis attached test score gains to the assessment
and the metamessage was clear: prepare for the assessments first, and teach the state
curriculum second (Kirst, 2002). As a result of the Stanford 9’s serious limitations, the
state again shifted to implementation of the California Standards Test in the spring of
2001 (Herman, Brown, & Baker, 2000).
F
S
M
co
d
am
li
st
C
ed
sc
su
Figure 2.1 Pe
Source: EdS
Merging Acco
A 199
oncerns abou
esigned to fu
mount; only
imits. Accord
tudents enro
The W
California wi
ducation (Ed
chools for pr
upport, and l
United Stat
Haw
Tex
Arizo
New Mexi
Californ
ercentage of
ource (2008
ountability a
98 change in
ut school dis
und 90% of
y ten percent
ding to the C
lled in 776 s
Williams v. C
th failure to
dSource, 200
rotection of
low-perform
0
tes
waii
xas
na
co
nia
f Student Pop
)
and School R
n the average
strict financi
schools state
of the stude
California De
school distric
California law
provide thou
09). Settled i
all students,
ming schools
5
pulation Cla
Resources
e daily atten
ial equity. It
ewide to hav
ents could be
epartment of
cts were elig
wsuit, origin
usands of ch
in 2004, Wil
particularly
while requir
10
assified as En
ndance calcul
has not been
ve base reven
e in districts
f Education,
gible for add
nally filed in
hildren the b
lliams set ac
y English Lea
ring schools
15
nglish Learn
lation raised
n funded sin
nue limits w
with higher
, more than 5
ditional funds
2000, charg
asic materia
ccountability
arners, addit
s to report fa
20
ners
d renewed
nce. This plan
with the same
base revenu
5 million
s.
ged the state
als necessary
y measures fo
tional financ
cility condit
25
27
n is
e
ue
of
y for
or
cial
tions,
28
teacher mis-assignments, and the availability of textbooks for all students (EdSource,
2009). Procedures for filing a complaint for insufficient instructional materials is a
necessary component of the Williams Act for all parents, students, teachers, and
community members to increase awareness and understanding of the basic required
inputs of a school (EdSource, 2009). This major class action lawsuit highlighted the
disparities that existed between funding and demands for high student achievement
(Hatami, 2006). While raising questions about how the state should hold schools
accountable to increasing student achievement, the Williams case demonstrated the
current lack of basic inputs required to support schools in achieving these goals (Hatami,
2006). However, it did little to provide a structural remedy to California’s problematic
school finance system.
In order to determine how much financial support is adequate, researchers and
policymakers were commissioned to conduct a large-scale research analysis to track the
relationship between money, efficiency, and student achievement (Institute for Research
on Education Policy & Practice, 2007). “Getting Down to Facts” was the result of an 18
month study and found that California’s school finance system was fundamentally flawed
and failed to help students meet state performance goals, particularly for students from
low-income families (Institute for Research on Education Policy & Practice, 2007).
Absent any reform, the “Getting Down to Facts” Project determined that it was unlikely
that dramatic improvements to student achievement will result by directing additional
money into the current school finance system (Loeb, Bryk, & Hanushek, 2007). Citing
poor performance for all students, the report insisted fundamental and comprehensive
change is necessary to alter the detrimental effects of cumulative low student
29
achievement on individual earnings, worker productivity, and the economic growth
required for an increasingly global society (Loeb, Bryk, & Hanushek, 2007).
National School Finance Dilemmas
Much like California, many other states are at a conundrum for how public
revenues are raised and distributed for K-12 education. Most states have focused on the
allocation of aid from a wide collection of tax bases. As California, states have directed
far less attention to how monies are allocated at the local level than to student outcomes
(Olsen, 2005; Johnson, 2005). With the passage of No Child Left Behind and the demand
that all students achieve proficiency on rigorous standards in reading and mathematics by
2013-2014, linking education spending to student outcomes has come to the forefront of
education. Increasingly tight state budgets in recent years add additional pressures to
force school districts to do more with less. Olsen (2005) found 37 states identified the
lack of resources and unpredictable funding levels as the most pressing school finance
issue, particularly given current state revenue trends.
Hanushek (2003) asserts that quality education should be measured by test scores
due to their high correlation to individual earnings, productivity, and general economic
growth. A strong relationship is found between test performance and national growth, and
a smaller relationship exists between the amount of school attended and national growth
(Hanushek, 2003; Hanushek & Kimbo, 2000). Quality schools are important for a strong,
productive nation. Hanushek (2003) argues policy initiatives must shift from the input
focus (e.g., reduction of class sizes or altering of teaching credential requirements) to the
quality of education provided. Skillfully allocating resources to meet the needs of all
30
learners in an increasingly unstable learning environment is a primary task of school
leaders in today’s schools.
Adequacy vs. Equity in California’s Current Economic Crisis
The impact of these lawsuits, combined with resulting Legislative action has been
to narrow revenue disparities across districts, although they have not been completely
eliminated. Education Trust (2003b) found large funding gaps between districts with high
and low levels of poverty and minority students. The focus on equity was ineffective, as
it failed to address inefficiencies in how all districts allocated resources to improve
student learning (Olsen, 2005). As a result, directing attention to financial equity
amounted to “equalized mediocrity” in California (Kirst, quoted in Merrow, 2004).
School finance adequacy requires each child to receive a high quality education
that produces high levels of student learning (Odden & Picus, 2008). Policymakers are
increasingly concerned with the adequate levels of funding necessary to provide this
quality of education and if districts are effectively allocating the resources received
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Recent court cases have focused on school adequacy and
highlighted that the students with the greatest needs are most often the least likely to meet
state performance standards (Olsen, 2005). Odden and Picus (2008) argue the primary
school finance problem facing schools today is linking school finance to the strategies
needed to reach high levels of student achievement.
California’s state revenues and property tax levels will be increasingly important
to determine what is available for local schools (Hoff, 2005). In this time of economic
uncertainty, the California Legislature is under intense public pressure to keep taxes at
current or lower levels (Hoff, 2005). Surges in revenues and comprehensive spending
31
commitments in 1998-99 led to the beginning of the California structural deficit gap
(State of California, 2009). When revenues declined, California relied on borrowing to
temporarily reduce spending without cutting commitments to programs, including
education (State of California, 2009). This ten-year structural budget deficit has not
eliminated. The dramatic decline in revenues consequential from the current recession
has resulted in a budget gap of $41.6 billion (State of California, 2009).
Falling home values, limited credit availability, attenuation in equity values, and
increasing unemployment compound to produce national and California economies in
crisis (State of California, 2009). As a consequence, the K-12 public education system’s
Proposition 98 levels proposed to decrease from $58.1 billion from the 2008-09 school
year to $51.5 billion during the 2009-10 school year, or a reduction of 11.4 percent (State
of California, 2009). Further, non-General Fund expenditures were also anticipated to be
reduced by 19 percent (State of California, 2009). After the governor’s May Revision, the
state budget deficits totaled over $60 billion, and cuts to education played a major role in
policymakers’ efforts to close this massive shortfall (EdSource, 2010).
The federal stimulus package enacted in February of 2009 provided one-time
funding for California, totaling approximately $3.8 billion for the 2008-2009 and $2.3
billion for the 2009-2010 school years (EdSource, 2010). Further, significant funding of
$1.1 billion and $1.2 billion was allocated for Title I schools and Special Education
respectively (EdSource, 2010). Despite this substantial one-time funding, the issue of
economic uncertainty weighs predominantly for school leaders and personnel. Thus,
defining what is adequate for students is important.
32
While school finance adequacy sounds like a simple concept, recent economic
uncertainties may further complicate how schools are funded. Odden (2003) asserts that
as funding formulas are revised for schools to respond to standards-based reform, there
will be corresponding improvements in fiscal equity. Defining adequacy is important to
begin to determine how to meet the needs of California’s students in an accountability-
rich learning environment. Four resource allocation models will be reviewed in the next
section.
School Resource Allocation Models
Designing an adequate school finance system requires states to identify adequate
expenditure levels for representative students in typical districts, accounting for sufficient
adjustments for different student needs (Odden, 2003). One recommendation garnering
interest to reform California’s school finance system is the use of a “weighted” pupil
approach (Picus, 2007). School level data on student characteristics could be instrumental
in establishing measures for adequate funding for individual students with a variety of
instructional needs to high levels (Busch & Odden, 1997). Student needs and their
corresponding “weights” would provide accurate data on resource use and allocations for
different students.
Education Week (2005) conducted a study and identified 30 states that have
undertaken adequacy study reviews. Olsen (2005) found 14 states had completed studies
to determine the costs associated with complete implementation of No Child Left Behind.
Indeed, identifying appropriate adequacy levels in schools is an important concern for
schools today. Four methods have been used to determine adequate levels of school
33
funding and will be reviewed in this section: Successful District, Professional Judgment,
Cost Function, and Evidence Based.
The Successful District model identifies those ideal districts as models which
have meet specific levels of student performance and determines how much, on average,
those schools spend (Olsen, 2005). This adequacy model is based on setting expectations
on the desired level of performance and the characteristics needed to produce that level of
performance; from this group is selected the Districts with characteristics comparable to
the state average and per-pupil totals are averaged from this number (Odden & Picus,
2008). Atypical districts are eliminated from such an analysis, thus excluding outliers of
highest and lowest spending, and highest and lowest wealth districts (Odden, 2003).
Exclusion of these school districts allows nonmetropolitan districts of average size and
homogeneous demographics to be identified (Odden & Picus, 2008). The Successful
District model was utilized in Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, and Ohio (Odden, 2003).
An advantage of this adequacy model is that it identifies funding levels that are
necessary to attain high levels of student performance (Odden & Picus, 2008). Although
the assumption is that this identified amount is sufficient to produce high student
achievement in other school systems, it becomes difficult for large urban and small rural
districts to relate to the needs of such model districts’ school allocations (Olsen, 2005;
Odden, 2003). Each identified district’s definition of success resulted in considerable
variation in the amount of resources needed to eliminate the adequacy gap (Rebell, 2007).
The Professional Judgment model, also known as the Resource Cost Model, is a
second approach to creating adequate levels of funding. Relying on panels of expert
educators to identify the essential resources and programs a school needs to produce high
34
levels of student performance, the Professional Judgment model proposes funding levels
necessary to accomplish this task (Olsen, 2005; Odden & Picus, 2008). This method
suggested funding levels for both Illinois and Alaska, but neither state implemented the
proposals (Odden & Picus, 2008). This ingredient based approach to education can
incorporate adjustments for both small and large schools, special needs students, and
geographic cost variations (Odden, 2003).
As actual student performance strategies are identified, the Professional Judgment
approach provides important contributions of thought toward adequacy (Odden, 2003).
However, the expert educational judgments, strategies, and ingredients link only
indirectly to actual performance levels in schools (Odden & Picus, 2008). Another
disadvantage of the Professional Judgment model is the model’s definitions of success
varies significantly across and within states depending on how the process is managed
(Rebell, 2007; Odden, 2003).
The Cost Function model is a third approach to creating levels of school
adequacy. This method uses statistical regression models to study the relationship
between a desired level of student performance and corresponding levels of spending for
students and district with a variety of characteristics (Olsen, 2005). The resulting
adequate per-pupil expenditures for the average district can be adjusted to accommodate
varying pupil needs and costs such as high-poverty, English Learners, and special
education, as well as the ability to scale to large and small size districts (Imazeki, 2008).
A critical component of Cost Function models is the availability of extensive statewide
data on per-pupil expenditures, student performance, and characteristics of individual
student needs and district level programs (Rebell, 2007).
35
This model is problematic because it usually produces an adjustment for city
districts of two to three times the average expenditure levels which, combined with the
complicated regression model, can be difficult for policymakers to make sense of
(Imazeki, 2008; Odden, 2003). Although no state currently uses this model, Cost
Function analyses were conducted for New York, Wisconsin, Texas, and Illinois. They
demonstrating significant variations in average adequacy levels needed due to large
ranges of student and district needs (Odden, 2003).
The fourth model which promotes adequacy in school finance is the Evidence
Based Model (EBM) and it will be examined in each of the schools identified in this
study. This approach identifies a set of strategies necessary to deliver a high-quality,
comprehensive school-wide instructional program which produces high levels of student
achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008). This model relies on research to identify strategies
and school designs which produce outcomes, and then calculates the cost to establish
these strategies in schools (Olsen, 2005). The Evidence Based model has been used to
calculate adequate spending levels in Kentucky, Arkansas, Arizona, Wyoming, and
Washington (Odden & Picus, 2008). Based on prototypical schools of 432 students, this
model identifies and supports implementation of the strategies necessary for doubling
overall school performance (Odden & Picus, 2008).
While comprehensive, the Evidence Based Model can be costly, as it requires
providing two instructional coaches at a rate of one for every 200 students in a school,
class sizes of 15 in grades K-3, full-day kindergarten programs, and extensive
professional development in order to ensure high quality instruction (Picus, 2007). This
model’s research-based strategies are identified in Table 2.2. High levels of funding
36
required in the model ensure schools have the ability to deploy research-based strategies
with fidelity, a necessary component of school reform (Odden, 2003). Because this
model forms the basis for comparisons across the sample schools in this study, it is
described in more depth below.
Table 2.2 Evidence Based Model Strategies
Position/Strategy Model Allotments
Administrator: 1.0 FTE for prototype school of 432; .5 FTE
for every 216 students above 432
Core Teachers/Class Size: K-3: 15 students per teacher
4-12: 25 students per teacher
Specialist Teachers:
Relieve core teachers during the school day so
they can collaborate daily for 45-60 minutes
K-5: 20% of total core teachers
6-8: 20% of total core teachers
9-12: 33% of total core teachers
Extra Support Staff:
Tutors one student every 20 minutes for three
students per hour
1.0 FTE for every 100 at-risk or English
Learner students
Special Education (self-contained):
Classes are for severely disabled students
and include aides; number allotted based on
school needs
Extended Day:
50% of the Adjusted Free and Reduced Price
lunch students
1.0 FTE for every 15 students.
Recommended session of 8 weeks, 6 hours
per day
Summer School:
50% of the Adjusted Free and Reduced Price
lunch students
1.0 FTE for every 15 students.
Recommended a 2 hour after school
program for 5 days a week with teachers
providing at least one hour of assistance
Professional Development:
10 additional days added to teacher contract
for professional development
Funds allotted: approximately $100 per
pupil. Collaborative work with teachers
during the school day. On site coaching.
Instructional Specialists: 1 FTE for every 200 students; 2.5 FTEs with
a school of 432 students
Instructional Aides: No allocations in prototype school for
instructional aides
Supervisory Aides: 2.0 FTE supervisory aides for each
prototype school of 432
Student Support: 1.0 FTE licensed professional for every 100
student enrolled in the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program, with a minimum of one for
prototype school of 432
Source: Odden & Picus (2008)
37
Evidence Based Model
Evidence Based Model Definition of Adequacy
According to Odden and Picus (2008), the Evidence Based Model provides for
the following components of educational adequacy are required for determining adequate
funding levels. These elements are:
• The expectations that state curricular standards are defined and taught to high
levels.
• The standards are assessed in the state’s accountability testing system, including
what level of proficiency is required for each test. The goal is that all students but
the most severely disabled perform at or above proficiency over time.
• The standards taught and assessed in the state’s accountability testing system be
in alignment with No Child Left Behind Act, which requires all students to
achieve proficiency or above regardless of parent income, ethnicity, ability to
speak English, or other student characteristics.
• The availability of sufficient school funding to provide proper resource
allocations according to the EBM, listed in Table 2.2.
The following are recommendations specific to the Evidence Based Model (EBM):
Administrators
The Evidence Based Model recommends one full time equivalent administrator
for each prototypical school of 432 students or one part time (0.5 FTE) administrator for
every 216 students.
38
Core Teachers/Class Size
According to Odden and Picus (2008), class sizes of 15 are recommended for
kindergarten through third grade. According to the Tennessee STAR study (Finn &
Achilles, 1999), a large scale randomized study, students in smaller classes in these
primary grades fare better in smaller classes than those students in regular classes.
Further, the impact of small class sizes is even larger for students from low-income and
minority backgrounds (Odden & Picus, 2008). Evidence on effect class sizes for grades
4-12 is not established, thus the EBM sets the best practices recommendation to 25 for
these class sizes.
Specialist Teachers/Planning and Preparation Time for Collaborative Development
Specialist teachers are provided to enrich student education through art, music,
library skills, and physical education while providing release time for teachers for
collaborative planning, job-embedded professional development, and ongoing curricular
development (Odden & Picus, 2008). In order to provide this planning time, 20%
additional staff is necessary for elementary schools and would allow teachers to have 45-
60 minutes daily of preparation time. The EBM formula allots 20% of the total core
instructional teachers to constitute the total number of additional staff.
Staff for Extra Student Needs
Tutors are provided in the EBM to support struggling students with immediate,
intensive assistance to bring students to proficiency. One fully licensed teacher is allotted
under the EBM for every 100 at-risk students (Odden & Picus, 2008). One suggested use
of this tutor is to provide instruction for one student every twenty minutes or three
students per hour; thus one tutor position would service 18 students per day. In order to
39
increase the number of tutoring sessions, the at-risk tutor should teach small groups of
one to three students for 30 minute sessions or three to five students for 45 minute
sessions.
English Language Learners also have additional assistance embedded into the
EBM. As with at-risk students, EL students receive a 1.0 FTE fully credentialed teacher
for every 100 English Learner students enrolled in the school. The EBM also provides
special education classes for severely disabled students with special education aides.
Extended Day
After school programs are created to provide students with academic support and
a safe location to be after school. Odden and Picus (2008) provide this additional
assistance for struggling students in the EBM to achieve proficiency on academic
standards. Since not all students will need to attend this program, the model suggests only
50% of the free and reduced lunch program pupil count, and for every 15 students, one
1.0 FTE be provided. The EBM recommends a two hour after school program for five
days per week with teachers providing at least one hour of assistance (Odden & Picus,
2008).
Summer School
Odden and Picus (2008) included funding for a summer school program in the
EBM to support all students in the rigorous California state standards. The funding
formula includes a provision of 50% of all free and reduced lunch program for a
recommended session of eight weeks, six hours per day, and a class size of no more than
15 students to provide much needed additional time to meet state standards. According to
40
Borman and Boulay (2004) as cited in Odden and Picus (2008), the following
recommendations are designed to enhance summer school:
• Early intervention during summer school
• A full 6-8 week summer program
• A clear focus on mathematics and reading achievement
• Individualized or small group instruction
• Parent participation
• Careful scrutiny for fidelity to the curriculum
• Monitoring
• Student attendance
Student Support
Student support in the Evidence Based Model includes counselors, nurses,
psychologists, and social workers (Odden & Picus, 2008). Schools are enhanced with
student support and family outreach embedded into the school culture, particularly for
schools with disadvantaged schools. The EBM provides one licensed professional for
every 100 students from low-income backgrounds, with a minimum of 1.0 FTE for each
prototypical elementary school of 432 students. The recommendation enables school
districts and individual schools to allocate the FTE across guidance counselors, social
workers, nurses, and other student support professionals in a way that best fits the need of
the schools.
41
Instructional Aides
The Evidence Based Model does not recommend nor fund instructional aides. The
model identifies the need for supervisory aides and recommends 2.0 FTE for a school of
400-500 students.
Intensive Professional Development
Professional development is an essential component to improving student
achievement through teacher practice (Supovich & Turner, 2000; Desimone et al., 2002;
Fermanich et al., 2006; Marzano, 2003). Effective professional development is one of the
most important strategies provided for in the Evidence Based Model. It is the primary
method through which teachers transform practice into high quality instruction which is
the key to improving student learning (Marzano, 2003). Odden and Picus (2008)
recommend the following strategies for professional development based on their review
of the literature:
• Time during the summer for intensive training institutes, most easily
accomplished by ensuring that approximately 10 days for teachers’ work year is
dedicated to professional development. The EBM recommends augmentation of
the work year with an additional 10 days to include staff development.
• On-site coaching for all teachers to assist with the incorporation of research-based
strategies into teachers’ instructional repertoire.
• Collaborative work with teachers during the school day with planning and
preparation periods to improve the curricular and instructional program, requiring
clever scheduling of the school day to allow this time.
42
• Funds for summer and ongoing training during the school year are allotted for
approximately $100 per pupil under the EBM, thus including money for the
trainer and assorted professional development costs.
Instructional Facilitators/School-Based Coaches/Mentors
Instructional facilitators are provided in the prototypical school of 432 students
(Odden & Picus, 2008). The EBM formula funds 1.0 FTE for every 200 students. These
individuals are responsible for coordinating the instructional program of the school and
provide necessary coaching and mentoring required for effective professional
development. The majority of the instructional facilitator’s role is to provide in-classroom
support modeling lessons and supply constructive feedback to teachers in order to
improve the instructional program (Odden & Picus, 2008).
The Rationale for the Evidence Based Model
The Evidence Based Model utilizes effective research-based strategies that are
grounded in educational research in staff development, instructional improvement,
educational improvement, and curriculum and instruction. In the area of staff
development, the EBM allows time vital for teachers to work collaboratively to create
curriculum, diagnose assessments, and instruct students (Supovitz & Turner, 2000;
Birman et al., 2000; Fermanich et al., 2006). Supported through the provision of
specialist teachers who teach supplemental courses such as music, art, or physical
education classes, core teachers are relieved throughout the school day to work
collaboratively with one another. Extra support for struggling students is designed in the
Evidence Based Model in the form of extended day programs, summer school programs,
43
and additional help during the school day. The EBM recommends smaller class sizes and
greater flexibility for teachers throughout the school day for collaborative, instructionally
focused meetings.
Though the Evidence Based Model recommends specific staffing allotments and
programs based on the number of students enrolled at each school, many of these
strategies are not allocated under the current California school finance funding system.
However, it provides a useful framework to inform schools both how to analyze current
school resources in place and utilize existing resources most efficiently. The focus of this
study will be upon the Evidence Based model. However, to date, no single approach of
identifying adequate levels of school finance is used across the country (Odden, 2003).
At the heart of adequacy studies lies the desire to connect school finance levels with high
levels of student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008). The foundation of developing an
adequate educational system begins with identifying best practices which will be
discussed in the next section.
Successful School Practices
School systems can produce large improvements in student academic
achievement (Marzano, 2001; Symonds, 2004; Odden, 2009). Current school
mechanisms by their nature seek to increase student performance by improving the
functioning of the schools yet often prevent this very improvement (O’Day, 2002). This
section of the literature review will focus on strategies schools have implemented to
improve and sustain school success. The first step for all schools is creating the urgency
for all stakeholders and setting goals for improvement. Establishing assessment systems
to monitor student learning will also be discussed as will how to utilize this information
44
to close the achievement gap and provide Response to Instruction/Intervention for all
learners. Professional Learning Communities and professional development will be
discussed in order to facilitate high levels of student learning. Use of incentives and time
reallocation were discussed. These successful school strategies comprise this section of
the literature review.
Creating Urgency
Establishing the perceived need for dramatic change is the first step necessary to
launching a successful school. Odden (2009) stated all stakeholders must fully understand
the performance challenge as the catalyst for providing the necessary pressure required
for change. Large-scale improvements to reach all students in all classrooms can only be
mobilized with the understanding of useful, accurate information about student learning
(Elmore, 2002; Symonds, 2004). Odden (2009) asserted performance pressure can come
from a variety of sources: disappointing results from NCLB, higher levels of student
knowledge and skill required for the global workforce, or the moral drive to close the
achievement gap. In response, many districts and schools analyze existing performance
data to understand the nature of the responsibility for school improvement (Schmoker,
2006).
The complexity of the school system and its multiple, often divergent
stakeholders often present a difficult challenge to create the impetus for changing the
teaching and learning cycle (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). Facing reality
requires a full examination of student results down to the subskill areas and determines
how to correspondingly tailor responses to fit the conditions of each specific school
(Odden, 2009). Symonds (2004) found that teachers at schools which improved learning
45
for all students used data to understand skill gaps of low-achieving students. Systematic
support and structured opportunities are necessary for stakeholders to reflect, discuss,
collaborate about, and respond to the challenges that data bring (Symonds, 2004). System
wide progress begins with utilizing this momentum to build internal accountability.
Internal accountability is defined as strengthening teaching and learning, having clear
goals, and establishing accountability (Childress, Elmore, & Grossman, 2006).
Establishing aggressive but realistic goals will be discussed in the next section.
Goal Setting
Goals define the focus and provide the roadmap to success. Maeroff (as cited in
Schmoker, 1999) asserted clear, elevating goals and a results-driven structure motivates
and energizes teams toward tangible improvement. As Schmoker (1999) aptly discussed,
goals and teamwork have a symbiotic relationship, serving the team in a cohesive nature.
Without the language of common goals, progress is stifled. School success is dependent
upon the ability to effectively select, define, and measure progress and the ability of
educators to adjust effort toward goals (Schmoker, 1999; Little Hoover Commission,
2008). This modification occurs in rich dialogue and is an important component of goal
setting. According to Schmoker (1999), the criteria for effective goals include measurable
outcomes, annual increases, must be outcome focused, and written in simple,
understandable language.
In a report titled Similar Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do
Better?, Williams et al. (2006) reported high performing schools share four specific
priorities, or clusters of practice, which correlated with high student achievement:
prioritizing student achievement, implementing standard-based instructional program,
46
using assessment data to improve student achievement and instruction, and ensuring the
availability of instructional resources. Extensive use of student assessment data by school
districts, principals, and teachers was found to be highly correlated with improving
instruction and student learning (Williams et al., 2006). Marzano (2003) found setting
academic goals for student learning had a high effect size on learning achievement, and
this provides an influential, coalescing effect on teachers and administrators. Shared
goals should be challenging for all students (Marzano, 2003; Childress, Elmore, &
Grossman, 2006; Elmore, 2002). Odden (2009) argues that setting bold goals prevents the
“soft bigotry of low expectations”; rigorous goal setting provides the setting for quantum
improvements in performance for all students (Odden, 2009).
Assessment Evaluation Systems
According to Stecher and Kirby (2004), setting goals for desired levels of student
performance and assessment use for measuring goal attainment enables school systems to
accurately judge success. Assessments are instruments used to judge student mastery of
California’s academic standards and are necessary for systemic reform (Stecher,
Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2003; Cohen, 1995). Symonds (2004) found schools that utilized
frequent assessments were more successful with producing high student outcomes.
Summative and formative assessments are relatively new but rapidly evolving
educational tools (Odden, 2009). Fullan (2005) states assessment for learning is one of
the most high yield strategies because it represents a powerful impetus for changing
teaching and learning and it is learnable within a realistic time frame. Assessments alone
cannot improve student achievement, but provide for an overall summary picture of
student performance for individual students, overall schools, and district wide
47
information. Use of both formative and summative assessment data is necessary to
identify areas of high, average, and low performance at all levels to inform the teaching
and learning cycle; however, each assessment type serves a distinct and unique purpose
(Fullan, 2005).
Summative assessments are formalized, standards-based assessments
administered at the end of a learning experience or school year (Marzano, 2003; Odden,
2009). Formative assessments are diagnostic in nature and provide timely feedback to
inform instruction throughout the learning experience or school year (Marzano, 2003;
Odden, forthcoming 2009). Otherwise known as benchmark data, this type of data
provide more detail on student performance than the annual standards-based assessments
(Odden, to be published 2009). In order to impact student achievement, feedback given to
students must be timely and specific (Marzano, 2003). Black and William (1998) state
assessment is foundational for effective learning, particularly for increasing the
achievement of low performing students.
A poverty of practice exists for schools that overemphasize the marks and grading
functions of assessments and underemphasize the learning needs exposed by student
results (Black & William, 1998). Student performance on standards assessed
communicates student understanding of the knowledge assessed, and raises teacher
awareness of student performance to basic, proficient, and advanced levels (O’Shea,
2005). The use of comprehensive assessments must create opportunities for genuine
examination of the teaching and learning cycle (Stecher, Hamilton, Gonzalez, 2003;
Johnson, 2002; Odden, 2009). Johnson (2002) stated an unrelenting examination of
48
student assessments improves teaching practice to close achievement gaps, which will be
discussed in the next section.
Achievement Gap
National and state achievement gaps are well-documented. Achievement gaps
between different groups of students demonstrate the preparation each group receives to
achieve in schools (Education Trust, 2003). At this time, the Latino population is the
largest and most rapidly growing of all minority groups in America (Hardy, 2007).
According to the US Census, the Latino population increased dramatically between 1980
and 1990 with a growth of more than 50% compared to an overall growth for the total
population of nine percent (Chapa & Valencia, 1993). As a result, in 2005 the US Census
reported that 14.1% of the overall population in the United States was of Hispanic origin
with more than 34% of those individuals under the age of 18. In sharp contrast to 23% of
non-Hispanic children, these findings indicate schools throughout the nation are working
to serve a significantly increasing population that is historically underprepared for
academic life, often unfamiliar with the language and cultural norms, and struggling to
survive financially in the outside community. In fact, in comparison to 11% of Whites,
only two percent of all Hispanics earn more than $75,000 annually (President’s Advisory
Commission, 2003). With more than 80% of Hispanic residents in the United States
located in five states (Garcia, 2002), educational programs and school systems in these
cities are significantly struggling with meeting the needs of this diverse population.
Demographic shifts are of significant importance to educators, since this alters the
instructional needs of individual students. Indeed, national data that reveals significant
learning gaps exist between the achievement of Hispanic students and the achievement of
49
non-Hispanic Whites which is devastating and far-reaching. The underachievement of
Hispanic students, as well as all students of color, impacts society on many levels. Low
student achievement within the Hispanic community perpetuates consequences felt
throughout society, such as high absenteeism, high dropout rates, high suspension rates,
lack of academic success, and low parental involvement (Orum, 1986; Dye & Johnson,
2006). Multiple stakeholders both contribute to and are impacted by the consequences of
low Hispanic student outcomes in school: students, parents, educators and the
community. As the population shifts, communities should expect responsive adjustments
in educational policy, teacher practice, and organizational practices.
The historical pattern of ethnically and culturally diverse populations is one of
underachievement (Garcia, 2002). Cummins (1986) attributed this phenomenon to the
power of the larger, high-status dominating group within society to control and limit
access to the dominated group. Minority groups most distinguished by school failure tend
to be in a position of powerlessness and in a dominated relation to the majority group.
Further, minority groups that are empowered by their experiences cultivate the ability,
confidence and motivation to succeed academically (Cummins, 1986). Educational
curriculum, societal values and school structures and built upon the ideals of upper- and
middle-class Euro-America, which are foreign and inaccessible to non-middle class,
Euro-American students (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). The ideology of individualism that
perpetuates the belief that one’s status is the result of social status or financial position
fails to take into account the shaping societal forces which may be of adverse
consequences (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Katz, 1999). Thus, the historical trend of the
50
suppression of minority cultures in America has deep and wide-reaching implications for
students of color.
Achievement gaps between different groups of students demonstrate the types of
preparation each group is provided to achieve in school (Education Trust, 2003). The
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data measures national student
progress and achievement. The outcomes of Hispanic students indicate significant void.
While reading and mathematics success among Hispanic students increased substantially
during the 1970’s and 1980’s, this progress halted during the following decade (Hendrie,
2004). Fourteen percent of Hispanic fourth graders were proficient in reading, yet 57%
are unable to reach even the basic levels (Education Trust, 2003). Education Trust (2003)
reported that nine percent of Hispanic eighth graders reach proficiency but 60% score in
the below basic performance levels. This achievement gap exists in California as well.
There is a considerable 145 API achievement point-gap between Hispanic and White
learners (O’Connell, 2007). This state-wide data is noteworthy since over 40% of the
national Hispanic population resides in California (Garcia, 2002).
Even worse, these achievement gaps widen as children progress through the
school system (Symonds, 2004). National data indicate African-American children
average one year behind white children in the second and third grades; alarmingly, this
gap grows to three or four years by the 12
th
grade (Symonds, 2004). The average African-
American or Hispanic student graduates from high school with the mathematics, reading,
and vocabulary skills of a typical white eighth grade student (Donahue, Voelkl,
Campbell, & Mazzeo, 1999).
51
Hispanics, both immigrant and native to the United States, often face added
difficulties when matriculating through school. According to Dye and Johnson (2006),
Hispanic students are more likely to attend impoverished schools, be suspended or
retained, experience high absenteeism and high numbers of dropout rates. In addition,
Hispanic students were least likely to be academically proficient, placed in gifted classes
or programs, or experience high levels of parent involvement (Orum, 1986). While it is a
complicated matter to accurately account for the educational attainment of Hispanic
students, only one out of two completes high school (Chapa & Valencia, 1993;
President’s Advisory Commission, 2003). Upon desegregation of the data within the
Hispanic subgroup, Chapa and Valencia (1993) found individuals of Mexican origin had
the lowest completion rate (44%) and “Other Hispanic” had the highest completion rates.
Hispanic students are also often faced with racially segregated schools in which
teachers are less prepared to provide differentiated educational opportunities and are less
knowledgeable about building a community of success for their students (Valencia,
Menchaca, & Donato, 2002). As a result, fewer students of Hispanic descent feel
connected to their educational environment, have an ongoing interest in school
opportunities outside of the regular day, or work successfully toward the completion of
high school and college. This ultimately ensures a legacy of poverty and unsuccessful
educational experiences.
Social capital provides the caring relationships which allow for critical support
that ensures success (Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Katz, 1999). Cummins (1986) asserted the
typical teacher/student interaction characteristically fails students with the disabling of
students based upon students’ perceived needs. In addition, teachers’ attitudes and
52
practices are often viewed as racist and linked to structural conditions within educational
institutions (Katz, 1999). Indeed, schools can serve to undermine minority students’
access to opportunities and resources, perpetuating the achievement gap.
Multiple help strategies must be in place to combat the powerful affects of this
achievement gap. Knowing each student by name is critical to begin changing the way of
traditional school business. Strategies discussed identified in the next section, including
Response to Instruction/Intervention and the implementation of Professional Learning
Communities.
Response to Instruction/Intervention
Response to Intervention (RTI) is a process which allocates instructional resources to
target all students’ needs and commits all staff school-wide to seek out and implement
research-based, best practices while providing a structure to guide decision-making
(Tilly, 2006). Full utilization of the RTI model, remedying schools from using the
discrepancy model, takes a proactive approach to learning. However, the model alone is
ineffective without extensive training, collaboration, and conversations. As Tilly (2006)
stated, it is a process that takes a great deal of work – time and effort – that ends with an
increase in student outcomes. RTI requires school systems press on and continue
examining teaching practice in a proactive way to prevent the creation of learning gaps
for all students. RTI establishes researched and efficient models of school wide
intervention.
The Response to Intervention model examines teacher use of strategies and
interventions to support student mastery of standards. The use of research-based
instructional strategies provides clear guidance on how to most effectively teach students
53
(Marzano, 2003). Further, it is important to work from a list of well-articulated,
organized strategies so all teachers may use common language for valuable instruction
design (Marzano, 2003). For example, Marzano (2003) promotes the use of knowledge
synthesis in both linguistic and non-linguistic methods to assist students with knowledge
creation or schema building. Working to utilize strategies to create mental images,
represent new information in graphic organizers, build physical models, or enacting
information assists students with the necessary interactions to create relevance of
information and make it their own. However, using research-based strategies is not
simply enough. Collaborative school culture must be in place to renew teacher practice,
including Professional Learning Communities.
Professional Learning Communities
Schmoker (2004) confirmed the importance of learning communities,
emphasizing the significance of teachers working together to improve poor teaching and
create more effective practices. Simply sharing strategies does not allow for the vital
conversations necessary. Teachers learn most effectively from one another, rather than
from outside consultants or other types of professional development (Fullan, 1999;
Schmoker, 2004). Goal implementation requires a shift in school culture. Each goal is
based on reflective data analysis and adjustment of instructional practices. Authentic
collaboration around data is indeed a cultural shift and can take multiple years to
implement.
The essential conditions for collaboration are focused on goals and structured
around data, where teachers teach one another about the effective instructional practices
(Schmoker, 2004; Symonds, 2004). Collaborative groups refine practice and improve the
54
academic achievement of all students, particularly for those that are not yet proficient.
Narrowing this achievement gap is an important part of the work of educators.
Maintaining of the status quo reflects the precise concern of Stanton-Salazar (1997): the
power of institutional agents to maintain the social structure actively defines who will
and will not achieve. Elmore (2002) asserted improving instructional practice requires a
change in core beliefs and values, arguing practice alters attitudes, not vice versa.
O’Day (2002) asserted school accountability begins with the whole structure. She
proposed a School Accountability Framework which focused on the teaching and
learning cycle. The first step is generating attention on information relevant to teaching
and learning for both a school system and individual teachers to feed back into and
throughout the system. Secondly, the creation of structures which motivate educators to
attend to relevant information and act responsively reinforces collective accountability.
Next, developing the knowledge and skills to purposefully analyze data at both the
individual and system level establishes a mechanism for system-wide responsiveness.
Finally, distributing resources to whom they are most needed appropriately focuses fiscal
and time resources upon the importance of goal attainment.
Development of internal accountability strengthens with use of goals (Childress,
Elmore, & Grossman, 2006). Strategy development infuses accountability within the
entire school. Formalizing this process includes structuring multiple opportunities
throughout the month to reflect upon data in grade level teams (Symonds, 2004; Stecher
& Kirby, 2004). In fact, Dennis Sparks, the executive director of the National Staff
Development Council encourages schools to see that Professional Learning Communities
are the optimum form of professional development (in Schmoker, 2006). Pursuing lesson
55
study and instructional walks to structure opportunities for teachers to observe and refine
instructional strategies promotes the collaborative environment for student achievement
as well (Fullan, 2001; Symonds, 2004).
Implementation of the Professional Learning Communities is a natural
progression of this collaborative work (Dufour et al., 2006). Systems of intervention are
effective when groups of dedicated teachers work together, rather than as isolated
individuals, to proactively design supportive school-wide structures for students. Dufour
et al. (2006) asserts that the Professional Learning Community model best addresses how
to ensure all students learn: creating common essential learning standards, pacing guides,
and assessments provide teachers with the necessary data and language to team together
to design dynamic instructional programs for students. Certainly the type of assessment
used to monitor students’ learning is important, but how the assessment is utilized is
critical. How teachers address the student outcomes, whether adjusting instruction,
planning reteaching activities, or through lesson study analysis, improves teacher practice
and student achievement.
The PLC creates a system-wide focus on learning which facilitates a collective
response for all students experiencing difficulty. In order to close the achievement gap at
many successful schools, it is critical to begin to move into Professional Learning
Communities. Many teachers have a lack of knowledge that must be overcome in order to
ameliorate the performance gap (Clark & Estes, 2002). Clark and Estes (2002) state the
knowledge performance gap can be remedied with problem solving and continuing
education. Education about current research-based practices help guide the discourse. It is
the primary responsibility of the school leader to create the opportunities for
56
collaboration and ensure teachers are provided with the time to assimilate the new
learning into their classrooms while nurturing the school culture to prevent weeds from
taking root (Dufour & Burnette, 2002). The goal of establishing essential standards is to
begin the work of examining what must be taught. This is simply addressing one learning
gap. Teachers cannot simply believe this is one item to complete and check off of a list;
rather, it is one part of the comprehensive, ongoing work must occur to examine
instructional effectiveness to teach all learners.
Marzano (2003) recommends establishing norms of conduct and behavior to
promote collegiality and professionalism. The establishment of these norms will assist
staff with resolving conflicts, addressing problems, information-sharing about students,
and setting standards of behavior. Making these changes will help to alleviate the
friendship factor which can be detrimental to honest discussions about student
achievement (Marzano, 2003).
Ongoing focus upon four core questions maintains a teaching and learning
purpose within Professional Learning Communities: What do we want our students to
learn? How will we know when each student has learned it?; What will we do when
students have not yet learned it?; and How will we respond when students have already
learned it? (Dufour et al., 2006). Successful PLC groups must work together to establish
the answers to these questions. The process of curriculum design is vital to answering
these questions.
To begin to address Dufour’s questions, schools must take into account what our
students need to know to achieve mastery of each grade level. Teachers must
collaboratively review how to sequence and pace the content within lessons and units.
57
Simply following the textbook is insufficient and ineffective (Marzano, 2003). Marzano
(2003) states that learning is enhanced when specific types of knowledge are identified in
each unit and lesson, and structures the learning tasks are structured to sufficiently allow
for the transfer of knowledge. Finally, Marzano (2003) asserts that multiple exposures to
knowledge in a variety of complex interactions with knowledge are necessary to establish
information at the application level. The process for identifying the answers to these
questions will take time and effort. However, they will be a part of the ongoing
conversation necessary to improve student achievement. Marzano (2003) argued
leadership strongly correlates to many aspects of school reform, and will be discussed in
the next section.
Leadership Factors: Curriculum and Instruction in the Garden of School Culture
School leaders play a central role in the shaping of school culture. Dufour and
Burnette (2002) describe school culture as a garden – fragile and very high maintenance.
It must be nurtured and tended to, weeding out the negative influences and building the
leadership capacity of the leaders within the school. Like a garden, school culture cannot
be rushed. Creating cognitive dissonance by bringing student data into the light presents
evidence to contradict the assumptions made about students that are not yet proficient
(Dufour & Burnette, 2002).
Lyman and Villani (2004) promote the importance of leadership to gain and sustain
momentum for schools. Symonds (2004) indicated one of the best practices of successful
schools was building instructional leadership. Improving teacher quality through
collaborative, grade-level teaming, and professional development is asserted to improve
student achievement in high poverty schools with large populations of students of color
58
(Lyman & Villani, 2004). Administrators are responsible for setting the vision for student
learning outcomes for each student. Collaborative culture is developed when teachers
work together in teams – with a systematic approach to engage staff in ongoing, daily,
professional growth designed to foster collaboration (Dufour & Burnette, 2002).
Administrators must strategically guard the culture of the school from negative influences
that distract attention from the focus on learning for all.
Further, the function of leadership is to support implementation of new programs
(Hord, 1990). The site administrator’s primary role is to nurture the process of all
learners, along various points of the adult learning spectrum, to gain momentum and
change for PLC. The process of change must be addressed for each adult learner to
ensure implementation into the classroom level (Hord, 1990). Motivation must be
stimulated with a delicate balance of making the learner feel competent while addressing
the current condition of learners as they are moved toward the goal, which is student
achievement in this case (Butler, 2002). Providing reinforcement throughout the learning
increases the probability that learners will appropriately respond to the learning (Butler,
2002). These are important components to create teacher commitment and motivation
necessary to begin and maintain the change process.
Leadership is quite possibly the most important aspect of successful school
change (Marzano, 2003). Leaders maintain the climate of the school and classrooms,
aligning both with the vision of the school. Marzano (2003) argues that leadership should
be carried out in a small group of trusted individuals with the principal as the strong
cohesive force. Change is dynamic and fragile, to be nurtured and monitored daily
(Dufour & Burnette, 2002). Quite important to this process is the fundamental sense of
59
autonomy of teachers throughout the school – so creating a culture that is simultaneously
demanding to specific principles while allowing autonomy for individuals to decide how
to go about daily matters will ensure the spirit of trust (Dufour et al., 2006). Important for
this process is the infusion of professional development, which will be highlighted in the
next section.
Professional Development
Professional development is an essential component of instructional
improvement. Current school improvement research indicates developing the
instructional capacity of teachers to respond to students with a plethora of strategies is
vital to the improvement of student achievement (Symonds, 2004; Joyce & Showers,
2002). For this reason, intensive professional development is included in the Evidence
Based Model.
Symonds (2004) found teachers at schools which narrowed the achievement gaps
have received more professional development about linking data analysis to effective
instructional strategies. The National Staff Development Council (2001) cites a singular
purpose for professional development: improve the learning of all students. Three types
of standards are listed in the areas of context, content, and process standards (National
Staff Development Council, 2001). Each standard demonstrates the complexity of the
role of professional development for educators and is listed in Table 2.3.
60
Table 2.3 National Staff Development Council’s Standards for Professional Development
Standard Expectations
Context • Learning Communities: Organizes adults into
learning communities whose goals are aligned with
those of the school and district.
• Leadership: Requires skillful school and district
leaders who guide continuous instructional
improvement.
• Resources: Requires resources to support adult
learning and collaboration.
Content • Equity: Prepares educators to understand and
appreciate all students, create safe, orderly and
supportive learning environments, and hold high
expectations for their academic achievement.
• Quality Teaching: Deepens educators' content
knowledge, provides them with research-based
instructional strategies to assist students in meeting
rigorous academic standards, and prepares them to
use various types of classroom assessments
appropriately.
• Family Involvement: Provides educators with
knowledge and skills to involve families and other
stakeholders appropriately.
Process • Data Driven: Uses disaggregated student data to
determine adult learning priorities, monitor progress,
and help sustain continuous improvement.
• Evaluation: Uses multiple sources of information to
guide improvement and demonstrate its impact.
• Research-Based: Prepares educators to apply
research to decision making.
• Design: Uses learning strategies appropriate to the
intended goal.
• Learning: Applies knowledge about human learning
and change.
• Collaboration: Provides educators with the
knowledge and skills to collaborate.
Source: National Staff Development Council (2001)
61
The No Child Left Behind Act provides professional development criteria that
results in student achievement, declaring that it must be sustained, intensive, and content
focused; aligned with and directly related to state academic content standards and
assessments; improve and increase teacher knowledge of subject matter; improve and
increase teacher knowledge of scientifically based pedagogy; and be regularly evaluated
for influence on teacher effectiveness and student achievement (Yoon, Duncan, Lee,
Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). Odden (2009) summarized the tenets of professional
development into six structural features: form, duration, collective participation, content
focus, active learning, and coherence.
Form refers to how the activity is organized, whether into a study group,
workshop, collaborative committee, or network. Dufour and Eaker (1998) recommend
job-embedded professional development as it allows teachers to work together in
sustained learning to improve practice. O’Shea (2005) asserts teachers are internally
motivated when they are able to improve student learning by applying new skills learned
in professional development; are able to perform their new learning without undue
burden; and will not suffer consequences, including embarrassment, for clarifying
difficulties which arise during initial attempts with the learned skills.
Duration is another important feature of professional development (Odden, 2009).
Continuous, ongoing, long-term professional development is key to successful learning
for teachers (Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Fullan, 1999; Fullan, 2001; Joyce & Showers,
2002). Dufour and Eaker (1998) insist continuous improvement is built upon providing
time for teachers to work together throughout the day and school year on teaching and
learning. Fullan (2001) found program coherence for sustained learning is necessary to
62
providing organizational integration for success. The Evidence Based Model asserts
professional development should total at least 100 hours each year (Odden & Picus,
2008).
Collective participation is the third element of professional development (Odden,
2009). Effective learning is best when organized around a community of professionals
(Joyce & Showers, 2002). Joyce and Calhoun (1996) determined comprehensive
professional development built a self-renewing organization, focused on innovative
collegiality and the study of teaching is the norm. Collaboration is promoted by providing
time for teachers to work together and allowing teachers to define the structure and
results of the professional development (Dufour & Eaker, 1998). Joyce and Showers
(2002) argue that providing time for staff development and allowing for collective
decision making changes the structural composition of the workplace.
Content focus is necessary to improve instructional delivery, and is the fourth
component of professional development. EdSource (2006) states professional
development opportunities should be connected to standards mastery, specific curricular
programs, and instructional strategies. Focused on the content of instruction, this element
of professional development allows teachers to explore best practices and strategies for
learning outcomes (Dufour & Eaker, 1998; Joyce & Showers, 2002). Further, Marzano
(2003) found pedagogical knowledge development is most effective to promote changes
in teacher behavior.
Active learning is the fifth element of effective professional development and is
necessary for teachers to be engaged in the meaningful analysis of teaching and learning
(Fullan, 1998; Odden, 2009). Marzano (2003) elaborates active learning provides the
63
opportunity to practice pedagogical knowledge learned and a safe environment to
informally apply various strategies to student achievement. This includes coaching
critical for mastery of new skills, including presentation of theory, demonstration, guided
practice and feedback (Dufour & Eaker, 1998). Coaching allows teachers to openly share
failures and mistakes in a respectful relationship which analyzes teaching practice
(Marzano, 2003).
Coherence, the sixth element, concludes the list of successful tenets of
professional development. It integrates the comprehensive staff development program as
building upon one another, which positively correlates with changes in teacher behavior
(Marzano, 2003). Odden and Picus (2008) state alignment of professional development to
other systems, such as teacher evaluation, state standards, and district goals provide
interrelated change processes focused on improving student learning.
Professional development is critical to systematically change a school’s capacity
for building student achievement (Fullan, 2001). It causes all members of the system to
increase capacity to realize better results in the form of improved student outcomes. The
final section of the successful schools section in this literature review will discuss time
reallocation and incentives.
Time Reallocation and Creating Incentives
Teachers function in a myriad of roles which promote student success. Fillmore and
Snow (2000) state teachers serve in several functions: communicator (effectively
communicating students’ value and information), educator (providing prescriptive
lessons and activities which support students’ learning), evaluator (making timely, correct
decisions about students’ academic and social lives), educated human being (having the
64
knowledge about how learning occurs), and agent of socialization (assisting students with
the process of attaining the critical skills of social capital). These roles are layered and
complex, and require teachers to be specialists that monitor and adjust their instructional
delivery and conversation based on the data received from students.
Odden and Picus (2008) stated reviewing policy and programmatic issues, such as
incentive, capacity development, organization and management strategies, is required to
achieve higher levels of student achievement. Rethinking how schools spend their
valuable resources of time and people must occur to implement learning communities.
Critical shifts in how time is spent, yet another important resource, is necessary for this
improvement process to occur. The primary goal is to nurture the process of all learners,
along various points of the adult learning spectrum, to gain momentum and change for
continued renewal and high student achievement. The process of change must be
addressed for each adult learner to ensure implementation into the classroom level (Hord,
1990). Motivation must be stimulated with a delicate balance of making the learner feel
competent while addressing the current condition of learners as they are moved toward
the goal of student achievement (Butler, 2002). Providing reinforcement throughout the
learning increases the probability that learners will appropriately respond to the learning
(Butler, 2002). These are important components to create teacher buy-in and motivation
to begin and maintain the change process.
Most researchers agree the impact of decisions made by teachers is far greater than
school site level decisions (Marzano, 2003). As a result, teachers are the primary resource
for improving student achievement, and important consideration should be given to shift
these resources to support and sustain school improvement. Cowen (2007) asserted the
65
central concept to economics is not money but incentives. He proposed that incentives are
motivating or encouraging human behavior to make one decision rather than another.
Coping with scarcity, one of the most important lessons of scarce school budgets is a
gentle yet persistent force by which to shape behavior (Cowen, 2007). Mobilizing people
toward intrinsic motivations and a greater sense of good while assisting people to gain a
greater sense of control is important to balance as schools negotiate the amount of
incentives used (Cohen, 2007). Blending incentives with a mix of rewards and penalties
is central to motivation of teachers.
Summary
The purpose of this study is to describe how eight successful elementary schools
are allocating their resources to provide an adequate education to students during times of
economic instability. This review of literature addresses the historical context for school
finance and resource allocation, equity and adequacy, and successful school strategies.
These concepts inform the research questions and each case study analysis.
A rich and growing research base demonstrates how to inform best practices for
instructional improvement. The Evidence Based Model is defined and described in detail,
against which all schools in the case study may be compared and examined.
California’s complex legislative and policy history indicates a high level of state control
of school resource levels and allocations. Schools dedicated to improving student
achievement of California’s state standards and federal academic performance objectives
are experts at integrating the best practices of creating an understanding of data, goal
setting, addressing the achievement gap, utilizing assessments, participation in
Professional Learning Communities, professional development, time reallocation and use
66
of incentives. Successful schools provide important insights into how to prioritize
declining school resources in times of economic instability. The methodology of the
study will be discussed in Chapter Three.
67
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the design, sample, instrumentation, data collection, and
data analysis of the study. As previously stated, the purpose of this study was to identify
decelerating resource prioritization of eight high performing schools at the elementary
level. This study is one of ten studies exploring school level data in California schools to
determine how resources are being allocated to accomplish the vision of the school.
There has been very little research done nationally to explore school level resource use
and this study will examine the strategies used to support high levels of student achieving
at high performing elementary schools. This study employed a purposeful sample of
schools and combines both quantitative and qualitative methods in the analysis. This
study, taken together with the other studies being conducted with similar methodology,
provided a basis to begin exploring how scarce resources are or are not used efficiently to
improve student achievement in California schools and across the country. The Evidence
Based Model is designed to allocate resources and is used as a means of comparison to
examine how resources are actually used in specific schools and aligned with effective
research-based practices (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Research Questions
Through school site budget analysis, this study will reveal the instructional vision
of the leader shapes resource allocation and how budget reductions have altered this
vision. The research questions are answered and contribute to the collection of data in a
California database, supportive of ongoing research. Of particular interest is the degree to
which the schools selected strategies and utilized resource allocation patterns similarly to
68
achieve high levels of student achievement. Eight successful elementary schools were
studied to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the current instructional improvement strategies observed at the
school level?
2. How do you allocate the resources available at the school to implement the
instructional strategies?
3. How did the allocation of resources change in response to the recent budget
reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence Based Model?
Research Design
This study employed a combination of both qualitative and quantitative
methodology. The quantitative data were assembled with use of the data entry system
created by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates as used in other states such as Wyoming
and Arkansas. The data entry system is aligned with the expenditure structure model
created by Odden et al. (2003) and facilitates examination of resource allocation at the
school level to support instructional strategies. Both quantitative and qualitative data
were employed to answer the fourth research question: How are the actual resource use
patterns at the school site aligned with or different from the resource use strategies in the
Evidence Based Model? Simple statistical comparisons identified similarities and
differences between and among the Evidence Based Model recommendations and the
school data from the eight school sites.
69
Qualitative research methods are important to gather in-depth information regarding
school finance and resource allocations. Patton states qualitative methods “facilitate study
of issues in depth and detail” (p.14). The primary data collection instrument applied in
this study was the School Administrator Interview Guide which guided the interview
process with the school administrator for each school studied. Stake (2000) asserts the
real business of case study investigation is to come to know individual cases well before
generalizations are made for the whole of the project. Yin (2008) states this focused case
study method allows understanding of a real-life phenomenon in-depth despite important
contextual conditions which mitigate the outcomes for each study. All research is a
search of patterns and consistencies; the School Administrator Interview Guide and
school documentation analysis will allow the examiner to participate in and identify
commonalities and differences between individual school sites. These analyses help to
answer the three remaining research questions listed above to gain a better understanding
of the challenges encountered by schools during times of fiscal instability.
Population and Sample
This study used a purposeful sample of eight elementary schools which have
demonstrated high student achievement. Each high performing school selected is a
traditional public elementary school which requires no competitive admission process.
The schools were purposefully chosen according to a number of criteria. First, the
schools selected all have Academic Performance Index (API) scores over 900, indicating
high levels of success with most student subgroups and all significant subgroups. This
process began with a download of 2008 API scores from the California Department of
Education website (www.cde.ca.gov) that included all schools in the state of California
70
and their statistics related to the Academic Performance Index and other demographic
information. Second, the schools selected for the study were geographically limited to
Los Angeles or San Bernardino counties in the state of California due to the examiner’s
time and budgetary restrictions. Of the remaining schools, eight were chosen for the
study. Further data were collected (see Table 3.1) for the eight schools to examine trends
over three years in terms of overall API and the performance of the significant subgroups.
Pseudonyms are used in place of school names to provide anonymity for each school.
Finally, initial conversations with the school administrator indicated a willingness to fully
participate in this study. The selection of districts and schools was accomplished through
referrals from colleagues and confirmation of the above criteria. Whenever possible, two
elementary schools were identified in a district to also draw additional comparisons.
Table 3.1 shows each school’s overall API and the APIs of the significant subgroups
along with the numbers of students in each category.
Table 3.1 School Demographic and Achievement Data for Sample Schools
School Year #
Tested
API
Base
#
White
White
API
# Afr
Amer
Afr
Amer
API
#
Hisp
Hisp
API
#
SES
SES
API
#
Asian
Asi
an
API
A 2009 492 918 24 * 2 * 100 795 148 877 353 965
A 2008 477 910 28 * 2 * 101 779 141 861 327 957
A 2007 444 908 26 * 2 * 96 792 128 872 298 951
B 2009 133 919 7 * 2 * 43 * 52 888 69 982
B 2008 138 933 2 * 2 * 42 * 51 894 86 967
B 2007 124 932 3 * 2 * 36 * 46 * 79 953
C 2009 473 945 132 955 12 * 92 907 25 * 189 964
C 2008 518 929 155 908 16 * 108 902 25 * 190 959
C 2007 564 923 181 909 17 * 112 906 26 * 206 945
D 2009 425 951 18 * 3 * 58 * 2 * 319 971
D 2008 386 929 14 * 5 * 53 * 17 * 287 955
D 2007 386 940 11 * 8 * 48 * 12 * 294 965
E 2009 463 943 43 * 13 * 55 * 42 * 337 970
E 2008 504 925 56 * 13 * 51 * 51 * 366 957
E 2007 529 929 62 * 12 * 49 * 49 * 398 962
F 2009 402 956 34 * 2 * 21 * 55 * 338 972
F 2008 408 951 41 * 3 * 22 * 40 * 337 971
F 2007 431 944 40 * 4 * 31 * 21 * 347 969
71
Table 3.1, Continued
G 2009 432 952 117 956 7 * 46 * 27 * 239 972
G 2008 482 951 159 945 7 * 47 * 30 * 248 975
G 2007 478 934 165 935 6 * 44 * 23 * 246 956
H 2009 259 969 63 963 13 * 61 938 47 * 107 997
H 2008 257 968 70 956 9 * 54 948 35 * 114 993
H 2007 240 966 73 957 7 * 39 * 31 * 112 996
Source: California Department of Education
*Note: Due to California reporting systems, the blank boxes mean data are not currently
available.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The examiner and fellow researchers attended training on May 16, 2009
conducted by Dr. Lawrence O. Picus. The training agenda included interview protocols,
familiarization with the Evidence Based Model Codebook, data entry and analysis
techniques, case study preparation, and inter-researcher calibration information.
Beginning in September 2009, data collection was initiated from each school related to
staffing, schedules and professional development expenditures. Each school was
contacted to schedule half-day interviews with the principal. The interview protocol (see
Appendix B), as well as the pre-interview data collection, were standardized across the
other nine researchers conducting similar studies. The interviews included detailed
discussions about the use of resources using the data collection protocol (see Appendix
C) and the data collection codebook, which contains interview questions designed to
ascertain school-level resource allocations based on the Evidence Based Model (see
Appendix D). This interview protocol, which includes both open- and closed-response
questions, directly corresponds to the research question in this study. The collected data
were entered into a database created by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates and served as
a starting point in analyzing school expenditures.
72
The interview protocol focused on the topics addressed in the research questions
in hopes of learning how the instructional vision of the leader or leadership team shapes
resource allocation and how budget reductions have altered resource allocations. Each
interview invitation included a list of documents for the principal to provide on the day of
the interview. In addition to the principal, potential interviewees included assistant
principals, coordinators, grade level leaders, or others appropriate to identifying resource
allocation at that particular school site. However, only the school principal chose to
participate in each interview with the evaluator.
The interview protocols included examination of documents which allowed
additional information about resource allocations, such as school budgets, school bell
schedules and calendars, attendance and enrollment data, and the School Accountability
Report Card. Odden et al. (2003) recommends breaking down expenditures into two
categories, instructional and non-instructional, as a part of the school expenditure
structure. Defined in the literature review, these categories were listed again in Table 3.2
below and reflect what research has shown to be effective instructional strategies and
effective/efficient uses of resources.
Table 3.2 School Expenditure Structure
INSTRUCTIONAL NON-INSTRUCTIONAL
1. Core Academic Teachers 8. Administration
2. Specialist and Elective
Teachers/Planning and Preparation
9. Operations and Maintenance
3. Extra Help
4. Professional Development
5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff
6. Instructional Materials and Equipment
7. Student Support
Source: Odden et al. (2003)
73
The data collection training included a codebook of definitions of the items in the
data collection protocol to be entered into the database (see Appendix D). Definitions for
the codebook were extracted from Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Galagher’s (2002)
article which described the features of effective professional development. During the
interview process, notes were entered into the data collection notebook to capture
principal responses. Schools and school leaders were coded to protect their anonymity.
Close-ended questions for the elementary school sample included items in 13 categories:
(a) School Demographic Information, (b) School Contacts, (c) District Profile, (d)
District Contacts, (e) School Resource Indicators, (f) Core Academic Teachers, (g)
Specialist and Elective Teachers, (h) Library Staff, (i) Extra Help Staff, (j) Other
Instructional Staff, (k) Professional Development Staff and costs, (l) Student Services
Staff, and (m) Administration.
In addition to close-ended questions, the interview protocol consisted of open-
ended questions interview questions that based on school finance equity research. Careful
wording selection and sequence of questions were determined during codebook interview
training; all interviewers in the thematic dissertation group asked the same fundamental
questions to reduce interviewer bias and increase opportunities for comparability on a
larger scale (Patton, 2002). No student interaction or classroom visitations were
conducted during this study.
Data Analysis
Prior to the case study interviews, data was gathered to provide insights on each
school’s resources and how they are aligned with the Evidence Based Model. The School
Administrator interview protocol was designed to gain a more detailed understanding of
74
each school’s instructional goals and how the use of resources reflects these goals. Odden
et al. (2003) recommended an expenditure structure model for this analysis. The data
entry system was created by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates, and allows the school
resource allocation to be compared to the school’s instructional vision, the latest research
reflected in the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). Compounding
California’s scarce resources with decelerating finances during this time of economic
instability, maximizing the use of resources becomes particularly critical to continue the
work of student achievement.
Interview data analysis began once all of the data were collected and the
interviews were completed. In order to clarify any missing or unclear information, follow
up phone calls and emails gathered any of the remaining data. Data was verified for
accuracy, cleaned where appropriate, and compiled into detailed case studies. These case
studies lay the foundation for the analysis in chapter four.
Following the compilation of each case study, each school’s resource indicators
were compared to identify commonalities and differences among each of the ten high
performing elementary schools. School resource allocation, the primary concern of the
study, was explored to identify similarities among schools and how each school aligned
with instructional vision of the school site. In addition, each school’s resource allocation
was aligned with the Evidence Based Model. Chapter four includes a description of each
elementary school and an analysis of how successful elementary schools achieved high
levels of student achievement. Schools leaders’ decision making regarding prioritization
of program use considering decelerating school resources were also of importance.
75
Summary
This chapter described the data collection procedures and methods for data
analysis. In the following chapter, case study narratives, findings, and analysis will be
presented.
76
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
In this chapter, the findings of the study are presented beginning with an overview
of the characteristics and performance data of the eight schools. More detailed
information on each school studied is provided in Appendix F, which holds the individual
case studies. The purpose of this study was to identify answers of four research questions,
utilizing interviews and document review at eight elementary schools in California, to
build knowledge of site level resources are allocated in this particular time of fiscal
instability and achieve high levels of student achievement. The following research
questions serve as a framework for the interview and document analysis:
1. What are the current instructional improvement strategies observed at the
school level?
2. How are resources allocated available at the school to implement the
instructional strategies?
3. How did the allocation of resources change in response to the recent
budget reductions?
4. How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with
or different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence Based
Model?
This chapter explores the findings of these questions for each elementary school.
Summary of Study Schools’ Characteristics and Performance
The elementary schools in this study were selected for meeting several criteria.
Each high performing school selected is a traditional public elementary school, which
77
requires no competitive admission process. The schools were purposefully chosen
according to a number of criteria. First, the schools selected all have Academic
Performance Index (API) scores over 900, indicating high levels of success with most
student subgroups and all significant subgroups on the California Standards Test (CST).
This process began with a download of 2008 API scores from the California Department
of Education website (www.cde.ca.gov) that included all schools in the state of California
and their statistics related to the Academic Performance Index (API) and other
demographic information. Second, the schools selected for the study were
geographically limited to Los Angeles or San Bernardino counties in the state of
California due to the examiner’s time and budgetary restrictions. Of the remaining
schools, eight were chosen for the study. This section of Chapter Four will discuss the
demographic characteristics and performance data of each school to create an
understanding of the schools studied.
Study School Characteristics and Demographics
Each elementary school in this study has achieved an API of over 900 in a variety
of ways. While some have made steady growth over time, some have maintained their
high scores. One study school has declined. Each school educates unique combinations of
student size and populations. The school sizes are different as well, between 287 to 655
students. Five of the study schools educate students from kindergarten through the fifth
grades and three schools have sixth graders as well. Although each elementary school in
the study has one principal, only one school has an assistant principal. Due to budget
reductions, two of the schools lost their part-time Elementary Learning Specialists, which
served as assistant principals for two and one-half days a week. As shown in Table 4.1,
78
although each school’s largest ethnic subgroup is of Asian students, other student
subgroups vary in percentage at every site. Similarly, each school has between four and
30% of the student population includes English Learners and between four and 39% of
students qualifying for the Free or Reduced Lunch Program. In addition, each school has
less than ten percent of students with Individual Education Plans.
Although each school has diverse school size and populations, each school has
achieved high levels of student achievement. Student scores will be reviewed in the next
section for each of the study schools and for the significant subgroups.
Table 4.1 Study School Characteristics
School Grades Enrollment %
Asian
%
White
%
Hispanic
%
IEP
%
FRL
%
EL
Title I
Funding
School A K-6 655 65.8 4.5 19.6 6 28 30 No
School B K-5 287 50.8 15 33.7 5 39 27 No
School C K-6 580 32.9 25.8 17.5 10 5 5 No
School D K-5 640 73.1 4.3 14.8 8 5 5 No
School E K-5 580 72.2 11.2 11.6 6 10 8 No
School F K-5 615 83 11 6 5 9 27 No
School G K-5 650 55 32 10 5 4 17 No
School H K-6 390 45.9 23.9 21.15 6 16 4 No
Source: California Department of Education
Study School Performance Data
This section will review the study schools’ data from 2007 to 2009. Results from
the California Standards Test (CST) determine each school’s Annual Performance Index
(API). All of the schools have scored over 900 API, significantly over the statewide goal
of 800 for the whole school API. Each school’s AYP numbers are also reviewed for over
a three-year period in this section. For a more detailed review of the performance data of
each school, see Appendix F. Figure 4.1 compares the study schools API scores for all
students over a three-year period. All schools have made gains but one, but each school
h
ab
re
F
S
as remained
bove 950, an
espectively.
Figure 4.1 AP
Source: Calif
d above 900 A
nd two of the
PI Scores for
fornia Depar
API, from 9
e schools, Sc
r All Student
rtment of Ed
18 to 969. S
chool A and
ts – Three-Y
ducation
ix of the eig
School B, s
Year Compar
ght schools a
scored 918 an
rison
chieved scor
nd 919
79
res
o
p
st
re
o
as
A
o
ov
C
S
to
F
C
S
In add
f a school’s
erformance
tudy schools
equirements
f Proficient
ssessment; a
AYP growth
f English La
verall percen
CST, the four
chool C, Sch
o 2009.
Figure 4.2 AY
Comparison
Source: Calif
dition to API
success. Sta
goals establi
s are Title I s
of NCLB. N
and Advanc
all of the stud
trends of eac
anguage Arts
ntage of stud
r did not dec
hool E, Scho
YP Scores fo
fornia Depar
I, Adequate
ates and their
ished under
schools, scho
NCLB requir
ed performa
dy schools fa
ch school fo
s test. Althou
dents scoring
crease more t
ool F, and Sc
or All Studen
rtment of Ed
Yearly Prog
r schools are
No Child Le
ools are still
res all eleme
ance levels o
far exceeded
or all student
ugh four of t
g Proficient
than one per
chool G, hav
nts in English
ducation
gress goals ar
e required to
eft Behind. E
required to
entary schoo
on the CST E
these expec
ts tested on t
the eight sch
or Advanced
rcent of the 2
ve achieved s
h Language
re another cr
meet a serie
Even though
meet or exc
ls to meet or
English Lang
ctations. Figu
the Californi
hools have de
d performan
2006 AYP. F
steady incre
Arts – Three
ritical indica
es of annual
h none of the
eed the fede
r exceed 46.
guage Arts
ure 4.2 show
ia Standards
eclined in
nce levels on
Four schools
ases from 20
e-Year
80
ation
e
eral
0%
ws the
Test
the
s,
007
o
d
pr
re
p
th
F
S
sh
sc
L
2
Figure
f Mathemati
emonstrated
roficiency in
equires all el
erformance
hese expecta
Figure 4.3 AY
Source: Calif
AYP
hown in Figu
chools, thus
Language Art
007 to 2009
e 4.3 shows
ics for each o
d growth sinc
n mathemati
lementary sc
levels on the
ations.
YP Scores fo
fornia Depart
scores for al
ure 4.4. The
representing
ts and Mathe
with the exc
the AYP sco
of the study
ce 2007. Sch
cs, also was
chools to me
e CST Math
or All Studen
tment of Edu
ll students on
CST Scienc
g a smaller n
ematics tests
ception of S
ores for all s
schools. Sev
hool B, the o
the only sch
eet or exceed
ematics test,
nts in Mathem
ucation
n the Califor
ce Test is ad
number of stu
s. Each of th
chool F, whi
students on th
ven of the ei
one school th
hool with a d
d 47.5% of P
, all of the st
matics – Thr
rnia Standard
dministered t
udents tested
he study scho
ich made nin
he Californi
ight schools
hat has declin
declining AP
Proficient and
tudy schools
ree-Year Com
ds Test on S
o fifth grade
d than in the
ools demons
ne percent pr
a Standards
have
ned in overa
PI score. NC
d Advanced
s far exceede
mparison
Science are
ers in elemen
e English
trated gains
rogress from
81
Test
all
CLB
ed
ntary
from
m
2
F
S
w
E
as
ac
v
ou
p
E
007 to 2008
Figure 4.4 AY
Source: Calif
This s
which all stud
English Lang
ssessment is
chievement
Despi
arying degre
utperformed
erforming in
English Lang
but fell nine
YP Scores fo
fornia Depart
section has p
dents in Cali
guage Arts an
s cumulative
and all of th
ite these scho
ees. In most
d all other su
n the Proficie
guage Arts, s
e percent in
or All Studen
tment of Edu
presented per
ifornia publi
nd Mathema
. Each study
he schools bu
ool wide ach
study schoo
ubgroups. Fig
ent or Advan
seven of the
2009.
nts in Science
ucation
rformance d
ic schools ar
atics tests are
y school dem
ut one has at
hievements,
ols, students
gure 4.5 sho
nced perform
study school
e – Three-Ye
ata on the C
e administer
e end-of-cou
monstrated hi
tained impro
achievemen
tested from
ws the perce
mance levels
ls’ Asian stu
ear Compari
alifornia Sta
red in grades
urse, while th
igh levels of
ovements ov
nt gaps exist
the Asian su
entage of As
s from 2007
udents made
ison
andards Test
s 2-11. The
he Science
f student
ver time.
at each scho
ubgroup
sian students
to 2009. In
steady gain
82
t, on
ool to
s
s
ov
S
p
F
C
S
A
b
th
2
tw
th
ver time. Sc
chool H was
eriod.
Figure 4.5 AY
Comparison
Source: Calif
Figure
Advanced per
etter on the C
he study scho
007 to 2009
wo additiona
he only scho
hool A dram
s able to mai
YP Scores fo
fornia Depart
e 4.6 shows
rformance le
CST Mathem
ools, School
. Two schoo
al schools, S
ol that score
matically imp
intain 97% p
or Asian Stud
tment of Edu
the percent o
evels over a
matics Test t
l A, School E
ols, School D
chool B and
ed 98% profi
proved from
proficiency o
dents in Eng
ucation
of Asian stu
three-year p
than the CST
E, and Schoo
D and School
d School C, m
iciency, imp
55% to 89%
on these asse
glish Langua
udents perfor
period. Each
T English La
ol F, maintai
l G, attained
made improv
proved to 99%
% from 2007
essments ove
ge Arts – Th
rming in the
study schoo
anguage Art
ined 95% pr
d slight grow
vements to 9
% in 2009. T
7 to 2009, an
er a three-ye
hree-Year
Proficient o
ol performed
s Test. Three
roficiency fro
wth to 95% an
97%. School
The Asian
83
nd
ear
r
d
e of
om
nd
l H,
su
w
F
S
st
so
th
st
sc
an
st
d
ubgroup at e
will be demon
Figure 4.6 AY
Source: Calif
Althou
tatistically si
o few studen
he 2007-200
tudents decli
coring Profic
nd School F
tudents in En
iscrepancy:
each of the st
nstrated in fo
YP for Asian
fornia Depart
ugh School
ignificant W
nts data were
8 school yea
ined by 15%
cient or Adv
are the only
nglish Langu
School A (4
tudy schools
forthcoming
n Students in
tment of Edu
C, School G
White subgrou
e not reporte
ar to report d
% in 2009. Fi
vanced perfo
y two school
uage Arts. In
48%), Schoo
s outperform
figures.
Mathematic
ucation
G, and Schoo
ups, only tw
ed. School A
data but the p
igure 4.7 sho
ormance leve
ls in which W
n three schoo
l D (21%), a
med other sub
cs – Three-Y
ol H are the o
wo schools (S
A gained enou
percentage o
ows the perc
els over a thr
White studen
ols, there is a
and School E
bgroups in M
Year Compar
only three stu
School A and
ugh White st
of Proficient
ent of White
ree year peri
nts outperfor
a marked pe
E (12%). All
Mathematics,
rison
udy schools
d School B)
tudents durin
and Advanc
e students
iod. School C
rmed Asian
erformance
l schools but
84
, and
with
had
ng
ced
C
t two,
S
E
2
F
C
S
N
su
in
nu
st
su
(1
chool A and
English Lang
007 to 2009
Figure 4.7 AY
Comparison
Source: Calif
Note: Zeros a
ubgroup for
Figur
n Mathemati
umbers of st
tudy schools
ubgroup. In
18%), Schoo
d School D im
guage Arts T
, and one sch
YP Scores fo
fornia Depart
are listed wh
reporting.
re 4.8 shows
ics in the stu
tudents in th
s, the student
three school
ol E (14%), a
mproved the
est. Two sch
hool, School
or White Stud
tment of Edu
here schools
s the AYP sc
udy schools.
his subgroup
ts in the Asi
ls, the perfor
and School F
e achievemen
hools, Schoo
l F, grew 21
dents in Eng
ucation
had inadequ
cores of the W
School A an
for score rep
an subgroup
rmance gap i
F (13%) in 2
nt of student
ol C and Sch
% during th
glish Langua
uate number
White studen
nd School B
porting in al
p outperform
is significan
2009.
ts in this sub
hool E, impro
e same perio
age Arts – Th
rs of students
nts over a thr
did not have
ll years. How
med the stude
nt in Mathem
bgroup for th
oved 16% fr
od.
hree-Year
s in this
ree-year per
e sufficient
wever, in all
ents in the W
matics: Schoo
85
he
rom
riod
White
ol D
F
S
N
su
fo
m
y
in
su
si
W
Figure 4.8 AY
Source: Calif
Note: Zeros a
ubgroup for
Two o
or testing, Sc
maintained a
ears reviewe
n English La
ubgroup in E
ignificant pe
White subgro
YP Scores fo
fornia Depart
are listed wh
reporting.
of the eight s
chool A and
statistically
ed. Figure 4.
anguage Arts
English Lang
erformance g
oup and stud
or White Stud
tment of Edu
here schools
study school
School C, f
significant s
.9 reports the
s. Each study
guage Arts fr
gap in all stu
ents in the H
dents in Mat
ucation
had inadequ
ls have statis
for the three-
subgroup for
e Hispanic su
y school but
from 2007 to
udy schools b
Hispanic sub
thematics – T
uate number
stically signi
-year period
r Hispanic st
ubgroup AY
one (Schoo
o 2009. It is i
between the
group. In the
Three-Year
rs of students
ificant Hispa
of data revie
tudents for tw
YP scores fro
l C) made ga
important to
students in t
e six of the e
Comparison
s in this
anic subgrou
ewed. Schoo
wo of the th
om 2007 to 2
ains in this
note there i
the Asian an
eight study
86
n
ups
ol H
ree
2009
s a
nd
sc
A
(1
p
su
F
C
S
st
th
E
b
b
chools with h
A), 22% (Sch
14%) for En
erformance
ubgroup, 24%
Figure 4.9 AY
Comparison
Source: Calif
Figure
tudy schools
he Hispanic
English Lang
elow other s
etween stude
higher perfo
hool B), 31%
glish Langu
gap between
% and 23%
YP Scores fo
fornia Depart
e 4.10 report
s over a three
subgroup ou
guage Arts sc
subgroups. In
ents in the A
orming Asian
% (School D)
age Arts in 2
n students in
respectively
or Hispanic S
tment of Edu
ts the AYP s
e-year period
utperformed
cores, studen
n all cases, t
Asian subgro
n students, th
), 12% (Scho
2009. Schoo
n the White s
y in 2009.
Students in E
ucation
scores for stu
d in Mathem
the students
nts in the His
there was a m
oup and stude
he discrepan
ool E), 29%
ol C and Scho
subgroup and
English Lang
udents in the
matics. In one
s in the Whit
spanic subgr
marked perfo
ents in the H
ncy is marke
(School G),
ool F have a
d students in
guage Arts –
e Hispanic su
e case, Scho
te subgroup.
roup perform
ormance gap
Hispanic subg
d: 38% (Sch
and School
a large
n the Hispani
– Three-Year
ubgroup for
ool H, studen
Similarly to
med significa
p in Mathem
group: 31%
87
hool
H
ic
r
the
nts in
o the
antly
matics
(S
S
gr
F
S
fo
th
th
st
fo
re
re
School A), 3
chool G (20
roups of stud
Figure 4.10 A
Source: Calif
As de
ound at each
he research q
he first and s
trategies and
ollowing sec
eductions. Fi
esources and
30% (School
0%). Only tw
dents, Schoo
AYP Scores f
fornia Depart
monstrated i
h of the study
questions usi
second resea
d how resour
ctions addres
inally, the fo
d those recom
l B), 20% (S
wo schools ha
ol H (4%) an
for Hispanic
tment of Edu
in Figure 4.5
y schools. Th
ing data coll
arch question
rces are alloc
ss how resou
ourth researc
mmended in
chool D), 28
ad a single d
nd School C
c Students in
ucation
5 to Figure 4
he remaining
lected. The n
ns regarding
cated at the s
urce allocatio
ch question w
the Evidenc
8% (School E
digit differen
(9%).
Mathematic
4.10, signific
g sections of
next section
the current i
school level
ons have alte
will provide
ce Based Mo
E), 24% (Sc
nce between
cs – Three-Y
cant achievem
f this chapter
will turn to a
instructional
for each stu
ered with the
a compariso
odel.
chool F), and
these two
Year Compar
ment gaps ar
r will attend
a discussion
l improveme
udy school. T
e recent budg
on on the site
88
d
rison
re
d to
n of
ent
The
get
e
89
What are the Current Instructional Improvement Strategies at the School Level? How are
Resources Allocated Available to implement the Instructional Strategies?
Nine strategies for promoting student achievement, detailed in Chapter Two, are
described in this section and a discourse on the level of implementation is provided in
this section. Creating urgency, goal setting, school wide assessment evaluation,
addressing the achievement gap, implementation of Response to Instruction/Intervention
and Professional Learning Communities, school leadership, professional development,
and time reallocation and creating incentives are the strategies identified and described in
this section.
Creating Urgency
Odden (2009) stated all stakeholders must fully understand the performance
challenge as the catalyst for providing the necessary pressure required for change. Upon
reflection of the data, only three of the study schools (School A, School B, and School G)
harnessed this pressure in a proactive manner, while five of the study schools’ urgency
was reactive in nature. The first of three proactive schools, School A, utilized data to
identify target students, with which students will be monitored and provided additional
remedial instruction in order to make them proficient at grade level standards. School A
teachers focus on achieving fidelity across classrooms and maintaining high levels of
rigorous instruction across all classrooms. They engage in conversations related to these
goals in staff and grade level meetings. In addition, School A teachers participate annual
in book studies to further refine their learning.
School B creates urgency for student learning in different ways. Use of pacing
guides in all curricular areas maintains an intensive focus on learning. Teachers’ use of
90
data to set learning goals at the individual classroom, grade level, and school wide levels,
which are in turn posted on a school wide data focus wall in the office for the whole
community to view. Further, the principal conducts data chats thrice a year with each
teacher to monitor student learning toward achievement of each learning goal.
School G sets urgency for learning by developing the Single Plan for Student
Achievement (SPSA) goals collaboratively with all teachers and renews the learning
goals throughout the year. Similarly, the School G teachers have developed a Pyramid of
Collaboration, a collaborative plan for grade levels to design interventions for students.
This plan of extra support is designed to identify and monitor the learning of target
students to ensure students reach mastery on grade level standards.
The remaining study schools set urgency for reactive reasons. School C teachers
felt community pressure to maintain high levels of student achievement. The desire for
community recognition was motivating for the teachers to continue to improve API
scores. Quite similarly, School D felt community pressure to keep their API scores high
despite the changing demographics of the school. School E also reacted to pressure but of
a different kind. School E was once known for being the highest performing school in the
district, and the school has been the second highest performing school in the district for
some time. School E teachers and staff would very much like to restore their position as
the highest performing school in the district despite significantly declining student
enrollment. School F reported significant pressure from coaches and district
administration to maintain high scores. Finally, School H reported a desire to increase
API scores by at least one point each year, a reactive desire to continue to improve scores
for the community.
91
Three of the eight study schools proactively create urgency to produce high levels
of student achievement, utilizing strategies such as identifying target students, utilizing
pacing guides, setting and monitoring learning goals, and designed collaborative plans for
learning. Reactive strategies for creating urgency were identified in the remaining five
schools, such as feeling community, staff, or district pressure to maintain high levels of
student achievement. These reactive strategies do not include a plan for actually
improving school scores over time.
Goal Setting
Schmoker (1999) stated goals and teamwork have a symbiotic relationship,
serving the team in a cohesive nature. Common goals are critical to build school success -
effectively selecting, defining, and measuring progress and the ability of educators to
adjust effort toward goals (Schmoker, 1999). Each of the study schools except School H
cited SPSA goals as the primary set of goals from which each school operated. Each
school responded differently to setting goals. Five of the study schools identified
instructional goals for continuous levels of student learning, School A, School B, School
C, School F and School G.
In addition to the SPSA goals, School A set goals for improved instructional
differentiation of learning, high quality instruction, and classroom fidelity across grade
levels. School C identified goals of designing intervention within the school day,
improving Professional Learning Communities, and increasing the number of students
scoring Proficient or Advanced on the English Language Arts assessment. School F
focused on improving the level of student engagement during math differentiation,
improving each student’s scaled score on the CST, and focusing on building sentence
92
fluency as a means to improve reading comprehension. School G identified an
improvement of reading comprehension, problem solving in mathematics, and writing
strategies and planned professional development aligned with these goals.
The remaining four study schools had non-specific instructional goals. School B
sets SMART goals with a focus on mathematics and writing; however, there were an
excessive amount of goals and they were not instructional in nature but simply to increase
the percent of students scoring Proficient or Advanced in most grades. School D, School
E, and School H reported a desired increase in the numbers of student Proficient or
Advanced on the CST English Language Arts and Mathematics assessments. These
schools did not identify strategies to achieve or improve high levels of student
achievement for their SPSA goals.
Assessment Evaluation Systems
Assessment for learning is one of the most high yield strategies because it
represents a powerful impetus for changing teaching and learning and it is learnable
within a realistic time frame (Fullan, 2005). Assessments alone cannot improve student
achievement, but provide for an overall summary picture of student performance for
schools to plan and improve student learning. Use of both formative and summative
assessment data is necessary to identify areas of high, average, and low performance at
all levels to inform the teaching and learning cycle; however, each assessment type serves
a distinct and unique purpose (Fullan, 2005). Each of the study schools has both
formative and summative assessments in place.
Four schools utilize formative and summative assessments. School A, School D,
School E, and School H identified administration of reading, writing, and mathematics
93
assessments thrice a year to determine student mastery of grade level standards in
addition to the use of the summative CST. However, in School D and School E, teachers
did not have district or school site pacing guides in place to guide or monitor breadth or
depth of curricular instruction.
Two of the study schools went one step further with use of curriculum based
measures for determining individual classroom and grade levels mastery of instructional
success. School F and School G also considered the CST assessment results when
planning instructional needs, and utilized DIBELS to monitor fluency and reading
comprehension, and implemented a writing assessment three times a year. Curriculum
based measures are utilized in each classroom to determine end of unit learning success.
Black and William (1998) stated schools underemphasize the learning needs
exposed by student results and overemphasize the marks of any given student assessment.
Two of the study schools referred to the use of assessments as guides for improving
instruction for students. School B administered formative assessments twice a year in
reading, writing, and mathematics and summative assessments twice a year (CST and in
reading, writing, and mathematics). In addition, School B reported fidelity of use with
pacing guides, and regular use of curriculum based assessments to frequently monitor
student success on mastery of standards. School C also reported formative assessments
throughout the year in reading, writing, and mathematics, district summative assessments,
CST summative assessment, and use of pacing guides and curriculum-based
measurements. School C utilized pacing guides as well as identification of essential
standards with which to focus instruction of key elements throughout the year for mastery
of standards.
94
Although each of the study schools utilized assessments, ongoing student
monitoring does not take place as often as it may be needed. Use of intermediate
curriculum based measures as well as informal checking for understanding is critical to
determine student mastery and provide timely feedback on an ongoing basis (Odden,
2009; Marzano, 2003). It was difficult to determine if teachers utilize assessment as end
data or for further refinement of instruction. Although each of the study schools
implemented assessments, only two of the schools referred to the use of assessments for
improving instruction.
Achievement Gap
Addressing the achievement gap between different groups of students
demonstrate the types of preparation each group is provided to achieve in school
(Education Trust, 2003). As shown in Chapter Two, these achievement gaps widen as
children progress through the school system, thus ensuring a legacy of poverty and
unsuccessful educational experiences (Symonds, 2004). Only one of the study schools
reported specific academic strategies for addressing the achievement gap, and another of
the study schools indicated a school wide social-emotional program to ensure all students
were successful at school. Six of the eight study schools did not address the achievement
gap specifically, but stated opportunities for remediation were present for all students.
This section will discuss the specific strategies identified for supporting underachieving
student groups in two of the study schools and the general programs listed at the
remaining six sites.
School A identified a three-tiered achievement gap between the Asian, White, and
Hispanic students. The principal stated the teachers identified students that were not yet
95
proficient in the underachieving subgroups and focused on these students’ Zone of
Proximal Development while planning instructional interventions to accelerate them to
proficiency. Teachers in School A cross reference students’ grades and their test scores
on the CST to ensure teachers are accurately measuring all students’ proficiency. In
addition, students not yet proficient are grouped based on their level of mastery within
the grade level to enable teachers to differentiate the learning for all students. The
principal of School A also ensures all teachers complete basic documentation of Tier I
instruction across all classrooms and monitors the levels of instruction across all
classrooms to make sure each teacher knows each of the learners in his or her classroom.
She believes her primary task is to ensure her teachers are focused on instruction of all of
the students in the school, and challenges her teaches to think deeply about maximizing
instructional opportunities within each day. The principal stated she looks for balanced
instructional techniques, including direct instruction, critical thinking opportunities, and a
variety of activities for practice. School A listed a series of strategies for narrowing of the
achievement gap.
School G has implemented a school wide program to build an inclusive
community for all students. The Responsive Classroom philosophy is designed to instruct
all community members – teachers, students, administrators, support staff, other adults on
campus – to behave in respectful ways that provide dignity to all community members.
The principal of School G has indicated this has shifted her staff to view school as a place
in which students are served. At the beginning of the year, teachers and students
formulate goals and name the dreams for the year together that are designed to set the
tone for the school year. All failures are viewed as an opportunity to learn from one’s
96
errors in an effort to sustain school wide achievement. Students participate in class
meetings and have an equal voice when caring for each other and the school. School G
has identified a program to connect all learners to the school as a primary strategy for
addressing the achievement gap.
The remaining six of the eight study schools did not identify specific strategies for
addressing the achievement gap at the school sites. Specific strategies must provide the
opportunity to build social capital for the provision of caring relationships that ensure
students’ success (Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Katz, 1999). Typical teacher/student
interaction characteristically fails students with the disabling of students based upon
students’ perceived needs (Cummins, 1986). In addition, teachers’ attitudes and practices
are often viewed as racist and linked to structural conditions within educational
institutions (Katz, 1999). Schools can serve to undermine minority students’ access to
opportunities and resources, perpetuating the achievement gap.
School B and School C stated there was an achievement gap present but identified
Response to Instruction/Intervention as the primary intervention for all students
struggling. In addition, School B explicitly stated goals for each underperforming
subgroup in the school (i.e., Hispanic, Socio-economically Disadvantaged, English
Learner, and Students with Disabilities) to improve the percent of students scoring
Proficient or Advanced in English Language Arts and Mathematics by 5%. School D
identified all students not yet proficient for remedial Tier II instruction as well, but did
not have any intervention solutions due to budget reductions. School E acknowledged
changing demographics as the primary reason for the growing achievement gap, yet did
not address how this gap should be ameliorated. Similarly, School F recognized a cultural
97
divide between some students and their parents that do not speak English; however, there
were no immediate plans to improve the situation. School H did not identify solutions for
addressing the achievement gap beyond identification of all students for remedial help
with a district paid intervention coach.
Multiple help strategies must be in place to combat the powerful affects of this
achievement gap. Simply identifying all students that are not proficient and providing
remedial instruction is not enough. Underperforming students are often underserved by
schools and need multifaceted resources to reach proficiency (Stanton-Salazar, 2001;
Cummins, 1986).
Response to Instruction/Intervention
Response to Intervention (RTI) is an instructional process that allocates school
resources to target all students’ needs and commits all staff school-wide to seek out and
implement research-based, best practices while providing a structure to guide decision-
making (Tilly, 2006). Full utilization of the RTI model proactively approaches learning
rather than the traditional discrepancy model. RTI implementation requires extensive
professional development, teacher collaboration, and discourse in order to improve
student outcomes. RTI requires school systems press on and continue examining teaching
practice in a proactive way to prevent the creation of learning gaps for all students. RTI
establishes researched and efficient models of school wide intervention. Two of the study
schools, School F and School G, are implementing the RTI model for their students. The
remaining six study schools are in the process of implementing RTI, and these efforts
will be described in this section.
98
School F and School G fully implement the RTI model following intensive
professional development. Students not yet proficient are identified by their teachers,
who then work in grade level teams to design specific intervention strategies to bring
students to proficiency. If students continue to struggle with mastery of grade level
standards, students are provided with targeted Tier II instruction and teachers monitor the
students’ rate of learning. Two coaches at each school site provide double doses of
literacy or mathematics instruction in the classroom to ameliorate the learning gaps.
Following the prescribed duration of intervention, teachers assess student progress and
review the data in grade level teams. Both schools are allocated $20,000 in additional
monies from the district office to fund long-term substitute teachers for Tier II instruction
for students not yet proficient as well. If students are successful on the follow up
assessment, they are returned to Tier I instruction. However, if students continue to
struggle, they are assigned to a Student Success Team, a team of professionals at the
school site tasked with providing additional opportunities for intervention. Again, School
F and School G teachers monitor students’ rate of learning within the given intervention
period. If students remain unsuccessful, the special education teachers meet to review and
determine if special education services must be provided in order to remedy the learning
gaps.
The Response to Intervention model examines teacher use of strategies and
interventions to support student mastery of standards. The use of research-based
instructional strategies provides clear guidance on how to most effectively teach students
(Marzano, 2003). Well-articulated, organized strategies must be evident to all teachers to
ensure all staff utilizes common language necessary for valuable instruction design
99
(Marzano, 2003). The remaining six study schools are not yet fully implementing RTI,
but each are using parts of the model. School A, School B, and School H do provide
coordinated assistance to struggling students, which include identification of students not
yet proficient, data chats with the principal and grade level teams, Student Study Teams
for designing interventions with parents and teachers, and after school assistance from
teachers. Grade level teams of teachers often collaborate and set learning goals for
students. In addition, School H follows the pyramid of interventions model provided by
the district office for RTI and a district paid coach provides double doses of instruction
and assessment administration. However, School A, School B, and School H do not
monitor the rate of learning for students in the intervention period and Tier II instruction
is not formalized into short 6-8 week periods for intense remediation.
School C, School D, and School E have provided one year of RTI professional
development for their teachers at the district level. School C teachers identify students not
yet proficient and provide small group instruction in the classroom for remediation. In
addition, School C, the only school site with two administrators, has decided to focus on
designing interventions during the school day. As a result, the administrative team pulls
small groups of students not yet proficient for double doses of literacy instruction in the
curriculum. While School D does identify students struggling, a bilingual instructional
aide provides the Tier II instruction for these students. Tier II instruction must be
provided by the classroom teacher and with the scientifically-based research textbooks
adopted by the school district. School D does allow for instruction but the classroom
teacher only plans for the lesson and does not provide the lesson. The pyramid of
interventions used by School D teachers determines which assessment should be used to
100
assess students not yet proficient. School E teachers are allocated release time from the
principal to review student data together to identify students not yet proficient; however,
years of working in isolation have been difficult to overcome. School E teachers work
independently to remediate students and do not provide Tier II instruction or assessments
to monitor the rate of learning. School C, School D, and School E all have school site
SST teams to suggest strategies for students not yet proficient for parents and teachers as
well.
As a result, School C, School D, and School E provide localized intervention
efforts rather than strategic, coordinated programs of student learning. In order to
continue to improve student learning at high levels, it is vital to not only identify students
not yet proficient but also provide short, intensive intervention to bring students to
proficient levels. Monitoring students’ learning in scientifically based researched
curriculum and assessments often necessitates ongoing training and professional
discourse for teachers and support staff.
Professional Learning Communities
Professional Learning Communities provide the framework for a collaborative
school community (Dufour et al., 2006). This philosophical approach provides an
important layering of how school systems are designed to support student learning.
Systems of intervention are effective when groups of dedicated teachers work together,
rather than as isolated individuals, to proactively design supportive school-wide
structures for students. Dufour et al. (2006) states the Professional Learning Community
model ensures all students learn when teams of professionals work together to creating
common essential learning standards, pacing guides, and assessments which provide
101
teachers with the necessary data and language to team together to design dynamic
instructional programs for students.
Seven of the eight study schools implement many of the facets of the PLC model.
The teachers at School A, School B, School C, School D, School F, School G, and School
H meet in formalized grade level meetings each week to plan instruction and discuss
individual student progress. Each school identified has one short day each week to allow
teachers the time required for this planning. Further, each school administers common
assessments and teachers share student outcome data in order to focus instruction on
remedial and challenge work necessary to enrich each student’s learning experience.
Teachers utilize district provided curriculum pacing guides at School A, School B,
School C, School F, School G, and School H to maintain the focus on learning while
planning, though each administrator at these schools acknowledged teachers are allowed
the instructional freedom to alter the pacing guide when necessary to better facilitate
student learning. School B teachers set learning goals for each student during their grade
level meetings and identify the benchmark requirements for successful learning. School C
teachers also have scheduled opportunities throughout the year to vertically team with
other grade levels and up to the middle school level as well, as each school in their
district’s feeder pattern have the same short day each week to allow for this type of cross-
school collaboration.
In addition to common assessments, pacing guides, and sharing of student
outcomes, each of the identified study schools sets grade level goals for the year to refine
instructional plans each year. Many of these schools, including School A, School B,
School F, School G, and School H, write these goals into the Single Plan for Student
102
Achievement (SPSA) as a part of the overall plan for the school. Goal implementation is
an important shift required for realization of Professional Learning Communities.
Teachers learn most effectively from one another, rather than from outside consultants or
other types of professional development (Fullan, 1999; Schmoker, 2004). Each goal is
based on reflective data analysis and adjustment of instructional practices. Authentic
collaboration around data can be a cultural shift and can take multiple years to
implement.
However, only two of the study schools, School B and School G, focus on
Dufour’s four questions to maintain teachers’ attention on student learning. Ongoing
focus upon these four core questions maintains a teaching and learning purpose within
Professional Learning Communities: What do we want our students to learn? How will
we know when each student has learned it? What will we do when students have not yet
learned it?; and How will we respond when students have already learned it? (Dufour et
al., 2006). To begin to address Dufour’s questions, schools must take into account what
our students need to know to achieve mastery of each grade level. Teachers must
collaboratively review how to sequence and pace the content within lessons and units.
Simply following the textbook is insufficient and ineffective (Marzano, 2003).
School B and School G teachers address a learning focus for each month, and
determines which students are most at-risk for successful mastery of the focus standards.
Benchmark indicators of success are determined by the grade level team and a plan for
scaffolding instruction to support struggling students is put in place, as well as
enrichment opportunities for students already successful at the focus grade level
standards. In addition, School G teachers rewrote Dufour’s four questions to better fit
103
their school philosophy: (1) How will we work together as a team to collaborate and
support each other in accomplishing our goals? (2) How will we work as a team to
collaborate and support all students at our grade level who don’t “get it”?; (3) How will
we work as a team to collaborate and challenge students at our grade level to be thinkers
and problem solvers?; (4) How will we work together to analyze individual student work
and share possible strategies to support individual students to meet grade level
proficiency? Which students?
Professional Learning Communities emphasize the significance of teachers
working together to refine teaching and create more effective practices (Schmoker,
2004). The essential conditions for collaboration are focused on goals and structured
around data, where teachers teach one another about the effective instructional practices
(Schmoker, 2004; Symonds, 2004). Collaborative groups refine practice and improve the
academic achievement of all students, particularly for those that are not yet proficient.
Narrowing this achievement gap is an important part of the work of educators. School E
was the only study school not yet implementing components of Professional Learning
Communities. While teachers do plan lessons together, the grade level meetings are
largely designed to discuss school business. Data analysis is a new concept for the
teachers at School E, and the teachers are reluctant to participate in meetings to identify
and share strategies for instructional success unless provided time by the principal.
School E was the only study school without a short day each week set aside for
collaborative time; teachers at School E voted it out of their school day several years ago
when the teachers felt their previous principal “micromanaged” their grade level meeting
agendas. As noted in Appendix F, the strong culture of the bargaining unit and emphasis
104
on following the teachers’ contract explicitly might be a primary obstacle to participation
in collaborative professional teacher networks that require additional time outside of the
school day.
Elmore (2002) asserted improving instructional practice requires a change in core
beliefs and values, arguing practice alters attitudes, not vice versa. Formalizing this
process includes structuring multiple opportunities throughout the month to reflect upon
data in grade level teams (Symonds, 2004; Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Professional
Learning Communities provide the opportunity for teachers to engage in ongoing
professional development with one another to refine instructional practice, promoting the
collaborative environment required for high levels of student achievement (Schmoker,
2006; Fullan, 2001; Symonds, 2004). It is one component of the comprehensive, ongoing
work that must occur to examine instructional effectiveness and teach all learners.
Leadership Factors
School leaders are central to the shaping and maintaining the health of school culture.
Further, leaders may be entirely responsible for gaining and sustaining momentum for
instructional improvements (Lyman & Villani, 2004; Symonds, 2004). Each leader at
every study school interviewed demonstrated a depth of knowledge about their school
community and the individuals within them, although each style is different. Four of the
principals interviewed at the study schools appeared directive in nature toward
instructional practices at the school site and the remaining four principals appeared to be
more managerial in nature and supportive of distributed leadership. All principals juggled
tremendous pressures from the parent groups within the school community and several
felt beholden to these groups while they each work to maintain a positive school culture.
105
Most interesting, each of the study school principals reported only periphery
relationships with district office personnel. Four of the eight study schools, School A,
School C, School D, and School E, reported new superintendent leaderships. These
principals were still working to establish relationships with their new bosses. Due to
ongoing budget cuts in the districts of School A, School C, School D, School E, and
School H, personnel continued to shift and adjust to additional responsibilities, as
positions remained unfilled. As a result, these principals were left to provide the
instructional directives at their school sites. Further, School A, School F, School G, and
School H principals reported autonomy from the district office due to their high test
scores; even though other schools in their districts were required to implement district
directives, these schools were exempt since their schools were considered “high
performing”.
Without exception, each principal at the study schools felt entirely responsible to
maintain a positive school culture in which healthy working relationships could flourish.
Five of the eight study schools’ leaders, School A, School B, School C, School D, School
F, had been at their sites for two to three years as principal and stated priorities related to
building established relationships with the teachers, students, parent groups, and district
office administration.
Parent groups are influential at each study school site, actively involved in the overall
financing of school programs and supporting the learning process with preparative
activities. Parent groups take up a significant amount of each study school principal’s
time, but each principal reported this was well spent for the bargaining of strategic school
site needs. Each principal managed active groups of parent volunteers whom support
106
classroom teachers with copying, cutting, and laminating materials. Individual parent
volunteers assist with small group and individualized instruction in six of the eight study
schools, School B, School C, School D, School E, School G, and School H. In all eight
schools, the parent groups assisted with or fully paid for all field trips and the visual
and/or performing arts program. Each study school principal reported building of
relationships with important members within the parent organization for the explicit
purpose of creating advocates for the financing of new or existing school programs.
Without these essential relationships, the principals felt their parent groups might not be
supportive of their decisions. Five study school principals, School A, School C, School
D, School E, and School H, believed they might not be able to obtain the required
funding to support ongoing school programs without regular, ongoing contact with their
school communities. As a result, these particular schools noted their parent group leaders
were able to contact them via cell phone or email at any time. Two study school
principals, School B and School D, reported parent groups actively involved with the
local school board.
Further, the function of leadership is to support implementation of new programs
(Hord, 1990). Four of the study schools’ principals juggled additional programs that they
worked to bring to their school sites. School A worked to infuse six Coatson grant
fellows to support learning and instruction in the classroom. These teachers, that received
stipends in previous years but not this year since the grant money no longer provided for
this support, provide guidance to less experienced teachers at the school site. The
principal of School B introduced a dual immersion program to her school of 230 students
to boost attendance to 287 this year. The principal of School D juggled an Early
107
Intervention for Student Success (EISS) grant for her kindergarten through second grade
teachers to introduce additional professional development and literacy assessments to her
school. The principal of School G works with her parent groups to juggle a performing
arts program with two teachers, a broadcasting program, and a community volunteer
reading program throughout the day.
Administrators are responsible for setting the vision for student learning outcomes for
each student. Dufour and Burnette (2002) stated collaborative culture is developed when
teachers work together in teams – with a systematic approach to engage staff in ongoing,
daily, professional growth designed to foster collaboration. Four of the eight study school
principals, School A, School B, School F, and School G, reported a self-directed, detailed
plan for their school site’s implementation of instruction, data analysis, and professional
development. The principal of School A selected a “mission critical” learning focus for
the staff as she worked to bring along her parent groups to understand the importance of
excellence at her site. The principals of School A and School B reported the need to
protect teachers from their active parent groups to ensure a focus on instruction. Each of
the four principals indicated a preliminary analysis of all school data, both formative and
summative, and the initial goal setting for the SPSA prior to approaching their leadership
teams or whole staff with the data. Leaders often create a sense of cognitive dissonance
by bringing student data into the light presents evidence to contradict the assumptions
made about students that are not yet proficient (Dufour & Burnette, 2002).
Four of the eight study school principals, School C, School D, School E, and School
H, reported sharing the responsibility for leadership with a variety of teacher and parent
groups and committees. These principals believed distributed leadership was most
108
effective for leading their school sites. Leadership teams comprised of teacher leaders
were the primary communication for these sites, often followed up by whole staff
collaborative planning. Teacher leaders were empowered to make important school
decisions for the school and school community. Leadership is quite possibly the most
important aspect of successful school change (Marzano, 2003). Leaders maintain the
climate of the school and classrooms, aligning both with the vision of the school.
Marzano (2003) argues that leadership should be carried out in a small group of trusted
individuals with the principal as the strong cohesive force.
Administrators must strategically guard the culture of the school from negative
influences that distract attention from the focus on learning for all. Each study school
principal reported a high level of concern for building or maintaining a healthy school
culture. Two of the study schools, School E and School F, have a strong bargaining unit
presence and both principals reported daily conversations with the group stakeholders,
which detracted from the overall positive school culture. Change is dynamic and fragile,
to be nurtured and monitored daily (Dufour & Burnette, 2002).
Each study school principal reported building relationships with teachers
throughout the day to ensure confidence, build leadership qualities, and monitor
individuals’ sense of well being as a part of the overall school culture. Quite important to
this process is the fundamental sense of autonomy of teachers throughout the school – so
creating a culture that is simultaneously demanding to specific principles while allowing
autonomy for individuals to decide how to go about daily matters will ensure the spirit of
trust (Dufour et al., 2006). Important for this process is the infusion of professional
development, which will be highlighted in the next section.
109
Professional Development
Current school improvement research indicates developing the instructional
capacity of teachers to respond to students with a plethora of strategies is critical to the
improvement of student achievement (Symonds, 2004; Joyce & Showers, 2002). Each of
the study school principals noted the importance of professional development for their
teachers, and each principal placed professional development on their “wish list” for
resources provided to their sites should additional monies be made available. Odden
(2009) stated coherence is an important component, integrating the comprehensive staff
development program with school and district goals. Two of the study schools, School A
and School G explicitly stated the alignment of the SPSA goals with the professional
development at the school site. The topics for professional development are decided on
collaboratively by the teachers and the principal at School A after determining the school
plan goals for the year. School G teachers and principal use school data to determine the
SPSA goals for the school year and determine the professional development for the
school year. Symonds (2004) found teachers at schools, which narrowed the achievement
gaps, have received more professional development about linking data analysis to
effective instructional strategies.
Six of the eight study schools, School A, School B, School D, School E, School F,
and School G, had received extensive professional development from the district office in
prior years; however, three of the study schools, School B, School C, and School E, cut
out all professional development at the site level due to budget cuts. One additional
school, School D, is completely relying on EISS grant funds to pay for professional
110
development, although only for the kindergarten through second grade teachers as
permitted by the grant.
Professional development is critical to systematically change a school’s capacity
for building student achievement (Fullan, 2001). The districts of five of the eight study
schools, School C, School D, School E, School F, and School G, are receiving innovative
support from the BTSA district support providers to augment the budget reductions at the
district and site level. This support is important, since the teachers’ contract in each study
school did not change. Each study school, with the exception of School C, was required
to provide three to six days of professional development during the school year. In
addition, School B teachers were provided paid summer institutes in English Language
Arts and mathematics.
Time Reallocation/Creating Incentives
Odden and Picus (2008) stated reviewing policy and programmatic issues, such as
incentive, capacity development, organization and management strategies, is required to
achieve higher levels of student achievement. Time reallocation was used to support the
teaching and learning cycle at each of the study elementary schools, including many
preparatory times. Teachers utilize prep time to contact parents, follow up with
paperwork, and prepare lessons. Seven of the eight study schools reported prep times for
each fourth, fifth, and sixth grade (where applicable) with vocal music and/or
instrumental music. School A was a beneficiary of this program until this year’s budget
reductions. Two schools, School A and School D, were provided release time for
collaborative planning through grants. Five of the eight study schools, School D, School
E, School F, School G, and School H, enjoy extensive release time with physical
111
education and visual/performing arts. School A also enjoyed physical education prep
times until this year’s budget reductions. Each of the study schools except School E
enjoys one short instructional day per week to allow teachers to work collaboratively in
grade level teams. Further, three of the study schools, School F, School G, and School H,
have district paid literacy and/or English Development teachers to assist with school wide
interventions and assessments.
Motivation must be stimulated with a delicate balance of making the learner feel
competent while addressing the current condition of learners as they are moved toward
the goal of student achievement (Butler, 2002). Providing reinforcement throughout the
learning increases the probability that learners will appropriately respond to the learning
(Butler, 2002). These are important components to create teacher buy-in and motivation
to begin and maintain the change process. Three of the eight study schools reported
ongoing strategies for motivation at their sites. The principal and teachers of School A
promote a motivational theme each year with school wide symbols to encourage high
student achievement. School B creates a new motto each year to focus on to promote
teamwork and boost morale. School B teachers regularly celebrate the success of the
teachers and students.
School C maintains a baseball theme to motivate the teachers, staff, and students.
Each classroom is named after a professional baseball team, the multipurpose room is
named the Hall of Fame, the library is named the Field of Dreams, and the cafeteria is
named the Concession Stand B. The recess bell plays “Take Me Out to the Ball Game.”
The baseball theme is designed to honor the achievements of all “All Star” students.
Motivating to the teachers as well, School C serves as a model school and hosts visitors
112
from universities, neighboring school districts, and other countries. Many teachers serve
as supervising teachers for practicum hours needed by university students and student
teachers from several universities, allowing teachers to refine their instructional strategies
and create additional opportunities for student success.
Most researchers agree the impact of decisions made by teachers is far greater
than school site level decisions (Marzano, 2003). As a result, teachers are the primary
resource for improving student achievement, and important consideration should be given
to shift these resources to support and sustain school improvement. Blending incentives
with a mix of rewards and penalties is central to motivation of teachers.
How did the allocation of resources change in response to the recent budget reductions?
This section will answer the third research question for the eight study school
sites. Each of the study schools experienced budget reductions differently. District office
decisions impacted several of the school sites in terms of professional development
decisions, classroom material purchases, and salary reductions. Six of the eight study
schools, with the exception of School F and School G, did not receive new textbooks this
year, since their districts swept the textbook monies into the district general fund. In
addition to textbooks, four school sites, School B, School C, School D, and School E,
were instructed by the district office to cut professional development from their school
sites. School D was able to mitigate these cuts through use of grant monies. Four of the
eight study schools experienced salary reductions. All administrators for School C and
School D took three furlough days for the school year. All teachers and administrators
agreed to a 1.25% pay cut for the school year.
113
Class size increases and reductions in staffing are additional resource changes in
the study schools. Three of the study schools, School A, School D, and School E,
experienced staff reductions with Reductions in Force (RIF) teachers. Four schools,
School C, School D, School E, and School H, experienced class size increases this year.
Two additional study schools, School F and School G, will increase their class sizes next
year and may also RIF teachers at the end of the school year.
In addition to loss of teachers, five study schools experienced other personnel
reductions. Two of the study schools, School D and School E, cut their Elementary
Learning Specialists, which served as part time assistant principals and ran school site
intervention programs. Three of the study schools, School E, School F, and School G,
reduced health clerk hours by a minimum of ten and a maximum of twenty hours a week.
School D cut an instructional aide, which assisted with Tier II interventions, and School
A cut physical education and music teachers, which provided instruction to students and
weekly preparation time to teachers.
Student intervention services were reduced or cut entirely in some of the study
schools. Before or after school intervention was cut at School A, School B, School D and
School E. Summer school services were cut at School B, School D, School E, and School
H. Student interventions were reduced during the school day for three of the study
schools – School C, School D, and School E.
School site budgets were dramatically impacted at each of the study school sites,
which is particularly difficult since these funds are small to begin with. School C and
School H received a 10% budget reduction to all school budgets while School B received
a 20% budget reduction to all budgets. School D and School E received 40% reduction to
114
School Improvement, 15% to English Learner, and 5% to General Fund budgets. School
F and School G school budgets were also reduced: 15% to General Fund and 10% to
School Improvement. The district of School A has completely frozen the funds for the
school year, and the principal was concerned about purchasing the necessary pencils and
paper for her students. Rollover budgets, which helped to purchase needed items, were
swept into the district general fund for School A and School H. In each case, the study
school principals reported their parent groups partially mitigated the budget reductions by
assisting with classroom material costs and paying for school site programs.
Despite each of these budget reductions, four study school sites had identified
innovative ways to access alternative resources. The principal of School B located
corporate sponsorship for student assembly fees, and provided free dental screenings for
her students from a local business. School H received tissue boxes and pencils from a
local tutoring company. School F also received school supply donations from a large
corporate sponsor. The parent community of School F and School G were asked to
donate $500 per student to allay budget reductions at the district level and minimize the
budget reductions at the school site level. Principals at these study schools reported
feeling as though they had access to assistance beyond their parent communities when
their schools needed materials or other necessities.
How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or different from
the resource use strategies used in the Evidence Based Model?
This section briefly reviews the Evidence Based Model (EBM) for providing
resources to school sites and explores how each study school’s resources are allocated in
comparison to the recommendations according to the model for a school of its size and
115
demographic breakdown. Further description of each study school is provided in
Appendix F.
Odden and Picus (2008) developed the Evidence Based Model that identifies the
essential elements of a school wide instructional program which research has shown to be
effective in improving student performance. EBM is used to cost out each element in
order to determine adequate levels of funding to improve student achievement (Odden,
2003). The Evidence Based Model is based on a prototypical school and then adjusts for
school size and demographics. The prototypical elementary school is based on 432
students and average class sizes of 15 for kindergarten through third grade and 25 for
upper grades (Odden & Picus, 2008). Each elementary school is staffed with full time
teachers, referred to as a Full Time Equivalent (FTE). The EBM also provides for
specialist teacher FTEs to enrich student education through art, music, library, and
physical education while providing release time for teachers for planning, grade level
collaboration, and professional development. To facilitate this preparatory time
(approximately 45-60 minutes), the EBM provides 20% additional staffing of the total
core instructional teachers. Table 4.2 shows how each study school is currently staffed
and how the Evidence Based Model would staff a school of the same size with core and
specialist teachers.
Table 4.2 shows the study schools resource allocations for core and specialist
teachers, and how the Evidence Based Model would staff a school of the same size. Two
study schools, School C and School G, were within two core teachers recommended by
the Evidence Based Model. Each other study school site had significantly fewer core
116
teachers than recommended by EBM. Although three study schools have two or more
specialist teachers, every school is below the recommendation of the EBM.
Table 4.2 Core and Specialist Teachers – Actual vs. Evidence Based Model
School Enrollment Core
Teachers
FTEs Actual
Core Teachers
FTE
Recommended
By EBM
Specialist
Teachers
FTEs
Actual
Specialist
Teachers FTE
Recommended
by EBM
A 655 29 35.40 0.5 7.28
B 287 13 16.84 0.2 2.60
C 580 30 31.27 0.2 6.25
D 640 25 37.80 2.4 7.56
E 580 22 32.40 2.4 6.48
F 615 26 34.96 0.2 7.00
G 650 27 29.04 2.2 5.81
H 390 16 23.56 0.5 4.70
Table 4.3 shows how the Evidence Based Model would allocate intervention
teachers and how the study schools are actually staffed. Tutors are provided in the EBM
to support struggling students in immediate, intensive interventions to bring students to
proficiency. One fully licensed teacher is allotted under the EBM for every 100 at-risk or
English Learner students. Two of the eight study schools, School F and School G, are
provided $20,000 to fund intervention teachers to provide Tier II instruction. This
financial support aligns School G with the EBM. The study school sites are not allocated
according to the EBM.
The Evidence Based Model provides extended day teachers and summer school
teachers to accelerate instruction for students not yet proficient. Resources are allocated
to allow for one full time teacher for every 15 students receiving the Free and Reduced
Price lunch program. Every study school is grossly underfunded according to the
Evidence Based Model.
117
Table 4.3 Intervention Teachers: Tutors, Extended Day, Summer School Programs –
Actual vs. Evidence Based Model
Table 4.4 shows how the Evidence Based Model would staff each study school
with significantly more instructional specialists and student support teachers. According
to the EBM, one FTE is allotted for every 200 students. Student support is provided in the
EBM, which includes counselors, nurses, psychologists, and social workers. Each study
school is adequately staffed with support staff according to the Evidence Based Model.
However, each of the study schools reported the need for additional support staff,
particularly nursing and counseling personnel.
School Tutors
FTE
Actual
Tutors FTE
Recommended
By EBM
Extended
Day FTEs
Actual
Extended Day
FTE
Recommended
by EBM
Summer
School FTEs
Actual
Summer
School FTEs
Recommended
by EBM
A 0 1.20 0 1.50 0 1.50
B 0 0.78 0 0.93 0 0.93
C 0 0.45 0 0.25 0 0.25
D 0 0.40 0 0.25 0 0.25
E 0 0.40 0 0.50 0 0.50
F $20,000
from
district to
pay for
Tier II
teachers
2.33 0 0.50 0 0.50
G $20,000
from
district to
pay for
Tier II
teachers
0.30 0 0.30 0 0.30
H 0 0.62 0 0.50 0 0.50
118
Table 4.4 Other Teachers: Instructional Specialists, Student Support – Actual vs.
Evidence Based Model
School Instructional
Specialists FTEs
Actual
Instructional
Specialists FTE
Recommended
by EBM
Student Support
FTEs Actual
Student Support
FTEs
Recommended by
EBM
A
0.5 FLAP Grant
for Mandarin
3.30 0.2 Psychologist,
0.6 Speech, 0.3
Health Assistant
1.50
B
0.5 Chinese
teacher for the
Bilingual
Chinese-English
Program
1.44 0.2 Psychologist,
1.0 Speech
1.0
C
0 2.90 0.4 Psychologist,
0.4 Speech, 0.3
Health Assistant
1.34
D
0 2.90 0.5 Counselor, 0.4
Psychologist, 0.5
Speech, 0.1 Health
Nurse
1.48
E
0 3.16 0.5 Counselor, 0.5
Psychologist, 0.5
Speech, 0.1 Health
Nurse
1.34
F
0 3.15 0.5 Counselor, 0.5
Psychologist, 0.6
Speech, 0.5 Health
Nurse
1.42
G
0 3.24 0.5 Counselor, 0.5
Psychologist, 0.6
Speech, 0.5 Health
Nurse
1.51
H
0 1.90 0.2 Psychologist,
0.4 Speech, 0.4
Health Assistant
0.90
Table 4.5 addresses allocation of special education classes at the study schools.
According to the Evidence Based Model, special education classes are designated for
severely disabled students and also include instructional aide support. The number of
teachers and aides are based on the school’s needs. Many of the study schools also have
individual aides assigned to one student for full inclusion instruction in the general
education or special education setting.
119
Table 4.5 Special Education – Actual vs. Evidence Based Model
School Special Education FTE Actual Special Education FTE Recommended By EBM
A
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE
Resource Aide
I FTE SDC Teacher and 1 FTE SDC
Aide
5 full inclusion aides for General
Education students
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE Resource
Aide
I FTE SDC Teacher and 1 FTE SDC Aide
B
0.3 FTE Resource Teacher
I FTE SDC Teacher and 1 FTE SDC
Aide
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE Resource,
I FTE SDC Teacher and 1 FTE SDC Aide
C
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE
Resource Aide
3 FTE SDC Teacher and 4 FTE SDC
Aide
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE Resource
Aide
3 FTE SDC Teacher and 4 FTE SDC Aides
D
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE
Resource Aide
I FTE SDC Teacher and 1 FTE SDC
Aide
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE Resource
Aide
I FTE SDC Teacher and 1 FTE SDC Aide
E
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE
Resource Aide
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE Resource
Aide
F
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 2 FTE
Resource Aide
1 FTE one-on-one aide
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE Resource
Aide
I FTE SDC Teacher and 1 FTE SDC Aide
G
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE
Resource Aide
I4 full inclusion aides for autistic and
SED students
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE Resource
Aide
I FTE SDC Teacher and 1 FTE SDC Aide
H
1 FTE Resource Teacher
3 full inclusion aides for General
Education students
1 FTE Resource Teacher and 1 FTE Resource
Aide
Professional development is underfunded for every study school. Table 4.6 shows
the amount of monies allocated for professional development according to the Evidence
Based Model. Although School C, School D, School E, and School G designate site funds
from a variety of school budgets for professional development, these allocations are
significantly below the amount the administrators would like to have for staff training. In
addition, the designation of these site funds restricts the sites from purchasing classroom
materials or supplementary curriculum materials due to the small size of each school’s
site budget. School F and School G are supported by professional development at the
120
district level. Four of the study schools, School C, School D, School F and School G, are
provided one or more days for PD in the teacher bargaining unit contract. School B’s
teachers bargaining unit contract provides for one afternoon a month for PD.
Table 4.6 Professional Development – Actual vs. Evidence Based Model
School Professional Development Actual Professional Development Recommended By
EBM
A Allotted release time for teachers, but teacher
contract not increased for additional days.
Funds allotted: approximately $100 per pupil
for a total of $65,500. Collaborative work
with teachers during the school day. On site
coaching.
B Allotted time for professional development
after school each month, but teacher contract
not increased for additional days.
Funds allotted: approximately $100 per pupil
for a total of $28,700. Collaborative work
with teachers during the school day. On site
coaching.
C $7,000 split funded from two categorical
budgets. $5,000 spent on consultant for data
analysis; $2,000 on substitute teachers.
Teacher contract not increased for additional
days.
Funds allotted: approximately $100 per pupil
for a total of $58,000. Collaborative work
with teachers during the school day. On site
coaching.
D $14,000 split funded from two categorical
budgets. $3,000 spent on substitute teachers,
$3500 on extra duty stipends, and $7,500
spent on conference fees and a consultant.
Teacher contract increased for one day.
Funds allotted: approximately $100 per pupil
for a total of $64,000. Collaborative work
with teachers during the school day. On site
coaching.
E $10,000 split funded from two categorical
budgets. $5,000 spent on substitute teachers
and $5,000 spent on conference fees and a
consultant. Teacher contract increased for
one day.
Funds allotted: approximately $100 per pupil
for a total of $58,000. Collaborative work
with teachers during the school day. On site
coaching.
F District paid professional development.
District BTSA personnel assist with staff
development. Three staff development days
allotted per teacher contract.
Funds allotted: approximately $100 per pupil
for a total of $61,500. Collaborative work
with teachers during the school day. On site
coaching.
G $7,000 to cover substitute teachers. District
paid professional development. Three staff
development days allotted per teacher
contract.
Funds allotted: approximately $100 per pupil
for a total of $64,800. Collaborative work
with teachers during the school day. On site
coaching.
H Allotted for release time for teachers, for
planning lessons but teacher contract not
increased for additional days.
Funds allotted: approximately $100 per pupil
for a total of $39,000. Collaborative work
with teachers during the school day. On site
coaching.
Table 4.7 shows the administration and instructional facilitators allotted for each
of the study schools, and the recommended numbers for each school according to the
Evidence Based Model. Three of the study schools, School B, School C, and School H,
121
have more administration than is recommended in the EBM. In addition, School G,
School F, and School H also have instructional facilitators; however, no study school is
staffed at the EBM recommendations.
Table 4.7 Administration and Instructional Facilitators – Actual vs. Evidence Based
Model
School Enrollment Administrators
FTEs Actual
Administrators
FTE
Recommended
By EBM
Instructional
Facilitators
FTEs Actual
Instructional
Facilitators
FTE
Recommended
by EBM
A 655 1 1.51 0 3.3
B 287 1 0.66 0 1.44
C 580 2 1.34 0 2.9
D 640 1 1.46 0 3.2
E 580 1 1.34 0 2.9
F 615 1 1.42 2 3.15
G 650 1 1.5 2 3.24
H 390 1 0.9 1 1.9
Summary of Findings
The findings of the study were presented, including an overview of the
characteristics and performance data from each school. The research questions served as
the framework for the discourse of successful school strategies, the allocation of school
resources, impending changes from the budget crisis and comparison to the Evidence
Based Model.
122
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
The adequate allocation of school resources is linked to high levels of student
achievement (Greenwald & Hedges, 1996). This study selected a purposeful sample of
eight high performing southern California elementary schools, which achieved API
scores above 900 over a three-year period. A review of instructional strategies for each
study school during the improvement process and resource allocation patterns was
determined. Case studies of each school include interviews and analysis of student
performance data and resource allocations choices and can be found in Appendix F. The
findings were compared with the Evidence Based Model of school finance adequacy and
suggest that although the resources available to the study schools were significantly fewer
than what the Evidence Based Model recommends, the schools implemented many of the
strategies as suggested in the body of literature on school improvement.
Each study school is significantly understaffed compared to the Evidence Based
Model, particularly in the availability of specialist and intervention teachers and the
funding for professional development. Two of the study schools were within two core
teachers of the number recommended by the EBM while the remaining six exhibited a
greater deficit in the number of core teachers. A discourse on the research-based school
strategies in place at each study school is in the next section.
Summary of Findings
Schools can produce large improvements in student academic achievement
(Marzano, 2001; Symonds, 2004; Odden, 2009). The bureaucracies of current school
systems seek to increase student performance by improving the functioning of the schools
123
yet often prevent this very improvement (O’Day, 2002). Effective strategies for
implementing and sustaining school success were summarized in the review of the
literature. Those identified as most likely to help schools improve performance include:
setting the urgency for learning; goal setting; use of assessments; designing multiple
strategies to close the achievement gap (including use of Response to Intervention and
Professional Learning Communities); high quality leadership; professional development;
and time reallocation and use of incentives. Only one school proactively pursues the
implementation of each research-based strategy. The remaining seven schools utilize
different combinations of the research-based strategies to ameliorate learning gaps and
sustain high levels of student achievement.
Creating Urgency
Perceived need for dramatic change is the catalyst for applying the necessary
pressure required for change, which can come from a variety of sources: disappointing
results from NCLB, higher levels of student knowledge and skill required for the global
workforce or the moral drive to close the achievement gap (Odden, 2009). Systematic
support and structured opportunities are necessary for stakeholders to reflect, discuss,
collaborate about, and respond to the challenges that data bring (Symonds, 2004). Three
of the eight study schools worked proactively to create urgency. Strategies used included
collaboratively reviewing school wide data for strengths and weaknesses, utilizing pacing
guides to provide rigorous instruction for all learners, and identifying students not yet
proficient for additional, accelerated instruction.
124
Goal Setting
Goals define the focus and provide the roadmap to success. Maeroff (as cited in
Schmoker, 1999) asserted clear, elevating goals and a results-driven structure motivates
and energizes teams toward tangible improvement. Goals and teamwork provide the
cohesiveness necessary for a symbiotic relationship (Schmoker, 1999). Utilizing the
language of common goals, schools must effectively select, define, and measure progress
in order to adjust effort toward goals (Schmoker, 1999; Little Hoover Commission,
2008). Five of the eight study schools collaboratively set school goals for improved
student achievement and revisited these goals collaboratively often throughout the year.
These goals were often aligned with professional development for the site. One school
even publically posted their goals in the office for parents within the community to view.
Assessment Systems
Symonds (2004) found schools that utilized frequent assessments were more
successful with producing high student outcomes. Assessment for learning is one of the
most high yield strategies because it represents a powerful impetus for altering instruction
(Fullan, 2005). Assessments alone cannot improve student achievement, but provide for
an overall summary picture of student performance for individual students, overall
schools, and district wide information. Use of both formative and summative assessment
data is necessary to identify areas of high, average, and low performance at all levels to
inform the teaching and learning cycle; however, each assessment type serves a distinct
and unique purpose (Fullan, 2005). Each of the study schools utilize summative and
formative assessments, however two schools reported using additional assessments for
Tier II instruction as well as curriculum based measures.
125
Closing the Achievement Gap
Achievement gaps widen between different groups of students as they matriculate
through schools, ensuring a heritage of unsuccessful educational experiences (Symonds,
2004). Addressing the achievement gap is vital to ensure the success of all students,
particularly students of color. Only two of the eight study schools specifically identified
strategies for closing the achievement gap for students not yet proficient. The remaining
schools identified intervention strategies for all students, but not specifically for the
underperforming, underserved students at each school site.
Response to Instruction/Intervention
RTI allocates instructional resources to target all students’ needs, committing all
staff to identify and implement research-based, best practices (Tilly, 2006). Two of the
study schools are fully implementing the RTI model, though the remaining school sites
have designated procedures for supporting struggling students, including SST meetings
and remedial instruction opportunities. Missing from these procedures is attention to the
rate of learning during the intervention period and targeted Tier II instruction with
corresponding assessments.
Professional Learning Communities
Professional Learning Communities provide the structure for collaborative school
cultures focused on data and improving student learning. The primary elements of a PLC
are common learning standards, pacing guides, mutually agreed upon assessments, and
ongoing collaboration based on the philosophy that all students would learn (Dufour, et.
al, 2006). Seven of the eight study schools reported collaborative teacher networks were
in place; however, only two study schools utilized Dufour’s essential four questions. Data
126
analysis is a key component of teacher collaboration time. Weekly grade level meetings,
built into the regular school schedule, facilitated many of the conversations. Each of the
study schools identified informal meetings between grade level teams as being essential
to the success of the school.
Leadership Factors
Leadership shapes school culture and is essential to shaping and maintaining the
health of the school (Symonds, 2004; Lyman & Villani, 2004). Four of the eight study
schools were led by principals that preferred to take an active role in curriculum,
instruction, and day-to-day management. These principals linked school data to SPSA
goals and appeared to take a central role in decision making for instruction across the
school. They each recalled specific situations where they had intervened with teachers on
behalf of students or parents, directly communicating expectations for learning. The
remaining four leaders appeared to allow teachers more freedom in choosing curriculum
or interventions, and monitored their school culture for stakeholder satisfaction.
Each study school reported the importance of building relationships with the
parent community, particularly the leaders within key parent organizations. Every
principal identified these relationships as vital for their organization, particularly for
financial support of school programs. Remarkably, each principal reported feeling
beholden to these parent groups, whether or not the relationships were positive.
Professional Development
Ongoing refinement of instructional strategies is essential to improving student
achievement (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Six of the eight study schools engaged in ongoing
professional development with district support. However, due to budget cuts, three
127
schools cut all professional development and a fourth school is fully funding training
with a one-year grant. District support through the BTSA program will provide
professional development to augment budget reductions. Professional development plays
a significant part of a school’s capacity to systematically change a school’s capacity for
improving student achievement (Fullan, 2001). As schools continue to face growing
budget cuts, further reduction in professional development may be detrimental to
sustaining, if not improving, student achievement.
Time Reallocation/Use of Incentives
Motivation in a school community allows adult learners to feel competent while
addressing student need to continue to improve student achievement (Butler, 2002).
Seven of the eight study schools reported preparation times allocated during the school
day for some or all teachers though district funded music, performing arts, or physical
education teachers. In addition, seven of the eight study schools voted upon one early
release day a week for collaborative grade level planning time. Three of the study schools
provided ongoing incentives built into the school culture to enhance school culture and
motivate teachers.
Consequences of Budget Reductions
Each study school experienced budget reductions differently. District office
decisions impacted school sites with reductions in professional development, loss of
textbooks and classroom materials, intervention services, and salary reductions. Three of
the study schools lost teachers, and four schools experienced class size increases this
year. Two additional schools will increase class sizes next year and expect to RIF
teachers. Five study schools experienced personnel reductions including assistant
128
principals, health clerk, and instructional aide support. Every study school experienced
site budget reductions, which is significant because each school initially has limited
budgets.
Conclusions
The analysis of resource allocations and instructional improvement strategies
employed by the study schools lend support to the literature on improving schools.
Although each of the study schools is utilizing some or most of the instructional
improvement strategies, only one school has each of the instructional improvement
strategies in place. Only two of the study schools offered explicit strategies for closing
the achievement gap, although every school has embedded procedures for identifying and
improving the performance for students not yet proficient. Collaborative networks
provide teachers with opportunities for planning and refining instruction, learning new
strategies to support students not yet proficient, and setting learning goals for students.
These high performing elementary schools are significantly underfunded according to the
EBM, but persist in utilizing their limited resources to support high levels of student
achievement.
While collaborative conversations are focused on instruction, only some of the
elementary schools are guided by data and targeted to improve teaching practice. Specific
strategies for identifying learning expectations, anticipated student outcomes, and preset
plans for reteaching and extending instruction should be part of grade level team
meetings to ensure every student reaches proficiency. With increasing class sizes,
reduction in teachers and support personnel, and loss of intervention services, teachers
are under increasing pressure to not only maintain but also improve high student
129
achievement levels under NCLB. Administrators are encumbered by compounding
pressures to identifying financial support for current school programs while stabilizing
school staffs and students during the economic recession. Parent groups pay an important
role in maintaining sufficient levels of resources to school sites. Dwindling site resources
burden teachers and administrators with maintaining high levels of student achievement.
Implications
Most certainly teacher quality and smaller class size are linked with high levels of
student achievement (Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996; Wenglingsky, 2002; Rivkin,
Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). However, it is important to consider other reasons why the
eight study schools are labeled high performing and despite not utilizing all or most of
the research-based strategies for success. Considerable research in psychology and
education support the proposition that the home environment of students has significant
effects on student achievement (Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996). Rivkin, Hanushek,
and Kain (2005) asserted that academic achievement is a cumulative function of existing
and previous family, community, and school experiences. Although it is difficult to
extract student data to identify to what extent either parents or schools play in the
academic success of individual students, what is evident is that these study schools do
have high levels of achievement with few resources to offer students. Tiebout (1956)
found that because family choice of neighborhoods and school depends upon individual
preferences and available resources, students are nonrandomly distributed across schools.
Each study school has a wealth of experienced teachers, actively involved parents, and
high performing students.
130
Teachers and schools matter importantly for student achievement, and
achievement gains are systematically related to observable teacher behaviors and the
characteristics of schools (Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996). However, perhaps the
greatest asset to each high performing school is the student. Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain
(2005) found economically disadvantaged students systematically achieve lower levels of
academic success than their economically advantaged peers – on average, 0.6 standard
deviations behind. The most basic of school resources are teachers, and economically
disadvantaged students receive a lower quality of instruction than their more advantaged
peers, as low income and minority students face higher teacher turnover and are taught
more frequently by inexperienced teachers (Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004). Above all,
student demographics appear to be an important component to the success of each study
school. Socioeconomic status of students contributes significantly to student achievement
(Hanushek, 1986; Stevenson & Baker, 1987; Thompson, 1994; Okpala, 2002).
Despite high levels of student achievement, each of the study schools promotes
students not yet proficient to middle schools. Most students that are not yet proficient at
each study school are students of color. Achievement gaps exist at every school,
particularly for Hispanic and African American students. Limited resources granted to
each school site ensure some students’ lack of achievement remains invisible. Research
indicated substantial variations of teacher and school quality for many students, what is
clear is that being educated in a high performing school significantly improves the quality
of instruction for all students (Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996; Wenglingsky, 2002;
Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). Despite this, limited resources for these high
performing schools, particularly professional development for data analysis, research-
131
based instructional strategies, and for the development of RTI and PLC, is needed to
continue to accelerate the academic performance for all students. Multiple help strategies
must be in place to combat the powerful effects of achievement gaps between students.
The future of school resource allocations looks bleak for upcoming years. The
federal stimulus package served to mitigate the full effects of the current economic
recession in 2009 (EdSource, 2010). As 2010 begins, the state financial experts project
multibillion-dollar deficits for the next several years, and school districts will need to
reduce their budgets to already inadequately supplied schools (EdSource, 2010). Even
without the influx of new or additional school resources, California policymakers should
consider initiatives which produce new avenues of funding for school sites and at least
limit the cuts to education. Further, districts and schools should be permitted to direct
their limited resources to teachers, professional development, and student interventions
wherever possible given the current state of the economy. And given this unstable fiscal
landscape, many of the Evidence Based Model recommendations may seem unlikely.
However, the Evidence Based Model serves as a useful framework for school
resource allocation. Although school leaders do not have the funds available to fully fund
the strategies at the level of EBM recommendations, it may be used as a decision-making
model for the allocation of existing resources. The EBM provides specific strategies for
student intervention, professional development, and staffing ratios, which may be
consulted by school principals and district leaders for determining which strategies to
implement. Because school resources are finite, the EBM provides the framework for
most effectively utilizing their resources. Indeed, the most successful school leaders
132
pursue the most effective resource use allocations of existing resources to increase
student achievement for all students.
133
REFERENCES
Birman, B.F., Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., & Garet, M.S. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-32.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998, Oct.). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148. Retrieved on April 12,
2009 at http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm
Busch, C. & Odden, A. (1997). Improving educational policy and results with school-
level data-A synthesis of multiple perspectives. Journal of Education Finance,
22(Winter 1997), 222-245.
Butler, J. (2002). Staff Development. School Improvement Research Series, 12.
Retrieved April 2, 2009 at http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu12.html
California Department of Education. (2008). Enrollment by ethnicity 1981-
82 through 2001-02. Retrieved on April 1, 2009 at
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/enreth.asp
Chapa, J. & Valencia, R.R. (1993). Latino population growth, demographic
characteristics, and educational stagnation: An examination of recent trends.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 165-187.
Childress, S., Elmore, R. & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55-68.
Clark, R.E. & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cohen, D.K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher,
24(9), 11-17, 31.
Cowen, T. (2007). Discover your inner economist: Use incentives to fall in love, survive
your next meeting, and motivate your dentist. New York: Plume Books.
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention.
Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 18-36.
Desimone, L.M., Porter, A.C., Garet, M.S., Yoon, K.S., & Birman, B.F. (2002). Effects
of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three year
longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
Donahue, P.L., Voelkl, K.E., Campbell, J.R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998 reading
report card for the nations and states. Washington, D.C.: National Center for
Education Statistics.
134
Dufour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Indiana: National Educational
Service.
Dufour, R. & Burnette, B. (2002). Pull out negativity by its roots. Journal of Staff
Development, 23, 1-5.
Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work. Indiana: Solution Tree.
Dye, J. L. & Johnson, T. (2006). A child’s day: 2003 (select indicators of a child’s well
being). Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.
EdSource. (2006). Similar schools, different results: Why do some schools do better?
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
EdSource. (2007). School finance 2007-08: A status quo budget in a time of increased
pressure. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
EdSource. (2008). How California compares: Demographics, resources, and student
achievement. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
EdSource. (2010). School finance 2009-10: Budget cataclysm and its aftermath.
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Education Week. (2005, January 6). Quality Counts 2005: No small change-Targeting
money toward student performance. 24(17).
Education Data Partnership. (2004, March). Proposition 13 property tax amendment.
Retrieved on March 31, 2009 at http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/
fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2FArticles%2FArticle%2Easp%3Ftitle%3DEducation
%2520Issues
Education Data Partnership. (2004, March). Proposition 98 (1988). Retrieved on March
21, 2009 at http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?
bottom=%2 FArticles%2FArticle%2Easp%3Ftitle%3DEducation%2520Issues
Education Data Partnership. (2007, February). A guide to California’s school finance
system. Retrieved on March 21, 2009 at http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Articles/Article.asp?title=Guide%20to%20California%20Sch
ool%20Finance%20System
Education Data Partnership. (2007, November). Serrano v. Priest and funding equity.
Retrieved on March 21, 2009 at http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2FArticles%2FArticle%2E
asp%3Ftitle%3DEducation%2520Issues
135
Education Data Partnership. (2008, February). Categorical aide. Retrieved on March 21,
2009 at http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp
?bottom=%2FArticles%2FArticle%2Easp%3Ftitle%3DEducation %2520Issues
Education Trust. (2003). Latino Achievement in America. Retrieved on November 1,2007
at http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/7DC36C7E-EBBE-43BB-8392-
CDC618E1F762/0/LatAchievEnglish.pdf
Education Trust. (2003, October 29). State funding gaps. Retrieved on April 5, 2009 at
http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/state+funding+gaps.htm
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington,
DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2009, at
http://www.nsdc.org/library/results/res11-02elmore.html
Fermanich, M., Mangan, M.T., Odden, A., Picus, L.O., Gross, B., and Rudo, Z. (2006).
Washington Learns: Successful District Study. Submitted to the Washington
Learns Steering Committee, Olympia, WA. Retrieved on April 11, 2009 at
http://washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/successfuldistreport9-11-
06final_000.pdf
Fillmore, L.W. & Snow, C.E. (2000) What teachers need to know about language.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational
Research and Improvement
Finn, J.D. & Achilles, C.M. (1999). Tennesse’s class size study: Findings, implications,
misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97-109.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. California:
Corwin Press.
Garcia, G.E. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student Cultural Diversity:
Understanding and Meeting the Challenge (3
rd
ed.), (pp. 3-39). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L.V., & Laine, R.D. (Fall, 1996). The effect of school resources
on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361-396.
Hanushek, E.A. (1986). The economics of schooling. Journal of Economic Literature, 24,
1141-1177.
136
Hanushek, E.A. & Kimko, D.D. (2000). Schooling, labor force quality, and the growth
of nations. American Economic Review, 90, 1184-1208.
Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., & Rivkin, S.G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers.
Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326-354.
Hanushek, E.A. & Rivkin, S.G. (1997). Understanding the twentieth-century growth in
U.S. school spending. Journal of Human Resources, 32(1), 35–68.
Hannaway, J., McKay, S., & Nakib, Y. (2002). Reform and resource allocation: National
trends and state policies. Developments in School Finance, 1999-2000 (pp. 57-
76). Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department
of Education.
Hanushek, E. A. (2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. The Economic
Journal, 113(485), F64-98.
Hardy, L. (2007). Educating all children-regardless of status. Educational Vital Signs.
Retrieved on April 12, 2009 at
http://asbj.com/mainmenucategory/supplements/EVS/2007EVS.aspx
Hatami, H. (2006). Rules and resources: The evolving context for school reform. In
Crucial Issues in California Education 2006: Rekindling Reform. Policy Analysis
for California Education. Retrieved on March 20, 2009 at
http://gse.berkeley.edu/research/pace/reports/crucial_issues_2006.pdf
Hendrie, C. (2004). In US schools, race still counts: Despite progress, challenges loom.
Education Week. Retrieved on April 12, 2009 from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=19brown.h23
Herman, J. L., Brown, R.S., & Baker, E.L. (2000). Student assessment and student
achievement in the California public school system. CST Technical Report 519.
Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California,
Los Angeles.
Hill, P.T., Roza, M., and Harvey, J. (2008). Facing the future: Financing productive
schools. Center on Reinventing Public Education on the School Finance Redesign
Project.
Hoff, D.J. (2005, January 5). Elusive answers. Education Week, 24(17), 20-21.
Hord, S. M. (1990). Realizing school improvement through understanding the change
process: Issues about change 1(1). Retrieved on April 8, 2009 at
http://sedl.org/change/issues/issues11.html.
137
Imazeki, J. (2008). Assessing the costs of adequacy in California public schools: A cost
function approach. Education Finance and Policy, 3(1), 90-108.
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice. (2007). Getting down to facts: A
research project examining California’s school governance and finance systems.
Stanford University. Retrieved on April 5, 2009 at
http://www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/cgi- bin/joomla/index.php
?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=45
Johnson, R.C. (2005, January 6). Making every dollar count. Education Week, 24(17), 8-
12.
Johnson, R.S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure equity in
our schools. California: Corwin Press.
Joyce, B.R. & Calhoun. E. (1996). Learning experiences in school renewal: An
exploration of five successful programs. In: B.R. Joyce & E. Calhoun (Eds.),
Learning experiences in school renewal: An exploration of five successful
programs (Ch.1). Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
Joyce, B.R. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Katz, S. R. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers, and the
structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100(4), 809-840.
Kirst, M. W. (2002). Swing state: The downs and ups of accountability in California.
Education Next, 2(2), 44-49.
Little Hoover Commission. (2008). Educational governance & accountability: Taking
the next step. Retrieved on April 8, 2009 at http://www.lhc.ca.gov
Linn, R. L. (2008). The future of test-based educational accountability. In: Katherine E.
Ryan & Lorrie A. Shepard (Eds.), The future of test-based educational
accountability (Ch, 1, pp. 3-24). New York: Routledge.
Loeb, S., Bryk, A., & Hanushek, E. (2007). Getting down to facts: School finance and
governance in California. Institute for Research on Educational Policy &
Practice. Retrieved on April 5, 2009 at http://www.stanford.edu/group/irepp/cgi-
bin/joomla/index.php?
Lyman, L. L. and Villani, C. J. (2004). Best leadership practices for high-poverty
schools. Scarecrow Education: Maryland, Toronto, Oxford.
138
Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
McREL.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Merrow, J. (2004, February 4). Educational foresight: The quality of schools will affect
the quality of your life. Merrow Report. Retrieved on March 19, 2009 at
http://www.pbs.org/merrow/news/mercury_news.html
National Forum on Educational Statistics. (2007). Forum guide to core finance data
elements. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department of Education.
National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC’s standards for staff development.
Retrieved April 13, 2009 at http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm
O’Connell, J. (2007). Next steps: Closing the racial gap. Leadership: Association of
California School Administrators, 37(2), 8-9.
O’Day, J. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.
O’Shea, M.R. (2005). From standards to success. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Odden, A., Monk, D., Nakib, Y., & Picus, L. (1995). The Story of the Education Dollar:
No Academy Awards and No Fiscal Smoking Guns. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2),
161-168.
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education Finance,
28(3), 323-356.
Odden, A. R. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.
Odden, A. R. & Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance: A policy perspective (4th ed., Ch. 1).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A.R. (2009). Ten steps to doubling student performance. California:
Corwin Press.
Olsen, L. (2005, January 6). Financial evolution. Education Week, 24(17), 8-12.
139
Okpala, C.O. (2002, Winter). Educational resources, student demographics and
achievement scores. Journal of Education Finance, 27, 885-908.
Orum, L. (1986). The education of Hispanics: Status and implications. Washington,
D.C.: National Council of La Raza.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Picus, L. O., & Wattenbarger, J. L. (Eds.). (1995). Where does the money go? Resource
allocation in Elementary and secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Picus, L. O. (2006). Rules and resources: The evolving context for school reform. In
Crucial Issues in California Education 2006: Rekindling Reform. Policy Analysis
for California Education. Retrieved on March 20, 2009 at
http://www.wvusd.k12.ca.us/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=58021&type=d&rn
=1672418
Picus, L.O. (2007, October 19). Getting down to facts: Now what? California Education
Policy Convening.
Policy Analysis for California Education. (2006). Crucial issues in California education
2006: Rekindling reform. Retrieved on March 20, 2009 at
http://gse.berkeley.edu/research/pace/reports/crucial_issues_2006.pdf
President’s Advisory Commission. (2003). From risk to opportunity: Fulfilling the
educational needs of Hispanic Americans in the 21
st
century. The Final Report of
the President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic
Americans. Washington D.C.: Ed Pubs.
Rebell, M. A. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement, and judicial review: A
proposal for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. Teachers
College Record, 109(6), 1303-1373.
Schmoker, M. (1999). RESULTS: The key to continuous school improvement. (2
nd
ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (2004). At odds: Strategic planning – Learning communities at the
crossroads. Phi Delta Kappa, 86(1), 84.
Schmoker, M. (2006). RESULTS now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements
in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
140
Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 487 P.2d 1241, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601 (1971)
Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal. 3d 728, 557 P.2d 929, 135 Cal. Rptr. 345, (Serrano II) (1976),
reh. denied, Jan. 27, 1977; as modified Feb. 1, 1977 cert. denied, 432 U.S. 907
(1977)
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). (2003). Examination of
resource allocations in education: Connecting spending to student performance.
Austin, TX: Author.
Snyder, T.D., Dillow, S.A., & C.M. Hoffman. (2008). Digest of education statistics 2007.
Washington, D.C.: US Department of Education, Institute for Education
Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics.
Stake, R. E. (2000). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications. Statistics. Retrieved on February 28, 2009 at
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008022.pdf
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope & despair: The school and kin
support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press,
Columbia University.
State of California. (2009). Summary of Governor’s Budget 2009-10. Retrieved on
March 20, 2009 at http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved on November 14, 2008
at http://www.rand.org/pubs/white_papers/WP138/WP138.pdf
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability:
Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Retrieved November 14, 2008, at
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136/
Stevenson, D. & Baker, D. (1987). The family-school relation and their child’s school
performance. Child Development, 58, 1348-1357.
Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on
science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.
141
Symonds, K.W. (2004). After the test: Closing the achievement gaps with data.
Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates and Bay Area School Reform
Collaborative.
Thompson, J. (1994). Scale economies and student performance in Hawaii. Journal of
Education Finance, 19, 279-291.
Tiebout, C.M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy.
46, 416-424.
Tilly, III, W. D. (2006). Response to Intervention: An overview-What is it? why do it? is
it worth it? The Special Edge, 19,2.
United States Census Bureau. (2008). Public Education Finances. Retrieved on March 1,
2009 at http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/school/06f33pub.pdf
Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., & Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, desegregation, and
integration of Chicano students: Old and new realities. In: R. Valencia, Chicano
school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2
nd
ed.), (pp. 83-109).
New York: Routledge Falmer.
Wenlinsky, H. (2002, February 13). How schools matter: The link between teacher
classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 10(12), 1-31.
Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar students, different results: Why
do some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools
serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. Retrieved
November 14, 2008, at http://www.edsource.org/pdf/SimStu05.pdf
Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the
evidence on how professional development affects student achievement. Issues
and Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 033. [Electronic version]. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education and Regional Assistance, Regional Laboratory Southwest.
Yin, R. K. (2008). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (4
th
ed.) Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
142
APPENDIX A
SITE PARTICIPATION LETTER
MEMO: August 1, 2009
To: School Resource Allocation Use Study – Potential Participants
From: Alysia Hobbs, Researcher
RE: Research Study Information and Site Permission Letter
Thank you for your preliminary agreement to participate in my dissertation study. This memo provides a
brief description of the topic, the study, and the site permission letter.
I have the privilege of working with Larry Picus, Ph.D. at the University of Southern California, a
nationally recognized expert in the area of school finance adequacy – the topic of my dissertation. The
basic premise is that we have a body of research about effective instructional practices along with
measurable academic achievement standards, definitions of academic proficiency, and an expectation that
all students will achieve those levels of proficiency. At the same time, we have school funding systems
that were not based on any of these performance expectations. I hope to contribute to research efforts that
have begun paint a picture of what an adequate education looks like by identifying resource use (e.g., FTEs
teaching English, instructional minutes, FTEs serving as classroom aides, etc.) at high performing
elementary schools. The ultimate hope is to figure out how much it costs to provide every child with the
resources s/he needs in order to achieve proficiency.
Early this fall I’d like to conduct a structured interview with you and/or appropriate staff members (e.g.,
coordinator, assistant principal(s), department chairs – as you see fit). The interview follows a specific
format and includes examination of a variety of documents (e.g., master schedule, bell schedule, school
improvement plan, budgets). I hope to conduct the data-collection interviews in August and September.
All schools remain anonymous. The data collected are public record types of information.
In order to receive approval for this study, I must turn in “Site Permission Letters” for each potential site to
the Institutional Review Board. Enclosed, please find a template for the letter. Would you be so kind as to
transfer the text to your school’s letterhead, sign the letter, and return to me in the return envelope also
enclosed? If you would like me to send you the text electronically, please be so kind as to send me an
email and I will send it to you right away.
After confirming receipt of the “Site Permission Letter,” I will set an appointment. However, if you would
like to schedule earlier, please let me know your preferred date(s). As I mentioned in our conversations,
the interview is lengthy – part of the reason you may be inclined to include additional staff members – I
know and respect how busy you are!
Thank you again for this initial commitment to help me complete my Ed.D. while contributing to research
that turns out to be extremely timely.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any thoughts or questions! I can be reached as follows: email:
alysiash@usc.edu, mobile phone: 626-475-8354, work phone: 909-861-3004. It will be an honor and a
privilege to work with you! Many thanks!
143
APPENDIX B
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
SCHOOL USE OF RESOURCES STUDY
Using Resources to Improve Student Performance During Budget Reductions
Interview protocol: Principal
School District:
School Name:
Name of Principal:
Contact Phone Number:
Demographic Information
All School Types
Enrollment (September count)
Grade Span
Number of Low Income (FRL) Students
Number of Special Education Students (self-contained)
Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)
Number of ELL/Bilingual Students (ELL scoring 1-5)
NOTES:
Instructional Minutes (schedule)
- ELA
- Math
- Sci
- SS
144
(As much as possible confirm what interviewee said in previous year.)
Core academic teachers (Self-contained Regular Education)
Teacher FTEs
Kindergarten
(Indicate full or part-time)
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
English/Reading/L.A.
History/Soc. Studies
Math
Science
Foreign language
NOTES:
Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Prep
All School Types
Art
Music
PE
Drama
Technology
Health
Vocational
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description:
NOTES:
Library Staff
All School Types
Librarian
Library Aide
Media Specialist
NOTES:
145
Extra Help
FTEs
Tutoring Staff (Teachers who work with students in 1-5 ratio)
Certified Teacher Tutors
Non-Certified Tutors
ELL Staff
ELL Class Teachers
Aides for ELL
Other Staff (Including portions of regular teaching staff)
Other Extra Help Teachers
Other Extra Help Classified Staff
Special Education
Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for severely disabled students)
Special Ed. Aides (severely disabled students—1:1 ratio)
Special Ed. Teachers in Resource Room
Special Ed. Aides in Resource Room
Inclusionary special ed teachers
Inclusionary special ed aides
Extended Day
Extended Day Teachers (number of teachers)
Extended Day Other Classified Staff (number of classified staff)
Number of Hours of Extended Day Program (weekly)
NOTES:
Other Instructional Staff
All School Types
Building substitutes
Other Teachers
Other Instructional Aides
NOTES:
146
Professional Development
All School Types
Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time)
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches
Trainers/Consultants
Administration
Travel
Materials, Equipment and Facilities
Tuition & Conference Fees
Other Professional Development
Other Professional Development
Description:
NOTES:
Student Services
All School Types
Guidance
Attendance/Dropout
Social Workers
Nurse
Parent advocate/community liaison
Psychologist
Speech/O.T./P.T.
Health Asst.
Non-teaching aides
Other Student Services
Description Of Other Student Services
Staff:
NOTES:
147
Administration
All School Types
Principal
Assistant principal
Other Administrator
Description of Other Administrator:
Secretary
Clerical staff
Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
NOTES:
Open-ended portion of the interview:
1. How long have you been the principal at this school?
2. What was your previous position?
3. What are the goals for student achievement in this school?
4. What is the plan for producing that level of student performance at your school?
5. How is the achievement gap at your site addressed?
6. What curriculum do you use for math in your school?
a. What textbook do you use?
b. How was the curriculum selected?
c. What kind of professional development did/do teachers receive on this
curriculum?
d. Do you monitor teacher implementation of the curriculum for fidelity to
the design? If so, how?
e. How do you ensure that the curriculum is aligned with state standards?
7. Do all of your teachers use curriculum standards that have been developed by the
district?
148
8. Has your school defined essential skills or done curriculum mapping at your
school? Please describe.
a. Is your school’s version different from what is done (if it is done) at the
district level? If so, why?
9. How does this school approach instruction?
a. Is there a school view of good instruction?
b. If so, what is it?
c. How was it developed?
d. Do you believe it has made a difference?
10. Please describe how you use student assessment data at this school.
Probes: There are a lot of tests: STAR (CST). Do you also use other forms of testing
at this school (common formative assessments, common end of curriculum unit
assessments, etc.)?
What do you and your staff do with the data from these assessments/how do you use
them? (Be aware of role of IF in helping to turn these data into instructional
practices)
11. What kind of professional development does the school offer?
a. Do you hold a summer institute? If so, of what length? And what focus?
Are teachers required to attend? If not, is there an incentive for teachers to
attend?
b. What about other professional development days? How many are there?
c. Do you have early release or another time you use for PD?
d. How do you determine the topic for school-based PD?
e. Describe a typical professional development program or initiative (probe
for content focus, pedagogy focus, how many hours/days, role of IFs,
whether the entire staff attends, time for practice in one’s own classroom,
etc.)
149
12. Do your teachers (either grade or subject peers) have collaborative time to meet
with grade-level peers during the regular school day?
a. How often?
b. How is this time used?
c. Do you feel you need to monitor this time to ensure it is effective, or have
someone else monitor it (and if so, whom)?
13. Do your teachers have collaborative time to meet with subject-matter peers during
the regular school day?
a. How often?
b. How is this time used?
c. Do you feel you need to monitor this time to ensure it is effective, or have
someone else monitor it (and if so, whom)?
14. Please describe the evaluation process for teachers at your school.
a. What is your role in this process?
b. How do you ensure that they get the help they need to improve their
teaching?
15. How do you view the role of the coach(es)/IF(s) at this school?
a. How many are there?
b. How were they chosen?
c. What do they do?
d. How do they work with teachers?
e. Do they seem to be helping teachers improve?
f. What kind of interaction do you have with them?
150
16. What is your school’s approach to students who are struggling to understand the
material presented in the classroom?
a. What is the first step?
b. What is the second step?
c. What if they still don’t understand the material they need to master?
17. Do you have the following?
a. Double period
b. Tutoring/small group support
c. Parental liaison/support
d. ELL
e. Extended day
f. Summer school
18. Who qualifies for these programs?
a. How do you decide?
b. How often do you reassess?
c. What is the basis for reassessment?
19. Who is involved in making instructional decisions at your school?
a. What is the general decision making approach at the school?
b. Who is involved and at what level for each type of decision?
20. How would you characterize the culture among staff/among students/between
staff and students at your school?
a. How focused is the staff on learning?
b. Is there a professional learning community (PLC) at the school?
c. How does staff work together?
151
d. How are data used to make decisions?
e. Do you believe most teachers are “on board with the school’s vision for
good instruction?
21. How would you characterize the leadership provided by your superintendent?
a. What about other district administrators?
22. How much authority do you have over your budget?
23. How have budget reductions impacted your site?
24. What resources or support would be needed to continue and/or expand your
efforts to improve student performance?
25. Anything I haven’t asked about that you’d like to mention?
152
APPENDIX C
COMPLETE LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFACTS
List of Documents and Artifacts Provided by Participating Schools
• Enrollment List (Teachers and Number of Students)
• School Accountability Report Cards (SARC) for 3 Years
• School Improvement Budget
• General Budget
• Categorical Budget and Expenditure Items
• Bell Schedules
• Professional Development Calendars
• School Plans for Student Achievement
• Principal’s Research and Rationale for Instructional Improvement Strategies
153
APPENDIX D
DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
Data Collection Protocol
School Profile
School Name School
Pseudonym
Address
City State Zip
CA
Phone Fax
Website
NOTES:
School Contact (2)
Title
Honorific First Name Last
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
District Profile
District Name
District State ID
School Contact (1)
Title
Principal
Honorific First Name Last
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
154
District Contact (1)
Title
Superintendent
Honorific First Name Last
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
District Contact (2)
Title
Honorific First Name Last
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:
School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment
Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment
Grade Span
Number of ELL Students
Number of Students Eligible for Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL)
Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)
Number of Special Education Students (self-contained)
Total Length of School Day
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Mathematics Class
Length of Reading or English/LA Class
Length of Science Class
Length of Social Studies Class
Length of Foreign Language Class
AYP
NOTES:
155
Core academic teachers
(Self-contained/
Regular Education)
FTEs
Kindergarten
(Full day program)
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
English/Reading/L.A.
History/Soc. Studies
Math
Science
Foreign Language
NOTES:
Specialist and Elective Teachers/
Planning and Prep
FTEs
Art
Music
PE/Health
Drama
Technology
Career & Technical Education
Drivers Education
Study Hall
Athletics
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description:
NOTES:
Library Staff FTEs
Librarian
Library Media Specialist
Library Aide
NOTES:
156
Extra Help I FTEs or Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors
Non-Certified Tutors
ISS Teachers
ISS Aides
Title I Teachers
Title I Aides
ELL Class Teachers
Aides for ELL
Gifted Program Teachers
Gifted Program Aides
Gifted Program Funds $
Other Extra Help Teachers
Other Extra Help Classified Staff
NOTES:
Extra Help II FTEs
Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for severely disabled students)
Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers
Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher
Special Ed. Self-contained Aides
Special Ed. Inclusion Aides
Special Ed. Resource Room Aides
NOTES:
Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students
Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program minutes
Teacher Contract Minutes per Week minutes
Extended day Teachers
Extended Day Classified Staff
Description of Extended Day Classified Staff
Minutes per Week of Summer School minutes
Length of Session (# of Weeks) weeks
School’s Students Enrolled in Summer School
All Students in Summer School
Summer School Teachers
Summer School Classified Staff
NOTES:
Other Instructional Staff FTEs and Dollars ($)
157
Consultants
(other than PD contracted services)
$
Building substitutes and other substitutes
Other Teachers
Other Instructional Aides
Funds for Daily Subs $
NOTES:
Professional Development
Dollars ($) and FTEs
Number of Prof. Dev. Days in Teacher Contract
Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time) $
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches
Trainers/Consultants $
Administration
Travel $
Materials, Equipment and Facilities $
Tuition & Conference Fees $
Other Professional Development $
Other Professional Development Staff Funded
with Federal Dollars:
NOTES:
Student Services
FTEs
Guidance
Attendance/Dropout
Social Workers
Nurse
Parent advocate/community liaison
Psychologist
Speech/O.T./P.T.
Health Asst.
Non-teaching aides
Other Student Services
Description Of Other Student Services
Staff:
NOTES:
Administration FTEs
158
Principal
Assistant principal
Other Administrator
Description of Other Administrator:
Secretary
Clerical staff
Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
Security
Custodians
NOTES:
Elementary School Class Sizes
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
Special
Education
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
159
APPENDIX E
DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK
This Codebook identifies data collection items and their definitions. This document is
organized according to the corresponding Data Collection Protocol and the Web portal
for data entry (www.lopassociates.com).
Each data item has a place for notes. This section is meant to be used for any
notations that you would like to record as a personal reminder. Notes fields will
not be used in data analysis.
I. School Profile
A. School Name: Each researcher has developed his/her own criteria to identify
California schools to include in this study.
B. School State ID: This is the CDS identification number that the state has
assigned the school.
C. Address Line 1: Street address of the school
D. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the school
E. City: City of the school
F. State: “CA”
G. Zip: Postal zip code of the school
H. Phone: Main office phone number for the school
I. Fax: Main office fax number for the school
J. Website: School’s official Website
I. School Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the school. This will include
the principal, and most likely the secretary. Anyone else you interview should
also be recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about this person (e.g.,
phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what
the data source is.
A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (e.g., Michael
instead of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact
person
160
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “CA”
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code
II. District Profile
A. District Name: This is the name of the district where the school is located.
B. District State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned
to the district within which the school resides.
III. District Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the district office. This will
include the superintendent, and possibly an assistant superintendent and/or
director of curriculum and instruction. Anyone else you interview should also be
recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about this person (e.g., phonetic
spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what the data
source is.
A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (e.g., Michael
instead of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact
person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “CA”
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code
IV. School Resource Indicators
School resource indicators should be collected for the 2008-09 school year. Enter
personal notations pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.
A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school
on the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in
any pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit.
These students should not be included in the previous category, Current
161
Student Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at secondary
schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades (e.g., K-5).
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the
number of students eligible for services as an English language learner
(ELL) as defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(http://www.k12.wy.us/FP/title3/Wy_ELD_ELA.pdf).
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL):
Number of enrolled students who are eligible for the federal free- and
reduced-price lunch program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the
site visit, number of students in the school with an Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special education
services (This will most likely be a larger number than the number of
students who are in a self-contained special education classroom.). Does
not include gifted and talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self-contained): Number of
students in the school with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
indicating their eligibility for special education services and who learn
primarily (at least 60% of the school day) outside of a regular education
classroom.
H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
required to be present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for
different amounts of time, report the average length (e.g., If the school day
begins at 8:30 AM and ends at 3:15 PM, then the total length of the school
day is 405 minutes.).
I. Length of Instructional Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
present for instruction. This information should be available from the
school bell schedule or a school staff member. Subtract recess, lunch, and
passing periods time from the total minutes in the school day. This
calculation is different from how the state measures the “instructional
day” (e.g., If the length of the school day is 405 minutes, and the students
have 20 minutes for lunch and 25 minutes for recess, then the length of the
instructional day is 360 minutes.).
J. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class
periods per day. These include periods when students are specially
grouped for extended mathematics instruction. Report an average per day
length.
K. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading,
English, and language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods when
students are specially grouped for extended literacy instruction (e.g.,
reading, writing, comprehension). Report an average per day length.
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per
day. These include periods when students are specially grouped for
extended science instruction. Report an average per day length.
162
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended history or social studies instruction. Report
an average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the previous school year (2007-08). Enter “Y” or
“N” or “NA.”
V. Core Academic Teachers
The classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school’s core
academic subjects of reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science,
history/social studies, and foreign language. In elementary schools, core
academic teachers consist of the teachers in the self-contained regular education
classrooms. Some elementary schools may also departmentalize certain core
subjects such as math or science, especially in the upper grades. These teachers
are also to be included as core teachers. In middle schools, high schools, or any
other departmentalized school, core teachers consist of those teachers who are
members of the English/language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and
foreign language departments along with special education or ESL/bilingual
teachers who provide classes in these subjects. The teachers should be entered as
full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals (e.g., a half-time
teacher would be entered as 0.5). If teachers are assigned to multiage
classrooms, divide up the FTEs weighted by students per each grade. Enter each
teacher’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the corresponding notes
fields. Indicate in parentheses if the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
Example:
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courtney Cox Arquette (0.33), Matt
LeBlanc
A. Grades K-12: Number of FTE licensed grade-level teachers who teach the
core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the individual
subject categories.
B. English/Reading/LA, History/Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, and
Foreign Language: Number of FTE licensed subject-specific teachers who
teach the core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the grade
categories.
VI. Specialist and Elective Teachers
This expenditure element consists of teachers who teach non-core academic
classes, and usually provide planning and preparation time for core academic
teachers. The teachers should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which
may include decimals. In the notes sections, enter each teacher’s name that
corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the
teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
163
A. Art/Music/PE: Number of FTE specialist teachers, such as art, music, and
physical education (PE) teachers, who usually provide regular classroom
teachers with planning and preparation time.
B. Drama/Technology/Health: Number of FTE teachers who provide
instruction in a subject area that represents a special academic focus.
C. Career & Technical Education: Number of FTE vocational education
teachers
D. Driver Education: Number of FTE drivers education teachers.
E. Study Hall: Number of FTE teachers who monitor study hall.
F. Athletics: Number of FTE teachers who coach an athletic team during the
school day. This does not include time spent as an athletic director, which
would be captured under the Administration section.
G. Other: Number of FTE specialist teachers who are not specifically listed
above.
H. Other Description: Indicate the subject area that the “Other” specialist
teacher(s) instruct.
VII. Library Staff
Library staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs
entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a
1.0 FTE in that category.
A. Librarian/ Library Media Specialist: Number of FTE licensed librarians or
media specialists who instruct students
B. Library Aide: Number of FTE library aides who help instruct students
VIII. Extra Help Staff
This category mainly consists of licensed teachers from a wide variety of
strategies designed to assist struggling students, or students with special needs, to
learn a school’s regular curriculum. The educational strategies that these teachers
deploy are generally supplemental to the instruction of the regular classroom.
Extra help staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Do not include volunteers in the FTE counts. Enter each staff
member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields.
Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
B. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-
School Suspension (ISS) students.
164
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who
provide small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I
program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide
small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I
program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a
second language (ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to
teach them English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as a second language
(ESL) classes who work with non-English speaking students to teach them
English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students in
the gifted program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the
gifted program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program for
the 2008-09 school year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s
curriculum (Use this category sparingly.).
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra
help staff do.
N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff that
provide supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the
school’s curriculum (Use this category sparingly.)
O. Other Extra Help Classified Staff Description: Indicate what the “Other”
extra help classified staff provide.
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities):
Number of FTE licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled students for most
or all of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified version of a
school’s curriculum or other learning goals required by their students’
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who
assist regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have
physical or mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students
generally have “less severe” disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special
education teachers who provide small groups of students in special
education with extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in self-
contained special education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled
students for most or all of the school day.
165
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or
mental disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally
have “less severe” disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education aides
who provide small groups of students in special education with extra help
in specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate in
the extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per week
that the extended day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week in
the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff members who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum after school.
AA. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff: Description of classified
staff members’ roles in the extended day program.
BB. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of minutes per day
multiplied by the number of days per week that students attend summer
school.
a. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer school is in session.
b. School’s Students Enrolled in the Summer School Program: Number
of students from the individual school who are enrolled in the summer
school program (a subset of the following item).
c. All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in
the summer school program.
d. Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the
regular curriculum during summer 2008.
CC. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff that
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards
in the regular curriculum during summer 2008.
IX. Other Instructional Staff
Included here are instructional staff members that support a school’s instructional
program, but do not fit in the previous categories. Other instructional staff should
be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter
each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related
fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category.
166
A. Consultants (other than PD contracted services): Dollar amount for all
other consultants other than professional development contracted services.
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
C. Other Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not
included in previous categories.
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist instruction, but
were not included in previous categories.
E. Funds for Daily Subs: Daily rate for certified teacher substitutes who
replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes who replace teachers who
are participating in professional development.)
X. Professional Development Staff & Costs
This expenditure element includes spending on the professional development of a
school’s staff and the staffing resources necessary to support it. Professional
development staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), and cost
figures should be entered as a dollar amount, both of which may include decimals.
Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the
related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category.
A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract:
Number of days the teacher contract specifies for professional
development.
B. Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount budgeted for
substitutes and stipends that cover teacher time for professional
development. For time outside the regular contract day when students are
not present before or after school or on scheduled in-service days, half days
or early release days, the dollar amount is calculated by multiplying the
teachers’ hourly salary times the number of student-free hours used for
professional development. For planning time within the regular contract,
the dollar amount is calculated as the cost of the portion of the salary of the
person used to cover the teachers’ class during planning time used for
professional development. For other time during the regular school day,
including release time provided by substitutes, cost is calculated with
substitute wages. For time outside the regular school day, including time
after school, on weekends, or for summer institutes, the dollar amount is
calculated from the stipends or additional pay based on the hourly rate that
the teachers receive to compensate them for their time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional facilitators
and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district coaches
(though only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded). Outside
consultants who provide coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE
amount depending on how much time they spend at the school.
167
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from
the district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific
school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or
other costs for facilities used for professional development.
H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the “Other” professional development is,
and indicate whether it is a FTE or dollar amount.
XI. Student Services Staff
This expenditure element consists of school-based student support staff, as well as
school expenditures for extra-curricular activities and athletics. Student services
staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include
decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in
the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in
that category.
A. Guidance: Number of FTE licensed guidance counselors.
B. Attendance/dropout: Number of FTE staff members who manage
attendance and report dropouts.
C. Social Workers: Number of FTE licensed school social workers.
D. Nurse: Number of FTE registered nurses or nurse practitioners
E. Parent advocate/community liaison: Number of FTE staff members who
serve as the parent advocate and/or community liaison, often working with
parents to get their children to attend school.
F. Psychologist: Number of FTE licensed school psychologists or educational
diagnosticians.
G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech, occupational (OT), and
physical therapists (PT) who provide services to the school’s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching aides. (e.g., Lunchroom
aides, Aides who help students board buses; DO NOT include cooks – the
168
defining difference is whether the staff member is supervising students or
not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use
this category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student services staff member
does.
XII. Administration
This expenditure element consists of all staffing resources pertaining to the
administration of a school. Administrators should be entered as full-time
equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name
that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses
if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.
A. Principal: Number of FTE licensed principals.
B. Assistant Principal: Number of FTE assistant principals.
C. Other Administrators: Number of FTE other administrators (Use this
category sparingly.).
D. Other Description: Indicate what the “Other” administrators’ duties are.
E. Secretary: Number of FTE Secretaries. (12 month employees)
F. Clerical Staff: Number of FTE clerical staff members (10 month
employees).
G. Technology Coordinator: Number of FTE technology coordinators and IT
staff.
H. Security: Number of FTE security staff.
I. Custodians: Number of FTE staff who provide custodial services
XIII. Elementary Class Sizes
Sometimes it is easiest to get this information when you get the staff list, but other
times the secretary can just copy the sheet that tells them how many students are
in each classroom (we don’t want student names). You want a (preferably
electronic) copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. When entering
the data online, make sure to enter the class size for every class that is taught at
the school. Click on the Class Size option from the main menu and a new menu
will be displayed on the left. This menu will have options for grades Pre-8 plus
Special Education. When you click on a grade, the page with that grade's sections
will be displayed where you can enter the individual class sizes.
169
APPENDIX F
CASE STUDIES
School A Elementary: A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
School A Elementary is a kindergarten through sixth grade school with
approximately 655 students. School A Elementary is located in a medium-sized school
district in Los Angeles County in Southern California. District A educates approximately
16,000 kindergarten through adult education students from parts of five cities.
Approximately 28% of the students at School A Elementary are socioeconomically
disadvantaged. School A has a diverse student body: 4.48% White, 65.82% Asian,
19.55% Hispanic, 3.73% Filipino, 0.15% African American, and 6.27% Multiple/No
Response. Six percent of the school receives special education services, and
approximately thirty percent of the student body population is second language learners.
School A Elementary was constructed in 1963 and is currently the fifth largest of
fifteen elementary schools in the district. For the past several years, School A Elementary
teachers and staff have worked diligently to improve student achievement and to deepen
students’ learning in the areas of critical thinking and problem solving. Many of their
children attend additional tutoring after school and have skill automaticity but not skill
mastery. The school has been recognized as a National Blue Ribbon and California
Distinguished School. The principal began her third year as principal of School A after
serving as a middle school principal in another school district. This case study will
describe the improvement efforts and how the resources have been allocated.
School A Elementary students are considered high performing and have enjoyed a
high level of student achievement on the California Standards Test over several years.
170
Table F1 demonstrates API growth over time. Table F2 displays the percent of students
achieving at the Proficient or Advanced performance levels on the California Standards
Test (CST). Table F3 displays the CST Results by student subgroup for three years. Since
School A Elementary
Table F1 School A Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year Comparison
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
API Score 908 910 918
Statewide Rank 10 10 n/a
Similar School
Rank
8 7 n/a
Source: California Department of Education
Table F2 School A Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Subject School District State
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008
-09
ELA 73 76 78 71 73 54 43 46 52
Math 86 85 87 68 69 59 40 43 54
Science 64 85 86 72 78 58 38 46 49
Source: California Department of Education
Table F3 School A Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Student
Group
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008
-09
English Language
Arts
Mathematics Science
African
American
* * * * * * * * *
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
* * * * * * * * *
Asian 55 86 89 95 96 95 82 80 94
Filipino * 95 83 86 89 83 * * *
Hispanic or
Latino
47 46 51 45 52 64 47 47 67
171
Table F3, Continued
Pacific
Islander
* * * * * * * * *
White * 56 41.7 58 * 70 * * *
Male 41 74 75 69 86 87 78 69 79
Female 65 78 84 77 85 88 67 82 97
Economically
Disadvantaged
44 63 68 63 74 81 53 * 81
English
Learners
32 62 78 60 82 88 42 * 81
Students with
Disabilities
* 32 42 30 60 72 * * *
Source: California Department of Education
*Note: Due to California reporting, blank boxes mean data are not currently available.
School is high achieving and maintains high levels of student achievement, the school has
implemented strategies for success. Goal setting and data analysis, assessment systems,
professional development, Professional Learning Communities, Response to
Instruction/Intervention to addressing the achievement gap and serve students not yet
proficient, leadership factors, time reallocation and incentives will be discussed. The
following strategies will be outlined in the next section.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Goal Setting/Data Analysis The principal of School A Elementary believes it is difficult
for high performing elementary schools to sustain growth without refining instruction.
Further, she insisted the only way that teachers become better at instruction is through the
analysis of data. She believes instruction should be improved one student at a time. The
principal identified three Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) goals and shared
these with the staff in order to build awareness of school weaknesses. The principal and
staff ensure that instruction is rigorous, fidelity is maintained between classrooms, and
differentiation within the classroom ensures students receive the instruction needed to fill
172
learning gaps and achieve at high levels. School A’s SPSA three goals are grounded in
data; students are identified through the use of data and instructional next steps are
planned. Teachers use alternate ranking and standards-based assessments to determine
which students are not yet proficient and how instruction must be altered to improve
student mastery of standards. Teachers group students together based on the zone of
proximal development to provide strategic instruction to students.
Assessment Systems Teachers examine student data throughout the year at School A
Elementary. Student outcomes are reviewed in grade level teams by grade level and
subgroup data. Teachers review the California Standards Test in August, and benchmark
assessments in reading, writing, and mathematics three times during the year. The
principal is looking forward to implementation of the standards-based report cards to help
teachers better align their grading systems with the assessments in place in School A
Elementary.
Professional Development The district has provided a wealth of professional
development for several years. The schools in the district fund substitutes to cover
teachers’ classes so they may attend the professional development as it becomes available
in the district. In addition, the district provides three professional development days in
October, February and May through the teachers’ contract. The teachers have received
extensive training in graphic organizers, acceleration of learning, and writing strategies.
Many students at School A Elementary receive extended instruction in basic facts with
after school programs provided by the parent community. Data shows that students need
extensive instruction in critical thinking to learn beyond fact automaticity. Consequently,
173
teachers are trained in critical thinking skills as well. Topics are selected collaboratively
between the Leadership Team and school principal.
Professional Learning Communities Teachers work collaboratively in grade level teams
formally once a week to plan lessons and discuss student progress. Further, School A’s
principal has been a recipient of the Coatson grant, which provided collaboration days
and articulation across classrooms. This grant provided for six “fellows” or coaches for
lesson observations and feedback. While the grant monies have are fully expended, the
principal has committed substitute release time for teachers to continue the spirit of the
grant. Under the previous two principals over eighteen years, the teachers have focused
on instruction during their grade level teams meetings. Teachers review student data
together, particularly in grade level teams; after identifying student weaknesses in the
data, teachers alter instructional practices to improve student outcomes. In addition,
teachers also work together informally throughout the day for on the spot lesson planning
and advice. The fourth through sixth grade teachers use block instruction in order to
provide strategic instruction in three chunks: English Language Arts, Math, and Social
Studies/Science/Physical Education. This allows teachers to share students across the
grade level and provide rigorous instruction for all students.
Response to Instruction/Intervention Although a common philosophy in the district, there
is a lack of clarity with RTI. The teachers are working to close the three-tiered
achievement gap at School A Elementary between the Asian, White, and Hispanic
students. The principal has identified RTI as among the next steps for the teachers to
refine Tier II instruction for their learners not yet proficient. Tier II instruction has not
formally been provided by teachers but introduced for the first time by the principal at a
174
staff meeting in the Fall of 2009. It is the principal’s intention to begin work in this area
this year.
Until this year’s budget reductions, School A Elementary has funded before
school supplemental classes for differentiating learning. In addition, the staff has worked
to reconfigure the traditional Student Success Team (SST) intervention team. Teachers
are to work collaboratively together without the principal to design best first instruction
with one another. Parents are invited only when teachers have met together and made
initial plans together for intervention. An expectation of the School A Elementary,
teachers are also expected to intervene with additional help either before or after school
without compensation. Finally, summer school courses are provided out of the school
budget for at-risk students. School A Elementary has partnered with neighboring schools
to combine funds and ensure more students receive remediation and support.
Achievement Gap Attention to the three tiered achievement gap has been a focus for
School A Elementary. There are three levels of achievement between the Latino, White,
and Asian subgourps. Approximately 90% of the Asian students in this school are
proficient or advanced, while Hispanic students are only 51% , 64% and 67% proficient
or advanced in language arts, mathematics, and science respectively. Further, White
students achieved only 41% proficient or advanced levels in language arts on the CST.
However, the focus of this school is to identify the necessary resources for
students to improve at all levels. Students are grouped based on student achievement
outcomes in the zone of proximal development at School A Elementary and students not
yet proficient are identified for additional remediation. A school wide focus on
excellence leads to ongoing conversations, particularly around literature. This year’s
175
book study for the teachers is focused upon Outliers and designed to hone in on the
strategies that will ensure success at School A Elementary. As School A’s student
demographic changes, the principal designs conversations around bridging the cultural
divide to work toward a common understanding of necessary instructional practices
which support student learning at high levels. Ensuring all teachers are prepared to
engage all students is a current challenge for the school.
School Leadership: School Culture Throughout the interview, the principal stated that
although she does not have an assistant principal as other elementary schools do in the
district, her job is easier than it had been in previous principalship due to the low
occurrence of student discipline. She felt she was able to work closely with her all
stakeholders within her school community and placed a high importance on maintaining
positive working environment. She indicated that students get along with one another and
there is a mutual respect between the students and teachers. Teachers are self-motivated
with a “can-do” attitude. Grade level teams enjoy partnerships that are supportive to
students and to one another.
School Leadership: Parent Support The principal of School A Elementary works closely
with the parent group at her school to ensure her school is successful. Parents and
teachers enjoy a partnership, and parents expect excellence from their teachers. However,
parents follow up and support teachers with copying and preparation of classroom
materials. An active parent association supports school programs with generous payments
toward field trips, art supplies, and materials supplies. Parents raise money and support
the school’s programs in large part with generous contributions. For example, when it
became apparent that a staggered lunch schedule was important to provide adequate
176
supervision coverage, funding was not available to obtain the additional lunch tables. The
parent group purchased the tables to support the school’s programs. Although School A
parents are involved in many supportive ways, the parents do not provide instruction in
the classrooms. This is due in large part to the fact that many parents do not speak
English within the community.
District Leadership and Support The school principal indicated that the district
superintendent is an experienced, self-reflective, and intelligent professional. She is
known for working hard to collaborate with all groups. Particularly in this “ambiguous
time”, School A’s principal acknowledged how directive leadership would be supportive
to the schools. However, the principal feels the superintendent recognized the hard work
of all leaders in the District. Several directors and assistant superintendent positions were
not filled due to budget cuts, so the work load has been spread over fewer individuals.
The school principal feels strongly that restructuring is needed throughout the district to
respond to the changing needs of schools and school programs. She indicated that this
might be what was necessary to adapt to the changing accountability of schools.
Time Reallocation and Creating Incentives The staff of School A Elementary selects a
motivational theme each year for the staff as a school-wide symbol for student
achievement. Last year’s theme was based on the concept of filling one another’s
buckets, or ensuring all staff members were responsible for building individual and
school environments for each other. This idea is based on the book How Full is Your
Bucket? by Tom Rath and Donald O. Clifton. Staff members and students focused on
complimenting one another; teachers received individual buckets as a symbol of the
177
school wide focus. As previously stated, this year’s focus on school wide excellence with
Outliers will be used throughout the year.
In addition, the principal emphasized the importance of the fourth, fifth, and sixth
grade level teams planning and teaching in instructional blocks. The principal attributes
this example of time reallocation as one of the most important pieces of School A’s
success. Further, the entire teaching staff’s use of release time from the Coatson Grant
allowed teachers to coach one another in and out of the classroom with modeled lessons
and collaboration. The six “Fellows” assigned by the grant have provided a great deal of
time and support to classroom teachers. Finally, while all students received 30 minutes of
Chinese instruction with use of the Foreign Language Acquisition Project (FLAP) grant
each week, teachers were permitted to use this time for additional preparation and
planning. The principal indicated this grant was a wonderful addition to the school
community for the instruction for students as well as the additional preparation time for
each teacher.
Corresponding Resource Allocation Use
Table F4 compares the actual resource model in use at School A Elementary to
the Evidence Based Model.
Table F4 School A Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars)
Position/Strategy Model Model
Allocations for
School A
Actual
Administrator 1.0 FTE for prototype
school of 432; .5 FTE
for every 216 students
above 432
1.51 1.0
178
Table F4, Continued
Core Teachers/Class
Size
K-3: 15 students per
teacher
4-12: 25 students per
teacher
K-3: 25
teachers
4-5: 11.4
teachers
Total teachers:
35.4
K: 21 students
per teacher
1-3: 20 students
per teacher
4-6: 28.5
students per
teacher
Total number of
teachers: 29
Specialist Teachers:
Relieve core teachers
during the school day
so they can
collaborate daily for
45-60 minutes
K-5: 20% of total core
teachers
K-5: 7.28
specialist
teachers
.5 FLAP teacher
for Mandarin
language (25
min/week for
each class, 1
st
-
6
th
). Grant
funded.
Extra Support Staff:
Tutors one student
every 20 minutes for
three students per
hour
1.0 FTE for every 100
at-risk or English
Learner students
1.2 0
Special Education
(self-contained):
Classes are for
severely disabled
students and include
aides; number allotted
based on school needs
1 FTE
Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
I FTE SDC
Teacher and 1
FTE SDC
Aide
1 FTE Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
I FTE SDC
Teacher and 1
FTE SDC Aide
5 full inclusion
aides for
General
Education
students
Extended Day:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced
Price lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students. Two hour
extended day available
to students that qualify,
average class size of
15. Recommended
session of 8 weeks, 6
hours per day
1.5 FTE 0
179
Table F4, Continued
Summer School:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced
Price lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students.
Recommended a 2
hour after school
program for 5 days a
week with teachers
providing at least one
hour of assistance
1.5 FTE 0
Professional
Development:
10 additional days
added to teacher
contract for
professional
development.
Funds allotted:
approximately $100
per pupil.
Collaborative work
with teachers during
the school day. On site
coaching.
$65,500 Allotted for
release time for
teachers, for
planning lessons
but teacher
contract not
increased for ten
PD days. No
additional
funding given to
school.
Instructional
Specialists:
1 FTE for every 200
students; 2.5 FTEs
with a school of 432
students
3.3 FTE .5 FLAP Grant
for Mandarin
Instructional Aides: No allocations in
prototype school for
instructional aides.
.375
instructional
aide for library
Supervisory Aides: 2.0 FTE supervisory
aides for each
prototype school of
432
3 5 supervisory
lunch aides, that
work 2 hours a
day each
Student Support: 1.0 FTE licensed
professional for every
100 student enrolled in
the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program, with a
minimum of one for
prototype school of
432
1.50 0.2
Psychologist,
0.6 Speech, 0.3
Health Assistant
180
Summary
School A Elementary has continued to achieve tremendous gains in student
achievement. Use of school wide goals, ongoing data analysis, and assessment systems
served as woven braid for determining professional development and Professional
Learning Communities at the school site. In addition, a school wide focus on Response to
Instruction/Intervention both identifies and provides intervention for students not yet
proficient, which helped to address the school achievement gap between different
subgroups of students. Time reallocation and school wide motivational incentives were
discussed. Finally, the leadership of School A Elementary’s principal to guide school
culture, including parent group support, is central to the success of School A Elementary.
School B Elementary: A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
School B Elementary is a kindergarten through fifth grade school with
approximately 287 students. School B Elementary is located in the largest school district
in the San Gabriel Valley in Los Angeles County. District B educates approximately
25,000 kindergarten through 12 grade students across three cities, 30,000 adult education
students, and 33,000 correctional education students. Approximately 39% of the students
at School B Elementary are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Most students at School B
identify themselves as Asian (50.8%) or Hispanic (33.7%), although 15% of the school is
White and 4.9% is Filipino. Five percent of the school receives special education
services, but approximately 27% percent of the student body population is second
language learners.
School B Elementary facilities were built in 1969, and additions were built in
1973. The school is situated on over 20.65 acres and includes 12 regular classrooms, a
181
science center, a library, a multipurpose center and a multipurpose room. Uncommonly,
School B Elementary consists of all portable classrooms and one permanent playground.
For the past several years, School B Elementary teachers and staff have committed to
ensuring a rigorous educational program with high academic expectations for their
students. The school has been recognized as a California Distinguished School and
California Honor Roll Award School. The principal is in her third year at School B
Elementary but served as a principal in the Los Angeles Unified School District for 21
years prior to this position. This case study will describe the improvement efforts and
how the resources have been allocated.
School B Elementary students are considered high performing and have enjoyed a
high level of student achievement on the California Standards Test over several years.
Table F5 demonstrates API growth over time. Table F6 displays the percent of students
achieving at the Proficient or Advanced performance levels on the California Standards
Test (CST). Table F7 displays the CST Results by student subgroup for three years.
These data indicate School B Elementary students are considered high performing over
several years. Goal setting and data analysis, assessment systems, professional
development, Professional Learning Communities, Response to Instruction/Intervention
to addressing the achievement gap and serve students not yet proficient, leadership
factors, time reallocation and incentives will be discussed.
182
Table F5 School B Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year Comparison
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
API Score 932 933 919
Statewide Rank 10 10 n/a
Similar School
Rank
10 10 n/a
Source: California Department of Education
Table F6 School B Elementary CST Results for All Students – Three-Year Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Subject School District State
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
ELA 81 85 80 41 45 54 42 43 52
Math 88 87 82 39 41 55 40 40 54
Science 59 76 66 38 44 51 35 38 49
Source: California Department of Education
Table F7 School B Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Student
Group
2006
-07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008
-09
English Language
Arts
Mathematics Science
African
American
* * * * * * * * *
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
* * * * * * * * *
Asian 85 92 89 90 92 97 65 78 100
Filipino * * * * * * * * *
Hispanic or
Latino
72 76 67 82 78 67 42 69 *
Pacific
Islander
* * * * * * * * *
White * * * * * * * * *
Male 80 83 79 87 85 79 71 64 80
Female 81 87 79 90 89 79 47 89 50
183
Table F7, Continued
Economically
Disadvantage
74 78 71 85 77 73 38 76 55
English
Learners
71 79 76 80 82 94 * * *
Students with
Disabilities
* * * * * * * * *
Source: California Department of Education
*Note: Due to California reporting systems, the blank boxes mean data are not currently
available.
High levels of student achievement have allowed the school to hone in on successful
instructional techniques and design programs to intervene with each student not yet
successful. Goal setting and data analysis, assessment systems, professional development,
Professional Learning Communities, Response to Instruction/Intervention to addressing
the achievement gap and serve students not yet proficient, leadership factors, and
incentives will be discussed. The following strategies will be outlined in the next section.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Goal Setting/Data Analysis The principal of School B Elementary begins each school
year with an analysis of the California Standards Test data from the previous year.
During the presentation of this data, the staff sets school wide and grade level goals for
the year. This year, the teachers have set a writing and mathematics improvement focus,
particularly for English Learners. The principal identified several Single Plan for Student
Achievement (SPSA) goals for each grade level and subgroup on the California
Standards Test. In addition, the principal is to set goals for English Learners, Parent
184
Participation, and School Attendance. These goals are listed below for the 2009-10
school year.
1. Raise the API score to 950.
2. 2009 CST Percentage of Students at Proficient or Above:
a. Second Grade: ELA 75% to 83%/ Math 80% to 88%
b. Third Grade: ELA 76% to 77%/Math 95% to 98%
c. Fourth Grade: ELA 84% to 93%/Math 84 to 89%
d. Fifth Grade: ELA 79% to 88%/Math 55% to 78%/Science 66% to 75%
3. AYP by Subgroup:
a. Asian: ELA – from 89.9% to 91.9% and Math – from 97.1% to 91.9%
b. SED: ELA – from 71.2% to 76.5% and Math – from 73.1% to 78%
c. English Learner: ELA – from 76.5% to 80% and Math – from 82.5% to
94.1%
d. SWD: ELA and Math – 33.3% (No previous year’s % available)
4. Grade level ELA SMART Goals:
a. Kindergarten and First Grade: 100% of students score proficiency or
higher in ELA strands will increase by 2% by the end of May, as
measured by the District Summative Assessment.
b. Second Grade: 100% of students scoring at proficiency or higher in ELA
Reading Comprehension will increase by 2% from 71.7% to 74% by the
end of April as measured by the CST.
185
c. Third Grade: 100% of students scoring proficiency or higher in ELA
Reading Comprehension will increase from 75.3% to 77% by the end of
April as measured by the CST.
d. Fourth Grade: 100% of students scoring at proficiency or higher in ELA
Writing Strategies will increase from 69% to 71% by the end of April as
measured by the CST.
e. Fifth Grade: 100% of students scoring at proficiency or higher in ELA
Word Analysis and Vocabulary will increase from 74.9% to 77% by the
end of April as measured by the CST.
5. Grade level Math SMART Goals:
a. Kindergarten and First Grade: 100% of students score proficiency or
higher in Measurement will remain above 95% by the end of May as
measured by the Harcourt Brace Chapter test by the EOY district math
summative assessment.
b. Second Grade: 100% of students scoring at proficiency or higher in math
will increase from 77.6% to 80% by the end of April as measured by the
CST, with instructional focus on Measurement and Geometry.
c. Third Grade: 100% of students scoring proficiency or higher in math will
increase from 90.8% to 93% by the end of April as measured by the CST
with instructional focus in Multiplication, Division, and Fractions.
d. Fourth Grade: 100% of students scoring at proficiency or higher in math
will increase from 77.6% to 80% by the end of April as measured by the
CST with instructional focus on Measurement and Geometry.
186
e. Fifth Grade: 100% of students scoring at proficiency or higher in math
will increase from 59.5% to 62% or higher as measured by the CSTY with
instructional focus on Decimals, Fractions, and Negative Numbers. They
will also increase from 64.6% to 67% on Measurement and Geometry.
6. Improve ELD instruction to raise the ELL students’ scores by 2% or more at the
proficient or advanced levels as measured by the CST and Summative district
assessments.
7. Close the achievement gap between the Asian and Hispanic/SED/SWD students
by 5% or more:
a. Asian: From 89/9% (ELA)/97.1% (Math) Percent Proficient or Advanced
Levels
b. Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students: From 71.2%/73.1%
c. English Learner: From 76.5%/94.1%
d. Students with Disabilities: From 33.3%/33.3%
e. Hispanic: From 67.4%/67.4%
8. Meet the District Priorities.
9. Parent Survey (School Climate): 92% Completely Satisfied; New Goal: 94%
10. Attendance: Maintain or move up from 98% ADA.
11. Increase parent participation:
a. Added: 10 parent education classes and 1-3 Distance Learning Classes per
month from district adult education on Thursdays.
b. From 20-25 PTA/parent education class participations from 30+
187
c. From 92% Back to School/Open House participation to 95%
d. More volunteers: At least 2+ per classroom
Once a month, teachers in grade level teams review outcomes on current student
assessments and create SMART goals. These grade level goals are submitted to the
principal and posted on a bulletin board labeled “Data Wall” in the school office.
Teachers are expected to meet their SMART goals at the end of each month, attaining
high levels of student mastery on the California State Standards. Teachers also set
individual classroom goals and discuss these throughout the year at teacher-principal data
chats. Data chats are designed as a forum to share student outcomes and, when necessary,
channel school resources to assist students not yet proficient. Teachers, in turn, speak
with students about their test results and set goals with students. In many cases, parents
are invited to attend data chats and review their students’ goals set for improvement.
In addition, every trimester the principal reviews each grade level’s formative
assessment data and sets trimester goals for her school. These goals are also posted on the
Data Wall and shared in data chats between the principal and the District Superintendent.
Every school goal set is to be aligned with the Guiding District Goals, which are:
1. We believe students, parents, staff and community have a shared responsibility
for the establishment of a professional culture built upon dedication, honesty,
integrity, pride, perseverance, collaboration, teamwork, and mutual trust and
respect.
2. We believe students, parents, staff and community have a shared responsibility
for recognizing the diverse learning styles and individual needs of our students
and ensuring all students meet high learning standards.
188
3. We believe students, parents, staff and community have a shared responsibility to
create a learning environment reflecting our community's diversity that is safe,
clean, supportive and responsive.
4. We believe students, parents, staff and community have a shared responsibility to
protect and preserve the short-and long-term financial well-being of the District.
Further, every school, grade level, and individual teacher’s goal is to be aligned with
the school goals, which are:
1. Every child should receive a challenging education that fosters his/her fullest
potential.
2. An excellent academic program holds high expectations for student achievement
and delivers a standards-based data-driven curriculum that enables each student to
master basic skills, to develop good work habits and a love for learning, thus
enabling our students to become lifelong learners, critical thinkers and problem
solvers.
3. Teaching good character is essential; therefore, we reward exemplary citizenship,
promote positive self-esteem, develop positive decision-making skills, and
encourage respect for our diversity and the environment.
4. The teaching staff can better their professional practice by engaging in
professional development, adhering to the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession, collaborating effectively and constantly, and implementing effective
research-based teaching strategies.
5. Parents, business and community members are vital educational partners to the
school who can be involved as volunteers in the classrooms.
189
6. A safe and orderly environment, a caring school climate, and guidelines for
students’ behavior are essential in promoting academic achievement.
7. Attending school daily on time is crucial to academic success and developing
positive habits for the future.
Finally, the principal of School B must share her school’s progress in writing with a
group of principals each month. The school district is divided up into quadrants – the
feeder patterns of the four high schools. The monthly meeting, often attended by the
Superintendent and district leadership, that are attended by School B’s principal are to, in
part, address the writing weakness found in this quadrant.
Assessment Systems Students are assessed five times throughout the year at School B
Elementary: initial benchmark assessments for reading and mathematics, two formative
assessments and one summative assessment in reading, writing, and mathematics, and the
California Standards Test in May. Teachers examine student data throughout the year at
this school at the school, grade level, and individual classroom levels. Student outcomes
are reviewed in grade level teams by grade level and subgroup data. Led by the principal,
School B teachers review each of the five formal assessments as well as several
curriculum-based measures throughout the year for goal setting as described above.
Professional Development Every teacher in the District B is provided three professional
development days in August. School B Elementary staff has utilized this time for school
wide data analysis, grade level planning, critical thinking skills, and textbook training.
The district has provided a wealth of professional development for several years,
including Nancy Fetzer writing strategies, Thinking Maps graphic organizers,
Professional Learning Communities, and Shared Decision Making. In addition, the
190
Instructional Services Center for the district supports the schools with after school
professional development trainings. School B teachers have attended trainings in fluency,
reading comprehension, writing, and mathematics strategies.
Further, the teachers’ bargaining unit contract allows for shortened days on
Thursday. According to the contract, grade level meetings are expected every other
Thursday, and the other Thursdays in the month required professional development
afternoons. School B teachers use this time to share successful teaching strategies with
one another and attend professional development led by district instructional coaches.
Topics are selected collaboratively between the Leadership Team and school principal.
Professional development is also provided to new teachers by the Beginning
Teachers Support and Assessment network. Classroom management, instructional
strategies, and classroom coaching is provided to first and second year teachers to ensure
they are successful in the classroom. Although School B is a small school, two new
teachers (in a staff of thirteen) are receiving BTSA training at this time.
Professional Learning Communities Teachers work collaboratively in grade level teams
formally once a week to plan lessons and discuss student progress. During PLC meetings,
grade level teams of teachers set a curricular focus in order to determine how to best
address the SMART goals set by the team. Teachers decide what will be taught in a
whole group and small group setting, and what types of independent work will be
differentiated for students. Teachers determine the types of indicators which would
demonstrate mastery of the goal set by the teachers. Grade level teams work to set these
action plans in motion in language arts, mathematics, science, or English Development.
These plans must be submitted to the principal each month following the PLC meeting.
191
Response to Instruction/Intervention School B’s philosophy about providing
interventions for students not yet proficient begins with data. When students do not meet
the benchmark for success, teachers begin to design intervention based on a student’s
strengths and weaknesses. The PLC meetings are also to design a host of instructional
strategies for intervention. Finally, data chats with students and parents are a school
expectation. Table F8 is the RTI intervention plan for School B Elementary.
Until this year’s budget reductions, School B Elementary has funded after school
supplemental classes for remedial learning. Despite this, many teachers also provide
individual intervention after school, or Tier II instruction for their learners not yet
proficient on a voluntary basis. Finally, summer school courses have been provided in
past years as remediation for at-risk students. However, due to budget cuts, remedial
summer school is no longer available for the students of School B Elementary.
Table F8 School B Elementary Response to Instruction Tiered Intervention Model
Tier Type of Instruction Percent of
Students
Description
I Core Instruction 100% • Universal Screening and
Assessment
• Differentiation
II Supplemental Instruction 15% • Usually small group
alternatives
• At least 30 minutes per
lesson, three days a week
III Intensive Instruction 5% • Individual or small group
alternatives
• At least 30 minutes per
lesson, five days a week
• Progress monitoring on
daily or weekly basis
• Specific interventions
192
Achievement Gap Attention to the achievement gap has been a focus for School B
Elementary. While School B’s Asian students are high performing (89.8% for ELA and
97.1% for Mathematics), socioeconomically disadvantaged students (72.1/73.1%),
special education students (76.5/94.1%), or Hispanic students (67.4%/ 67.4%) are
underperforming. The SMART goals described above are designed to identify and
provide interventions for students that are not yet proficient, particularly students that are
socioeconomically disadvantaged, Hispanic, or have an Individualized Educational Plan.
However, the focus of this school is to identify the necessary resources for
students to improve at all levels. Students are grouped based on student achievement
outcomes at School B Elementary and students not yet proficient are identified for
additional remediation.
School Leadership: School Culture The staff has selected a motto: “Team Up for
Excellence!” The staff is quite small and works together like a family. While during the
interview, the principal stated teachers work on the school site late into the evening and
most Saturdays. She felt she was able to work closely with her all stakeholders within
her school community and placed a high importance on maintaining positive working
environment. Monthly character education assemblies help to provide ongoing reminders
for teachers, students, and parents to maintain a positive community. She indicated that
students get along with one another and there is a mutual respect between the students
and teachers. Though small, grade level teams enjoy partnerships that are supportive to
students and to one another. The principal noted she has an open door policy to all and
corresponds often over email.
193
School Leadership: Parent Support The principal of School B Elementary works closely
with the parent community. While she states some parents are not collaborative, most
work actively within the school. Fundraising and school events, such as the Winter
Festival and 40
th
Anniversary Party, are led entirely by the Parent Teacher Association
(PTA). In addition, school spirit days (e.g., Hawaiian Day, Beautification Day) are led by
these active volunteers. This partnership helps to ensure the school is successful. Parents
volunteer within the classrooms to support with individual and small group instruction.
Parent volunteers also support teachers with copying and preparation of classroom
materials. The PTA supports school programs with generous payments toward field trips
and assemblies. The parent community also helps to link the school to organizations
which donate supplies and services, such as dental screenings. Finally, the parent
community is invited to attend parent trainings throughout the year, which include
Family Math Night. Parents are also free to enter a classroom at any time as long as they
make an appointment in advance.
District Leadership and Support The school principal indicated that the district
superintendent insists all schools are aware of and meeting the District Priorities. She is
supportive despite suffering from a long-term illness. She is focused upon student
outcomes, and is able to support the principal and teachers with help from directors at the
district level. She does meet with the principals in individual data meetings twice a year
to ensure all students are achieving at high levels. Board Members are visible and
supportive to the school, particularly during school wide events. Board Members provide
an ear to the parent community, so the principal works to keep them aware of school
events.
194
Time Reallocation and Creating Incentives The staff of School B Elementary selects a
motivational theme each year for the staff as a school-wide symbol for student
achievement. This year’s motto is “Team Up for Excellence!” The staff enjoys ongoing
celebrations of their success at the district level as well. Each year, the school proudly
displays a banner created at the district boasting AYP has been achieved and exceeded.
The principal believes the sense of belonging and teamwork keeps the morale up within
her school community. Parents are attracted to the positive culture within the school and
like to participate within the school.
Many parents select School B Elementary for their children because of the
Chinese-English Dual Language Program. This program was introduced into the school
by the school principal in 2008 in Kindergarten. A first grade class was added this year.
The goal of this program is that every participating student, whether native English or
Chinese speaking, learn all subjects together in both English and Mandarin Chinese. As
students matriculate through School B, they will become bilingual, biliterate, and
bicultural. This 50/50 model dual language program requires a long-term commitment by
parents, and many parents enroll their children in School B to participate.
Corresponding Resource Allocation Use
Table F9 compares the actual resource model in use at School B Elementary to
the Evidence Based Model.
195
Table F9 School B Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars)
Position/Strategy Model Model
Allocations for
School B
Actual
Administrator 1.0 FTE for prototype
school of 432; .5 FTE
for every 216 students
above 432
0.66 1.0
Core Teachers/Class
Size
K-3: 15 students per
teacher
4-12: 25 students per
teacher
K-3: 13.8
teachers
4-5: 3.04
teachers
Total teachers:
16.84
K-3: 19.7
students per
teacher
4-5: 30.4
students per
teacher
Total number of
teachers: 13
Specialist Teachers:
Relieve core teachers
during the school day
so they can
collaborate daily for
45-60 minutes
K-5: 20% of total core
teachers
K-5: 2.6
specialist
teachers
.2 Band Teacher
for fifth grade
teacher. District
funded.
Extra Support Staff:
Tutors one student
every 20 minutes for
three students per
hour
1.0 FTE for every 100
at-risk or English
Learner students
0.78 0
Special Education
(self-contained):
Classes are for
severely disabled
students and include
aides; number allotted
based on school needs
1 FTE
Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
I FTE SDC
Teacher and 1
FTE SDCAide
0.3 FTE
Resource
Teacher
I FTE SDC
Teacher and 1
FTE SDC Aide
Extended Day:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced
Price lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students. Two hour
extended day available
to students that qualify,
average class size of
15. Recommended
session of 8 weeks, 6
hours per day
0.93 FTE 0
196
Table F9, Continued
Summer School:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced
Price lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students.
Recommended a 2
hour after school
program for 5 days a
week with teachers
providing at least one
hour of assistance
0.93 FTE 0
Professional
Development:
10 additional days
added to teacher
contract for
professional
development.
Funds allotted:
approximately $100
per pupil.
Collaborative work
with teachers during
the school day. On site
coaching.
$28,700 Allotted for
release time for
teachers, for
planning lessons
but teacher
contract not
increased for ten
PD days. No
funding given to
school.
Instructional
Specialists:
1 FTE for every 200
students; 2.5 FTEs
with a school of 432
students
1.44 FTE .5 FLAP Grant
for Mandarin
Instructional Aides: No allocations in
prototype school for
instructional aides.
.25 instructional
aide for library
Supervisory Aides: 2.0 FTE supervisory
aides for each
prototype school of
432
1.32 2 supervisory
lunch aides, that
work 2 hours a
day each
Student Support: 1.0 FTE licensed
professional for every
100 student enrolled in
the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program, with a
minimum of one for
prototype school of
432
1.0 0.2
Psychologist,
1.0 Speech
197
Summary
School B Elementary has continued to achieve tremendous gains in student
achievement. Extensive use of school wide goals set by teachers during ongoing data
analysis of student outcomes on regular assessment systems produces high levels of
student achievement. Professional development is integrated into the SPSA and provides
the basis for Professional Learning Communities at the school site. In addition, a school
wide focus on Response to Instruction/Intervention both identifies and provides
intervention for students not yet proficient, which helped to address the school
achievement gap between different subgroups of students. School wide motivational
incentives were also highlighted. Finally, the leadership of the principal of School B
Elementary to guide school culture, including parent group support, is central to the
success of School B Elementary.
School C Elementary: A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
School C Elementary is a kindergarten through sixth grade school with
approximately 580 students. School C Elementary is located in a medium-sized school
district in San Bernardino County in Southern California. District C educates
approximately 33, 000 kindergarten through 12 grade students in three cities, covering 88
miles. Approximately 5% of the students at School C Elementary are socioeconomically
disadvantaged. School C is a very diverse school: 25.76% White, 32.95% Asian, 17.55%
Hispanic, 7.91% Filipino, 2.3% African American, and 12.95% Multiple/No Response.
Sixteen languages are spoken among the student body. Ten percent of the school receives
special education services, and approximately five percent of the student body population
is second language learners.
198
A relatively young school, School C Elementary was established in 1994 with a
baseball motivational theme. The Academic Performance Index (API) is one of the
highest API scores in the county and top 2% in the state. It has been recognized by the
US Department of Education as a National Blue Ribbon School, by the California State
Department of Education as a California Distinguished Elementary School, and by the
California School Boards Association as a Golden Bell Award Winner for instruction.
Over the past several years, School C Elementary teachers and staff have worked
diligently to improve student achievement. This case study is designed to tell the story of
significant improvement efforts and how the resources have been allocated.
School C Elementary students’ scores have increased over several years. Table
F10 demonstrates API growth over time. Table F11 displays the percent of students
achieving at the Proficient or Advanced performance levels on the California Standards
Test (CST). Table F12 displays the CST Results by student subgroup for three years.
Table F10 School C Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year Comparison
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
API Score 923 929 945
Statewide Rank 10 10 n/a
Similar School
Rank
7 8 n/a
Source: California Department of Education
Table F11 School C Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year Comparison
Percent Proficient or Advanced
Subject School District State
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
ELA 78 81 85 53 55 62 43 46 52
Math 89 89 92 49 51 62 40 43 54
Science 62 82 88 42 52 59 38 46 49
Source: California Department of Education
199
Table F12 School C Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year
Comparison
Percent Proficient or Advanced
Student Group 2006
-07
2007-
08
2008
-09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007
-08
2008
-09
English Language
Arts
Mathematics Science
African
American
76 93 100 94 93 91 * * *
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
* * * * * * * * *
Asian 85 90 88 94 95 97 78 85 83
Filipino 81 79 76 90 88 78 * * *
Hispanic or
Latino
74 76 74 87 82 88 42 78 84
Pacific
Islander
* * * * * * * * *
White 74 75 90 87 86 93 59 87 92
Male 85 79 85 89 90 94 67 83 87
Female 80 83 84 90 88 92 59 82 88
Economically
Disadvantaged
69 54 56 96 83 72 * * *
English
Learners
69 59 76 89 70 95 * * *
Students with
Disabilities
59 72 64 77 85 73 * 75 *
Source: California Department of Education
*Note: Due to California reporting systems, the blank boxes mean data are not currently
available.
School C Elementary students’ scores have improved, maintaining high levels of
student success over time. As a result, the school has the ability to identify each student
not achieving. Goal setting and data analysis, assessment systems, professional
development, Professional Learning Communities, Response to Instruction/Intervention
to addressing the students not yet proficient, leadership factors, and incentives will be
discussed. The following strategies will be outlined in the next section.
200
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Goal Setting/Data Analysis School C Elementary principal analyzes the California
Standards Test (CST) data at the beginning of the school year with staff. Together, the
staff determines overall student strengths and weaknesses. When identifying the lowest
scoring clusters, the teachers and staff establish school-wide goals for the year. These
school-wide goals then become the focus of each Professional Learning Community
meeting which meet every Friday and will be described below. The school focus is to
improve the number of students scoring Proficient or Advanced performance levels,
particularly in English Language Arts. Further, teachers use their grade level meeting
times to identify and respond to student data trends, set goals for the upcoming
instructional units, and identify students not yet proficient.
Professional Development The school district has insisted upon the implementation of
Professional Learning Communities and many of the teachers of School C have received
training from the district throughout the 2008-2009 school year. Due to budget
reductions, there will be no additional trainings this year. As an alternative to these
reductions, the principal intends to send teachers to Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment (BTSA) trainings, which are open to all teachers in the district. In previous
year, BTSA training was only available to first and second year teachers. The district
office will utilize this department to provide professional development during this time of
budget reductions.
Since the School C budget has been reduced by 10%, and the school site is
expected to pay for the substitute teachers for the trainings, the principal is concerned
about locating funding to pay for the substitutes for conferences. This is a priority for the
201
principal since School C is comprised of a veteran staff that has not received school-wide
professional development for several years due to reduced budget. The school
administration has relied upon the district to provide most of the professional
development. The only professional development at the school level has been with a
consultant to work with teachers aligning teaching practices with the California Standards
Test by grade level for three years. Due to budget reductions, these consultant services
will not be brought into the school site this year.
Professional Learning Communities Teachers work collaboratively in grade level teams
once a week on Friday afternoon to plan lessons and discuss student progress. This
planning day is a minimum day and was voted on by teachers. Teachers work in
Professional Learning Communities and focus on measured student outcomes. In
addition, the teachers discuss the progress of different subgroups of students, such as EL
and GATE students. In addition, the school site coordinates vertical planning within
grade level teams and the feeder middle school to align instructional practices. The
schools in the feeder pattern share the same minimum day to allow for such vertical
teaming. This teaming allows teachers to have collaborative conversations about what
skills are necessary for success in the middle school. School C has worked in
Professional Learning Communities to identify common assessments, analyze student
outcomes, and design instructional practices for four years. The principal of School C has
identified these learning communities as essential to high student achievement at her
school.
Response to Instruction/Intervention Although teachers have received one year of
training in providing tiered instruction and intervention, there is an unclear
202
implementation of RTI at School C. At this time, teachers use the RTI model to
determine which assessment should be utilized. Next year, the district expects school
sites to fully implement a successful RTI model. To model this type of intervention, the
Principal and Vice Principal are modeling Tier II instruction for their teachers. The two
administrators will identify small groups of students for intensive intervention in
language arts. As a school, there will be continued efforts to implement and refine tiered
interventions.
Extended learning opportunities, such as after school and summer school
intervention services, have been funded in past years by the district office. However, due
to budget reductions, all paid intervention services have been cut by the school district at
this time. School C has a procedure for identifying students not yet proficient with a
school-wide Student Success Team (SST), which work to design interventions for
students. In past years, the interventions used to be after school. However, with budget
reductions, the administrative team is currently working to design interventions during
the school day.
School Leadership: School Culture Since School C has enjoyed a school of high
performing students for many years, the Principal feels this allows her teachers to focus
on the whole child, addressing social and emotional needs, as well as academic
performance. While the staff is highly focused on teaching the standards, there is a
positive rapport among the staff and students. The principal indicated students enjoy
coming to school. The teachers are proud that they all support the school vision and are
aligned together to focus on student achievement.
203
School Leadership: Parent Support Supportive parent community members volunteer in
the classrooms throughout the week. Although most parents work with small groups of
students in the classrooms, some parents support teachers with copying and preparing
materials for lessons. However, most days parents can be found teaching small groups of
students and working in individual classrooms. Teachers rely on parental volunteer hours
as well as financial support to enhance school programs.
District Leadership and Support The principal has indicated that district leadership has
been inconsistent and generally unsupportive. The former superintendent frequently was
written up in the local newspapers as a controversial leader within the community.
Though his emphasis on high standards and rigorous academics was appreciated by the
principal of School C, he was less known for his ability to build relationships with
people. The interim superintendent is working to remedy this and his humanistic focus on
relationships is appreciated. The interim superintendent is invested in healing a divided
community and restoring the good name of the district office. The principal also feels that
the Education Services department in the district office is focused on the school sites, but
other departments are not supportive at the site level. She indicated this is because she
leads a high performing school, and most of the attention in the district is directed to the
schools in Program Improvement under No Child Left Behind. As an example, while her
principal colleagues receive extensive support from literacy and mathematics coaches at
the district level, these coaches are not available to School C.
Creating Incentives School C Elementary maintains a baseball theme to motivate the
teachers, staff, and students. Each classroom is named after a professional baseball team,
the multipurpose room is named the Hall of Fame, the library is named the Field of
204
Dreams, and the cafeteria is named the Concession Stand B. The recess bell plays “Take
Me Out to the Ball Game.” Teamwork is evident throughout the school and community.
The baseball theme is designed to honor the achievements of all “All Star” students.
Monthly Most Valuable Player (MVP) awards recognize outstanding student
accomplishments. Each trimester, students receive RBI awards for consistently returning
homework, and Coach’s Awards for excellent citizenship, and Pennant awards are given
to the classrooms without playground “strikes”. The principal believes her school’s focus
on success and active participation in learning is important to build self-confidence and
maintain high student expectations for all students.
Motivating to the teachers as well, School C serves as a model school and hosts
visitors from universities, neighboring school districts, and other countries. Many
teachers serve as supervising teachers for practicum hours needed by university students
and student teachers from several universities. This allows teachers to refine their
instructional strategies.
Corresponding Resource Allocation Use
Table F13 compares the actual resource model in use at School C Elementary to
the Evidence Based Model.
205
Table F13 School C Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars)
Position/Strategy Model Model
Allocations for
School C
Actual
Administrator 1.0 FTE for prototype
school of 432; .5 FTE
for every 216 students
above 432
1.34 1.0 Principal
1.0 Vice
Principal
Core Teachers/Class
Size
K-3: 15 students per
teacher
4-12: 25 students per
teacher
K-3: 19.67
teachers
4-5: 11.6
teachers
Total number
of teachers:
31.27
K-3: 18.4
students per
teacher
4-6: 29.1
students per
teacher
Total number of
teachers: 30
Specialist Teachers:
Relieve core teachers
during the school day
so they can
collaborate daily for
45-60 minutes
K-5: 20% of total core
teachers
K-5: 6.25
specialist
teachers
.2 Music
Teacher for
instruction.
Position is
district funded.
Extra Support Staff:
Tutors one student
every 20 minutes for
three students per
hour
1.0 FTE for every 100
at-risk or English
Learner students
0.45 0
Special Education
(self-contained):
Classes are for
severely disabled
students and include
aides; number allotted
based on school needs
1 FTE
Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
3 FTE SDC
Teacher and 4
FTE SDC Aide
1 FTE Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
3 FTE SDC
Teacher and 4
FTE SDC Aide
Extended Day:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced
Price lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students. Two hour
extended day available
to students that qualify,
average class size of
15. Recommended
session of 8 weeks, 6
hours per day.
.25 FTE 0
206
Figure F13, Continued
Summer School:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced
Price lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students.
Recommended a 2
hour after school
program for 5 days a
week with teachers
providing at least one
hour of assistance.
.25 FTE 0
Professional
Development:
10 additional days
added to teacher
contract for
professional
development.
Funds allotted:
approximately $100
per pupil.
Collaborative work
with teachers during
the school day. On site
coaching.
$58,000 $7,000 split
funded from two
categorical
budgets. $5,000
spent on
consultant for
data analysis;
$2,000 on
substitute
teachers.
Teacher contract
not increased for
ten PD days.
Instructional
Specialists:
1 FTE for every 200
students; 2.5 FTEs
with a school of 432
students
2.9 FTE 0
Instructional Aides: No allocations in
prototype school for
instructional aides.
.35 instructional
aide for library
Supervisory Aides: 2.0 FTE supervisory
aides for each
prototype school of
432
2.68 5 supervisory
lunch aides, that
work 2 hours a
day each
Student Support: 1.0 FTE licensed
professional for every
100 student enrolled in
the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program, with a
minimum of one for
prototype school of
432
1.34 0.4
Psychologist,
0.4 Speech, 0.3
Health Assistant
207
Summary
School C Elementary has continued to achieve tremendous gains in student
achievement. Use of school wide goals, ongoing data analysis, and assessment systems
served as woven braid for determining professional development and Professional
Learning Communities at the school site. In addition, a school wide focus on Response to
Instruction/Intervention both identifies and provides intervention for students not yet
proficient. School wide motivational incentives were discussed. Finally, the leadership of
the principal of School C Elementary to guide school culture, including parent group
support, is central to the success of School C Elementary.
School D Elementary: A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
School D Elementary is a kindergarten through fifth grade school with
approximately 640 students. School D Elementary is located in a medium-sized school
district in Los Angeles County in Southern California. District D educates approximately
15,000 kindergarten through 12 grade students in two cities. Approximately 5% of the
students at School D Elementary are socioeconomically disadvantaged. School D is a
very diverse school: 4.27% White, 73.13% Asian, 14.77% Hispanic, 6.76% Filipino,
0.89% African American, and 0.18% Multiple/No Response. Eight percent of the school
receives special education services, and approximately five percent of the student body
population is second language learners.
The most recently built school in the district, School D Elementary was
constructed in 1989. For over the past several years, School D Elementary teachers and
staff have worked diligently to improve student achievement. The school has been
recognized as a National Blue Ribbon and California Distinguished School. School D
208
Elementary is considered the flagship school in the District D. The principal began her
tenure as principal at School D and is now entering her third year in the principalship.
Prior to this, she was a teacher for 23 years in the school district. This case study will
describe the improvement efforts and how the resources have been allocated.
School D Elementary students are considered high performing and have been
stable over several years. Table F14 demonstrates API growth over time. Table F15
displays the percent of students achieving at the Proficient or Advanced performance
levels on the California Standards Test (CST). Table F16 displays the CST Results by
student subgroup for three years.
Table F14 School D Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year Comparison
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
API Score 940 929 951
Statewide Rank 10 10 n/a
Similar School
Rank
2 4 n/a
Source: California Department of Education
Table F15 School D Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Subject School District State
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
ELA 84 82 88 71 73 79 43 46 52
Math 89 86 92 68 69 81 40 43 54
Science 79 75 86 72 78 79 38 46 49
Source: California Department of Education
209
Table F16 School D Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year
Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Student Group 2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007
-08
2008
-09
English Language
Arts
Mathematics Science
African
American
* * * * * * * * *
American
Indian or
Alaskan Native
* * * * * * * * *
Asian 90 88 93 94 93 95 83 80 90
Filipino 85 81 88 88 85 96 * * *
Hispanic or
Latino
53 54 62 67 56 75 57 47 *
Pacific Islander * * * * * * * * *
White 75 75 72 57 79 77 * * *
Male 82 78 86 88 86 91 82 69 85
Female 87 85 88 90 87 93 75 82 89
Economically
Disadvantaged
75 63 * 67 68 * * * *
English
Learners
47 50 85 60 67 92 * * *
Students with
Disabilities
46 55 62 54 73 81 * * *
Source: California Department of Education
*Note: Due to California reporting, blank boxes mean data are not currently available.
School D Elementary students’ scores have remained high over several years. The
school has not made any significant achievement gains, rather maintained high levels of
student success over time. As a result, the school has the ability to identify each student
not achieving. Goal setting, use of assessment systems, professional development,
Professional Learning Communities, Response to Instruction/Intervention to serve
students not yet proficient, and leadership factors will be discussed. The following
strategies will be outlined in the next section.
210
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Goal Setting The principal of School D Elementary identified three Single Plan for
Student Achievement (SPSA) goals and shared these with the staff in order to build
awareness of school weaknesses. School D’s SPSA three goals are to improve particular
clusters on the CST, including:
• Writing Strategies, in all student subgroups, total percent proficient or advanced:
69.5%
• Reading Comprehension in all student subgroups, total proficient or advanced:
75.3%
• Measurement/Geometry in all student subgroups, total proficient or advanced:
80%
These goals are realized the planning of professional development topics throughout
the year. Data are realized in the identification of students that are not yet proficient for
instructional groupings and cognitive planning. Grade level teams are also responsible to
align their grade level goals with the school wide SPSA goals in language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies.
Professional Development The principal of School D indicated she has a very spunky
staff that enthusiastically embraces professional development. For two years, the staff has
focused on improving writing and reading comprehension strategies in the classroom.
School D’s principal has coordinated trainings at the site and district level to facilitate
understanding and collaboration among her staff in these areas. Topics are selected
collaboratively between the Leadership Team and school principal. All teachers have
211
identified the need to improve measurement and geometry instruction due to lower scores
on this CST cluster area. Teachers work collaboratively in grade level teams to discuss
strategies to improve in this area during their weekly grade level meetings.
In addition, School D Elementary was awarded an Early Intervention for Student
Success (EISS) grant for $50,000 over two years for all kindergarten through second
grade teachers, which have received intensive training in assessment, Tier Two
interventions, and writing strategies. The grant paid for this professional development to
meet the needs of all learners, particularly students not yet proficient in language arts,
mathematics, and science. EISS teachers focus on these areas of improvement during
their grade level meetings.
Assessments The district provides monitoring assessments throughout the school year
which teachers use to determine student progress in reading, writing, and mathematics.
Teachers use these results to guide their instruction with students. In addition, teachers
utilize curriculum based assessments to monitor learning more frequently and determine
mastery of specific student standards. Teachers use this data to discuss student progress
with parents and during grade level meetings.
Professional Learning Communities Teachers work collaboratively in grade level teams
formally once a week to plan lessons and discuss student progress. School D’s principal
has expressed a desire to shift this planning time to Professional Learning Communities
and focus on measured student outcomes. At this time, teachers focus mainly on the
planning of curriculum together and how to differentiate instruction prior to the lesson.
Teachers also work together informally throughout the day for committees related to
212
school business, such as the Winter Program and social committee. School D Elementary
has an early release Friday once a week to hold grade level and committee meetings.
Until this year’s budget reductions, School D Elementary has funded before
school supplemental classes for differentiating learning. In addition, School D
Elementary was allocated one part time (.5) Elementary Learning Specialist that was
tasked to coordinate online supplemental learning programs. This year’s budget
reductions cut her position as well, and she is back teaching full time in the classroom for
the 2009-2010 school year. At this time, the principal of School D Elementary is
identifying people and resources to restore this coordinated assistance to students. All
students will continue to receive differentiated instruction in the classroom via the web-
based programs of Skills Tutor, Nettrekker, and Accelerated Reader.
Response to Instruction/Intervention Although teachers have received one year of
training in providing tiered instruction and intervention, they will continue to refine tiered
interventions at the school site. The principal has decided to reallocate the English
Learner aide to provide Tier II instruction to students in the classroom as well as
supporting second language learners in small groups. Math intervention services have
been provided in past years by a part time assistant principal. Due to budget reductions
this year, the assistant principal position has been cut. It is still unclear how the school
will provide interventions this year in mathematics.
Once teachers have identified students not mastering standards or “at risk of
retention,” teachers place students on a school list to monitor. Students receive Tier II
instruction to remediate, and, if unsuccessful, are brought up to the special education
guidance team for assistance and/or screening purposes. Tier II students were also
213
included in a summer school program at a neighboring elementary school. However, due
to budget reductions, all summer school programs have been eliminated. Table F17
displays the interventions in place school wide and particular grade levels.
Table F17 School D Elementary Response to Instruction Tiered Intervention Model
Program Program
Description
Targeted
Grades
Time Contact
Person
RTI
Level
(1-2)
Skills Tutor
Computer
Program
Web based
program for
academic
intervention to
identify deficient
area and provide
remediation.
K-5 Before
school and
during the
regular
school day.
Guided use at
home with
teacher
prescription.
Teacher 1, 2
Child
Development
Project/
Caring
School
Community
To partially
fulfill state
requirements for
drug, alcohol and
tobacco ed.
Based on
“Community
Circle.”
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal
1
“Let’s Go”
Program
DynEd
English Learner
support in the
technology lab or
classrooms
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal
1,2
Six Trait
Writing
Enhance writing
curriculum to
support student
writing styles.
3-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal
1
214
Table F17, Continued
Step Up to
Writing
Structured
writing program
to assist student
with writing
skills.
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal
1
Rebecca
Sitton
Spelling
Spelling program
based on 500
most commonly
used word and
spelling rules.
3 During the
Regular
School Day
Teacher 1
Guided
Reading
Groups
Flexible/leveled
reading groups to
meet individual
student needs.
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal 1,2
Math Their
Way
Hands on
interactive
program to
reinforce math
concepts.
K-3 During the
Regular
School Day
Teacher 1
AIMS Hands-On
Science Program
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal 1
Marcy Cook Math
manipulatives
help students
cement their
understanding of
math concepts.
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal 1,2
Mountain
Math/
Mountain
Language
Daily practice of
variety of Math
and Language
Arts skills.
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal 1
Barnell Loft Targeted,
systematic
practice in
specific reading
skills.
2-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Teacher 1,2
SRA Individual paced
Reading
Comprehension
Program
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal 1,2
215
Table F17, Continued
Signs for
Sounds
Structured
reading program
for developing
phonics and
increasing
phonemic
awareness.
1-3 During the
Regular
School Day
Teacher 1,2
Big Idea Strategies that
help students
understand and
make
connections with
what they read.
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal 1
GLAD
Guided
Language
Acquisition
Design
Strategies
Program for
English Learners
that helps
students learn
English by
building upon
prior knowledge,
reinforcing oral
communication
including
listening,
speaking, reading
and writing.
Provides
strategies to
make classroom
learning
accessible to EL
students
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal 1
Zoophonics Reading program
that helps
children make
connections
between letter
names and
sounds and retain
the learning.
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal 1
216
Table F17, Continued
Pearson
Learning
Group
Sing Spell,
Read, Write
Beginning
Reading Program
that uses songs
and visuals to
reinforce letter
names, sounds
and phonemic
awareness
K-1 During the
Regular
School Day
Teacher 1,2
Second Step
Program
Self Control,
Empathy and
Anger
Management
Program
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Counselor
1,2
Bell work Daily review of
reading and math
concepts.
1-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Teacher 1,2
Project
Read
Reading program
that uses
kinesthetic
repetition to
develop reading
skills.
1-3 During the
Regular
School Day
Teacher 1,2
Saxon Math Supplemental
math program
that uses multiple
disciplinary
approach.
3 `During the
Regular
School Day
Teacher 1,2
Intervention
Counseling
Intervention
counselors
provide
assistance to
students with
emotional issues
that interfere with
learning.
K-5
During
Regular
School Day
Counselor
2
School
Psychologist
Emotional,
social, behavioral
intervention by a
licensed school
psychologist.
K-5 During the
Regular
School Day
Principal 2
217
Table F17, Continued
Accelerated
Reader
Computer based
program to verify
and document
progress of
students’
independent
reading
K-5 Home and
School
Teacher 1,2
Before
School
Reading
Intervention
At-risk students
work on Skills
Tutor and in
small groups to
remediate
reading skills
K-5 Before the
School Day
Teacher 2
School Leadership: School Culture For many years, District D has encouraged school
sites to operate autonomously from the district and has supported site level management.
The current principal of School D is the third administrator at this school. She is
completing her third year as principal. The School D teachers are characterized by district
employees as the staff of “cheerleaders”; this cohesive group enjoys working together,
and is enthusiastic and supportive of one another.
School Leadership: Parent Support Once a week, parents formally support teachers with
copying, preparing materials for lessons, and making bulletin boards. However, most
days parents can be found teaching small groups and working in individual classrooms.
Parents actively support teachers by pouring volunteer time into the school and
classrooms. Due to budget reductions, School D’s class sizes increased and School D lost
five teachers to Reduction in Force. The School D parents were the only parents to
protest such action regularly at the district board meetings for several months. Although
unsuccessful, this is one example of the influence of the parents at School D Elementary.
218
District Leadership and Support District leadership is collaborative in nature and
supportive of School D’s overall school program. School D’s principal is newer to the
profession, and she acknowledges that her superintendent is new to the district as well.
School D’s principal feels the superintendent is not hands-on, but supportive from afar.
She admits that she watches other principals as a gauge for appropriate responses.
Further, she feels the district office support staff intends to be supportive but often is
caught up in district business. Although the district leadership allows principals to
provide input and feedback into decision making, most decisions tend to be made at the
cabinet level. School D Elementary principal reports the current superintendent delegates
most decisions to the assistant superintendents, whom have been in the district for several
years in leadership positions.
Corresponding Resource Allocation Use
Table F18 compares the actual resource model in use at School D Elementary to
the Evidence Based Model.
Table F18 School D Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars)
Position/Strategy Model Model
Allocations for
School D
Actual
Administrator 1.0 FTE for prototype
school of 432; .5 FTE
for every 216 students
above 432
1.46 1.0
219
Table F18, Continued
Core Teachers/Class
Size
K-3: 15 students per
teacher
4-12: 25 students per
teacher
K-3: 28
teachers
4-5: 9.8
teachers
Total teachers:
37.8
K: 21 students
per teacher
1-2: 25 students
per teacher
3: 24 students
per teacher
4-5: 35 students
per teacher
Total teachers:
25
Specialist Teachers:
Relieve core teachers
during the school day
so they can
collaborate daily for
45-60 minutes
K-5: 20% of total core
teachers
6-8: 20% of total core
teachers
9-12: 33% of total core
teachers
K-5: 7.56
specialist
teachers
2 physical
education
teachers once a
week for
physical
education
classes; 2
physical
education aides
once a week for
physical
education
classes.
.2 Band Teacher
for fourth and
fifth grade
instruction once
a week
.2 Vocal Music
Teacher for
fourth and fifth
grades
instruction once
a week
All positions are
district funded.
Extra Support Staff:
Tutors one student
every 20 minutes for
three students per
hour
1.0 FTE for every 100
at-risk or English
Learner students
0.4 0
220
Table F18, Continued
Special Education
(self-contained):
Classes are for
severely disabled
students and include
aides; number allotted
based on school needs
1 FTE
Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
I FTE SDC
Teacher and 1
FTE SDC
Aide
1 FTE Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
I FTE SDC
Teacher and 1
FTE SDC Aide
Extended Day:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced
Price lunch students
1.0 FTE for every 15
students.
Recommended session
of 8 weeks, 6 hours per
day
0.25 FTE 0
Summer School:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced
Price lunch students
1.0 FTE for every 15
students.
Recommended a 2
hour after school
program for 5 days a
week with teachers
providing at least one
hour of assistance
0.25 FTE 0
Professional
Development:
10 additional days
added to teacher
contract for
professional
development.
Funds allotted:
approximately $100
per pupil.
Collaborative work
with teachers during
the school day. On site
coaching.
$64,000 $14,000 split
funded from two
categorical
budgets. $3,000
spent on
substitute
teachers, $3500
on extra duty
stipends, and
$7,500 spent on
conference fees
and a consultant
Instructional
Specialists:
1 FTE for every 200
students; 2.5 FTEs
with a school of 432
students
2.9 FTE 0
221
Table F18, Continued
Instructional Aides: No allocations in
prototype school for
instructional aides.
.5 English
Learner Aide for
classroom
support
.63 instructional
aide for library
Supervisory Aides: 2.0 FTE supervisory
aides for each
prototype school of
432
2.68 5 supervisory
lunch aides, that
work 2 hours a
day each
Student Support: 1.0 FTE licensed
professional for every
100 student enrolled in
the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program, with a
minimum of one for
prototype school of
432
1.48 0.5 Counselor,
0.4
Psychologist,
0.5 Speech, 0.1
Health Nurse
Summary
School D Elementary has continued to achieve tremendous gains in student
achievement. Use of school wide goals and assessment systems served as woven braid for
determining professional development and Professional Learning Communities at the
school site. In addition, a school wide focus on Response to Instruction/Intervention both
identifies and provides intervention for students not yet proficient. Finally, the leadership
of the principal of School D Elementary to guide school culture, including parent group
support, is central to the success of School D Elementary.
School E Elementary: A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
School E Elementary is a kindergarten through fifth grade school with
approximately 580 students. School E Elementary is located in a medium-sized school
district in Los Angeles County in Southern California. District D educates approximately
222
15,000 kindergarten through 12 grade students in two cities. Approximately 10% of the
students at School E Elementary are socioeconomically disadvantaged. School E hosts a
diverse population of students: 11.18% White, 72.215% Asian, 11.63% Hispanic, 2.11%
Filipino, 2.57% African American, and 0.30% Multiple/No Response. Six percent of the
school receives special education services, and approximately eight percent of the student
body population is second language learners.
An established school, School E Elementary was built in 1965 and has undertaken
modernization since that time. For over the past several years, School E Elementary
teachers and staff have worked diligently to improve student achievement. This case
study is designed to tell the story of significant improvement efforts and how the
resources have been allocated.
School E Elementary students’ scores have increased over several years. Table
F19 demonstrates API growth over time. Table F20 displays the percent of students
achieving at the Proficient or Advanced performance levels on the California Standards
Test (CST). Table F21 displays the CST Results by student subgroup for three years.
Table F19 School E Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year Comparison
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
API Score 929 925 943
Statewide Rank 10 10 n/a
Similar School
Rank
2 2 n/a
Source: California Department of Education
223
Table F20 School E Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Subject School District State
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
ELA 80 82 86 71 73 79 43 46 52
Math 89 88 89 68 69 81 40 43 54
Science 79 90 91 72 78 79 38 46 49
Source: California Department of Education
Table F21 School E Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three- Year
Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Student
Group
2006
-07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008
-09
English Language
Arts
Math Science
African
American
43 62 61 57 46 76 * * *
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
* * * * * * * * *
Asian 88 89 91 95 95 95 87 95 96
Filipino * 69 85 * 85 78 * * *
Hispanic or
Latino
44 50 69 63 56 67 38 71 60
Pacific
Islander
* * * * * * * * *
White 63 73 79 76 84 81 58 84 *
Male 75 79 88 85 87 91 78 86 86
Female 85 85 87 93 90 89 81 95 97
Economically
Disadvantage
d
65 63 85 73 63 73 83 75 79
English
Learners
43 58 84 81 79 89 * 86 *
Students with
Disabilities
25 39 40 39 48 56 36 45 42
Source: California Department of Education
*Note: Due to California reporting systems, the blank boxes mean data are not currently
available.
224
School E Elementary students’ scores have remained high over several years. The
school has made some significant achievement gains over time. As a result, the school
has the ability to identify each student not achieving. Goal setting and data analysis,
assessment systems, professional development, Professional Learning Communities,
Response to Instruction/Intervention to serve students not yet proficient, and leadership
factors will be discussed. The following strategies will be outlined in the next section.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Professional Development School E Elementary is a remarkably established school. The
least senior teacher has taught at the school for twelve years. In the principal’s words,
there has been little “fresh blood” and investing in ongoing professional development has
been vital to the infusion of research-based instructional strategies in the classroom.
Topics are decided on collaboratively by teachers at staff meetings and at Leadership
Team meetings with the principal. Areas of particular focus in the last few years are on
writing strategies, improving classroom management, and integrating technology into the
curriculum.
Professional Learning Communities Teachers work collaboratively in grade level teams
informally throughout the day and formally once a week. Teachers work together to
collaboratively plan lessons and to discuss student outcomes. Introduction of data
analysis into these meetings is a relatively new idea at the school. While other elementary
teachers in the school district use early out days to meet, School E Elementary does not
enjoy this early out day. Teachers meet on their own time and are committed to ensuring
student success.
225
Goal Setting/Data Analysis At the beginning of the year, the teachers and administrator
meet to review the results of the California Standards Test. This data is reviewed by
subgroup, ethnicity, language fluency, grade level, whole school, and finally, the
individual student level. Teachers focus on the individual cluster areas of strength that
students are not doing as well as they should. Teachers set grade level goals for the
Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) in four curricular areas: language arts,
mathematics, social studies, and science. In addition, the staff identifies an area of focus
for the year for the entire school. Students that are not proficient are indentified and
monitored throughout the school year.
School E Elementary identifies “Starfish Students” that are not yet proficient in
the classroom. Each teacher reviews student data and monitor each students’ progress
throughout the year. Teachers can all view the progress of each individual child on the
wall of a designated meeting room. Further, the principal meets with teachers regularly to
discuss their progress and assist with resource allocation when necessary.
Assessments The district provides monitoring assessments throughout the school year
which teachers use to determine student progress in reading, writing, and mathematics.
Teachers use these results to guide their instruction with students. In addition, teachers
utilize curriculum based assessments to monitor learning more frequently and determine
mastery of specific student standards. The principal reports his students are assessed quite
often, and this data is shared grade levels and parents to ensure students are making
adequate progress.
Response to Instruction/Intervention Although teachers have received one year of
training in providing tiered instruction and intervention, they will continue to refine tiered
226
interventions at the school site. For years, the teachers worked in isolation with student
data. However, the principal has worked with the teachers to provide release time for
teachers to examine student results, whether CST or school benchmark results thrice
throughout the year. Although budget reductions have impacted his ability to fund this
release time this year, the principal will continue to identify time for teachers to focus on
student results to improve student achievement.
Until this year’s budget reductions, School E Elementary has funded after school
supplemental classes for differentiating learning. In addition, School E Elementary was
allocated one part time (.5) Elementary Learning Specialist that was tasked to coordinate
online supplemental learning programs and during school interventions. This year’s
budget reductions cut her position as well, and she is back teaching full time in the
classroom for the 2009-2010 school year. At this time, the principal of School E
Elementary is seeking to identify people and resources to restore this coordinated
assistance to high achieving students. A part-time district funded English Learner aide
and high school students will provide remedial instruction to struggling students as in
previous years. All students will continue to receive differentiated instruction in the
classroom via the web-based programs of Skills Tutor, Nettrekker, and Accelerated
Reader. Table F22 details School E Elementary’s RTI Intervention Model.
227
Table F22 School E Elementary Response to Instruction Tiered Intervention Model
School Leadership: School Culture For many years, District D has encouraged school
sites to run autonomously from the district and has supported site level management.
Further, the school has enjoyed extended tenure of five principals since its beginning. In
addition, the current principal reported the teachers’ pride of being different from the
other schools in the district, even going so far to call them “rebels that had succeeded
from the district” under the first principal. School E Elementary has strong union
leadership. In fact, the elementary level union leadership is led from a teacher at this
school; the teachers at the site will not confront this union leader under any
circumstances. Despite this, the principal indicated the teachers and staff of School E
Elementary respect one another even if they all do not get along. This respect allows the
Core Program
Differentiated Instruction
Renaissance Learning
Reading Groups
One to One Teaching
Buddy Readers
Parent Helpers
Frostig
Cross-age Tutors
Pathways Tutors
Homework Club
Eagle Readers
Counseling
PIP/PALS
Reading Clinic
Fountas/Pinnel
RSP
DIS
Speech
228
teachers and staff to maintain the belief that all students can learn. The principal reported
the staff is “extremely focused” on learning.
School Leadership: Parent Support Once a week, parents formally support teachers with
copying, laminating and cutting of materials. However, most days parents can be found
teaching small groups and working in individual classrooms. Parents actively support
teachers by pouring countless volunteer hours into the school and classrooms. Further,
the parent community group named “Community Club” supports the teachers with
funding of classroom supplies and student programs.
District Leadership and Support District leadership is collaborative in nature and
supportive of School E’s overall school program. Although the district leadership allows
principals to provide input and feedback into decision making, most decisions tend to be
made at the cabinet level. This change is a recent one, as District D has an established
culture of shared decision making at both the site and district levels, of which site
administrators play a fundamental role. The principal of School E Elementary has been a
principal for 22 years in the school district, and has been involved in a variety of district
decision making since this time. Principals lead curricular committees of teachers in all
areas, including language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, technology, and fine
arts, to make collaborative decisions for students. The principal of School E Elementary
reports the current superintendent delegates most decisions to the assistant
superintendents, whom have been in the district for several years in leadership positions.
Corresponding Resource Allocation Use
Table F23 compares the actual resource model in use at School E Elementary to
the Evidence Based Model.
229
Table F23 School E Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars)
Position/Strategy Model Model
Allocations for
School E
Actual
Administrator 1.0 FTE for prototype
school of 432; .5 FTE for
every 216 students above
432
1.34 1.0
Core Teachers/Class
Size
K-3: 15 students per
teacher
4-12: 25 students per
teacher
K-3: 24 teachers
4-5: 8.4 teachers
Total number of
teachers: 32.4
K: 22 students per
teacher
1-2: 25 students
per teacher
3: 24 students per
teacher
4-5: 34.5 students
per teacher
Total number of
teachers: 22
Specialist Teachers:
Relieve core teachers
during the school day so
they can collaborate
daily for 45-60 minutes
K-5: 20% of total core
teachers
K-5: 6.48
specialist
teachers
2 physical
education
teachers once a
week for physical
education classes;
2 physical
education aides
once a week for
physical
education classes.
.2 Band Teacher
for fourth and
fifth grade
instruction once a
week
.2 Vocal Music
Teacher for fourth
and fifth grades
instruction once a
week
All positions are
district funded.
Extra Support Staff:
Tutors one student every
20 minutes for three
students per hour
1.0 FTE for every 100 at-
risk or English Learner
students
0.4 0
230
Table F23, Continued
Special Education (self-
contained):
Classes are for severely
disabled students and
include aides; number
allotted based on school
needs
1 FTE Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
1 FTE Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
Extended Day:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced Price
lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students. Two hour
extended day available to
students that qualify,
average class size of 15.
Recommended session of
8 weeks, 6 hours per day
.5 FTE 0
Summer School:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced Price
lunch students
¼ FTE for every 15
students. Recommended
a 2 hour after school
program for 5 days a
week with teachers
providing at least one
hour of assistance
.5 FTE 0
Professional
Development:
10 additional days
added to teacher
contract for professional
development.
Funds allotted:
approximately $100 per
pupil. Collaborative
work with teachers
during the school day.
On site coaching.
$63,200 $10,000 split
funded from two
categorical
budgets. $5,000
spent on
substitute teachers
and $5,000 spent
on conference
fees and a
consultant
Instructional Specialists: 1 FTE for every 200
students; 2.5 FTEs with a
school of 432 students
3.16 FTE 0
Instructional Aides: No allocations in
prototype school for
instructional aides.
.5 English
Learner Aide for
classroom support
.63 instructional
aide for library
231
Table F23, Continued
Supervisory Aides: 2.0 FTE supervisory
aides for each prototype
school of 432
5.8 5 supervisory
lunch aides, that
work 2 hours a
day each
Student Support: 1.0 FTE licensed
professional for every
100 student enrolled in
the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program, with a
minimum of one for
prototype school of 432
1.48 0.5 Counselor, 0.5
Psychologist, 0.5
Speech, 0.1
Health Nurse
Summary
School E Elementary has continued to achieve tremendous gains in student
achievement. Use of school wide goals, ongoing data analysis, and assessment systems
served as the foundation for determining professional development and Professional
Learning Communities at the school site. In addition, a school wide focus on Response to
Instruction/Intervention both identifies and provides intervention for students not yet
proficient. Finally, the leadership of the principal of School E Elementary to guide school
culture, including parent group support, is central to the success of School E Elementary.
School F Elementary: A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
School F Elementary is a kindergarten through fifth grade school with
approximately 615 students. School F Elementary is located in a small-sized school
district in Los Angeles County in Southern California. District E educates approximately
9,500 kindergarten through 12 grade students across one city. Approximately 9% of the
students at School F Elementary are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Most students at
School F identify themselves as Asian (83%) or White (11%), although six percent of the
school is Hispanic and 1% is African American. Five percent of the school receives
232
special education services, and approximately 27% percent of the student body
population is second language learners.
School F Elementary was constructed in 1966 but has undergone two renovations
to repair and modernize the facilities. A recently passed bond has allowed the school to
begin a new round of modernizations, including technological innovations to support
instruction, later this year. For over the past several years, School F Elementary teachers
and staff have committed to ensuring a rigorous educational program with high academic
expectations for their students. The principal began her tenure as principal at School F
and is now entering her third year in this position. Prior to this, she was an interim
principal and the Director of Categorical Programs. This case study will describe the
improvement efforts and how the resources have been allocated.
School F Elementary students are considered high performing and have been
stable over several years. Table F24 demonstrates API growth over time. Table F25
displays the percent of students achieving at the Proficient or Advanced performance
levels on the California Standards Test (CST). Table F26 displays the CST Results by
student subgroup for three years.
Table F24 School F Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year Comparison
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
API Score 944 951 956
Statewide Rank 10 10 n/a
Similar School
Rank
5 5 n/a
Source: California Department of Education
233
Table F25 School F Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Subject School District State
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008
-09
ELA 83 89 93 81 83 84 42 43 52
Math 90 90 92 83 85 87 40 40 54
Science 78 87 78 76 87 80 35 38 49
Source: California Department of Education
Table F26 School F Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Student Group 2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007
-08
2008
-09
English Language
Arts
Mathematics Science
African
American
* * * * * * * * *
American
Indian or
Alaskan Native
* * * * * * * * *
Asian 91 92 95 95 95 95 82 88 89
Filipino * * * * * * * * *
Hispanic or
Latino
59 84 73 61 70 71 * * *
Pacific
Islander
* * * * * * * * *
White 75 84 96 68 70 82 * * *
Male 83 87 85 88 89 89 83 94 82
Female 84 89 92 92 91 92 71 80 92
Economically
Disadvantaged
45 74 86 73 80 83 83 * *
English
Learners
58 68 89 87 88 92 * * *
Students with
Disabilities
47 * 53 57 48 52 * * *
Source: California Department of Education
*Note: Due to California reporting systems, the blank boxes mean data are not currently
available.
School F Elementary students’ scores have made steady growth over several
years. High levels of student achievement have allowed the school to specialize in
234
successful instructional techniques and design programs to intervene with each student
not yet successful. Goal setting and data analysis, assessment systems, professional
development, Professional Learning Communities, Response to Instruction/Intervention
to addressing the achievement gap and serve students not yet proficient, leadership
factors, and time reallocation will be discussed. The following strategies will be outlined
in the next section.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Goal Setting/Data Analysis The principal of School F Elementary has examined school
data trends over several years and monitored levels of student achievement. Three Single
Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) goals to continue to work toward shared success.
School F’s SPSA three goals are to improve particular clusters on the CST, including
Reading Comprehension to consistent levels across the school, writing strategies and
building sentence fluency, and math differentiation to meet the varied learning needs of
students across the school. These goals monitored throughout the year using a variety of
data sources: CST, district benchmark assessments, and curriculum-based measurements.
School resources, such as the Teacher on Special Assignment and English Learner
Specialist, set goals to align with the SPSA. In addition, teachers received modeled
lessons in these focus area to assist with lesson study and to help to focus collaborative
meetings around student outcomes in these areas. Further, the development of teachers’
skills is aligned with the school plan to ensure fortification of the school goals. Data is
realized in the identification of students that are not yet proficient for instructional
groupings and cognitive planning.
235
Data is utilized from a variety of resources to identify trends and patterns at grade
levels. Grade level teams then plan for strategic instruction to target skill sets. The two
coaches then support grade level teams as they begin implementation toward their goals.
This support includes modeled lessons, professional development mini-lessons at grade
level meetings, and whole staff training. As budgets continue to be reduced at the district
level, the principal of School F plans to utilize the two coaches to continue professional
development efforts.
Assessments Teachers assess progress toward meeting California State Standards on
formative assessments throughout the school year in language arts and mathematics.
Students are formally assessed three times a year with the district wide reading test
(DIBELS) to monitor students’ progress in reading fluency and comprehension and a
district wide writing assessment. Teachers also utilize curriculum based measures such as
end-of-unit tests and quizzes to determine students’ mastery on standards. Classroom
observations, homework, and class work are also used as informal assessments of
students. Although report cards are used as the formal mechanism for communicating
student assessment outcomes to parents, parent meetings are set throughout the year to
also discuss student progress.
Professional Development School F Elementary receives district support from the
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) providers and district curriculum
coordinators. The district allots time for staff collaboration, planning, and professional
development. Three staff development days enable staff members to deliver high levels
of rigorous curriculum at all grade levels. The School F faculty has enjoyed several years
of professional development fully funded by the district office, including time for staff
236
collaboration, planning and staff development days. Staff members are offered three staff
development days and three minimum days to learn about and specialize in standards-
based instruction, hands-on science instruction, Six Traits of Writing, robotics,
individualized instruction, problem solving, reading comprehension, and Thinking Maps,
graphic organizer training. This year, due to budget cuts, no professional development
will be funded by the district office. The expectation of the district during the three
mandatory professional development days is to align training with district learning goals:
(1) students engaged in meaningful work; (2) differentiated instruction; (3) problem
solving within the classroom.
In response, the two coaches (one English Learner Specialist and one Intervention
Teacher) conduct professional development for the teachers and staff. Each provides
specialty push-in modeled lessons in the classroom for teachers based on the SPSA goals,
particularly writing strategies and reading comprehension, The Intervention Specialist
supports the teachers with larger class sizes (e.g., kindergarten, fourth, and fifth grades)
with modeled lessons and assistance with implementing new programs. The two coaches
facilitate the staff during their weekly early release day, assisting the teachers using
Dufour’s four questions and set goals for students together.
Achievement Gap At this time, an achievement gap is in place at School F Elementary
between Asian, Hispanic, and White students. While the students in the Asian subgroup
have performed at least 90% in English Language Arts and mathematics for the last three
years, the Hispanic and White students’ scores have been less stable. Generally, the
scores have increased over time although the achievement gap still exists. The principal
perceives her role is to involve every member in instructional decisions in order to ensure
237
all students achieve at high levels. In addition, she credits her two district liaisons with
the job of problem solving curricular decisions with teachers from other schools and the
district office for creating additional learning opportunities for all students. Throughout
the interview, she continued to discuss the cultural divide her school staff tries to bridge
on an ongoing basis. She would often remark how the teachers and staff worked to
communicate with students and parents, trying to bridge cultural connections and ensure
students felt connected with their teachers and the learning expectations.
Professional Learning Communities In years past, the staff has been divided due to a
series of highly polarizing administrative and union leadership conflicts. However, the
staff has worked to work collaboratively and move beyond their divisive history. A key
victory was the collaborative decision to vote in an early release day to meet
collaboratively and learn new strategies together. This was a large victory for the staff,
and the team looks forward to moving into increasingly collaborative decisions.
Over the past year, teachers have worked together and collaborate with one
another. Teachers are established in the school and have worked together toward
common goals for several years. Teachers review and utilize district-created pacing
guides in all subjects and for all grade levels. Grade level teams are given the freedom to
make adjustments to this pacing guide in order to respond to student assessment
outcomes. Further, the grade level teams typically work together to teach students.
During staff meetings, teachers work together to discuss shared goals across grade levels
as well.
School F Elementary enjoys an early release Tuesday once a week to hold grade
level and committee meetings. Teachers are allocated planning time during one short day
238
a week. They collaboratively meet in grade level teams formally once a week to plan
lessons and discuss student progress, focusing on measured student outcomes. At this
time, teachers mostly focus on the planning of curriculum together and how to
differentiate instruction prior to the lesson. Teachers also work together informally
throughout the day for committees related to school business, such as the Winter Program
and social committee.
Response to Instruction/Intervention Although teachers have received one year of
training in providing tiered instruction and intervention, they will continue to refine tiered
interventions at the school site. Once teachers have identified students not mastering
standards or “at risk of retention”, teachers utilize Tier II instruction, a series of learned
“bag of tricks” strategies over a career of teaching. They also collect several data to learn
as much as possible about the student, including observational and quantitative. Such data
allows information to “rise to the surface” and provide information on the best strategies
used for intervention. Grade level teams plan collaboratively to design best first
instruction for students not yet proficient. Finally, students are assigned to a Student
Study Team (SST) if they are still struggling to learn. Students receive Tier II instruction
to attempt to remediate to determine frequency and duration of the students’ learning,
and, if unsuccessful, are brought up to the special education guidance team for assistance
and/or screening purposes. Tier II students were also included in a summer school
program. However, due to budget reductions, all summer school programs have been
eliminated with the exception of fee-based summer school.
Despite budget cuts required of the district, School F was able to maintain two
fully funded intervention coaches. A Teacher on Special Assignment and English Learner
239
Specialist continue to be fully funded by the district. Although the English Learner
Specialist position is a job share, the teachers work together to coordinate Tier II
instruction, offered both before and after school. The district provides $20,000 in
additional monies to allocate toward intervention. Each school hires substitute teachers to
provide double doses of reading or mathematics instruction, until the monies fun out.
Coordinated by the coaching teachers, students not yet proficient receive additional
instruction geared toward standards mastery. Further, the school provides an after school
Study Hall for students unable to complete homework assignments without help.
In addition, several grade level teams utilized the Walk to Read program. This
allows teachers to review student data and place students in level-appropriate,
homogenous classrooms to ensure groups receive intensive instruction designed to
remediate learning gaps and accelerate instruction. The principal indicated this was an
important strategy for ensuring all students were successful. Table F27 outlines the
Response to Instruction Tiered Intervention Model for School F Elementary.
240
Table F27 School F Elementary Response to Instruction Tiered Intervention Model
Tier Students Responsible
Party
Actions Goals
I 100% of
students in
all classes
Teacher Universal screening; School-wide
Positive Behavior Strategies; Core
Curriculum taught; research-based
strategies and curriculum; differentiated
instruction implemented, varying time,
content, and scaffolding
Grade level mastery
II 5-10% of
Students
Teacher,
Coaches
Progress Monitoring; Classroom
Behavior Contracts; Supplemental
instruction in small groups of 6-8
students for 8-10 weeks, 3-4 sessions a
week of 20-40 minutes a session; more
frequent monitoring with assessments
Mastery of standards
and student returns to
Tier I instruction
III Less than
5% of
Students
Teacher,
Coaches,
Principal,
SST Team
Intensive interventions designed to
accelerate a student’s rate of learning;
Frequent duration of individual
intervention; Targeted Assessments;
Small groups of less than 3 students for
9-12 weeks; Weekly assessments
Supportive SST team
designs interventions;
Possible formal
evaluation for special
education services
School Leadership: School Culture For many years, the school struggled to maintain a
cohesive staff. However, the level of respect as increased and expectation for
collaboration is now built into the school culture. Teachers unwilling to participate in
collective collaboration are unable to “hide anymore”. While some cultural barriers
remain, the teachers remain committed to students’ success. Parents within the school
community highly regard the teachers, and there is a feeling by the staff that they do not
want to bring disfavor among the strong parent community. For this reason, teachers
work together for the success of students. In addition, there are few behavior problems at
the school site. The students are well behaved and seem to enjoy one another’s company.
School Leadership: Parent Support Once a week, parents formally support teachers with
copying, preparing materials for lessons, and making bulletin boards. However, parents
do not teach lessons in the classrooms, mostly due to their ability to speak English.
241
Parents actively support the school community by funding field trips, school supplies,
and other materials needed at the school site.
District Leadership and Support District leadership is approachable and collaborative in
nature. This team thinks carefully about decisions and is reflective about how each
decision will impact the entire system. The District E leadership team is not top-down but
collaborative in nature and supportive of School F’s overall school program.
Time Reallocation In order to create kindergarten readiness, School F has promoted a
Kindergarten Camp. Students that will attend kindergarten are invited to join this
program in July prior to the school year beginning. Students have an opportunity to meet
their teachers and learn school readiness, classroom procedures and routines, and basic
literacy. This program provides students the opportunity to prepare for school and get to
know their teachers, thereby maximizing instructional time once the school year begins.
Corresponding Resource Allocation Use
Table F28 compares the actual resource model in use at School F Elementary to
the Evidence Based Model.
242
Table F28 School F Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars)
Position/Strategy Model Model
Allocations for
School F
Actual
Administrator 1.0 FTE for prototype
school of 432; .5 FTE
for every 216 students
above 432
1.42 1.0
Core Teachers/Class
Size
K-3: 15 students per
teacher
4-12: 25 students per
teacher
K-3: 26
teachers
4-5: 8.96
teachers
Total number
of teachers:
34.96
K: 32 students
per teacher
1-3: 20 students
per teacher
4-5: 32 students
per teacher
Total number of
teachers: 26
Specialist Teachers:
Relieve core teachers
during the school day
so they can
collaborate daily for
45-60 minutes
K-5: 20% of total core
teachers
K-5: 7
specialist
teachers
2 FTE Teachers
on Special
Assignment. One
for coaching
teachers and one
for English
Learners.
.2 Band Teacher
for fourth and
fifth grade
instruction once
a week
All positions are
district funded.
Extra Support Staff:
Tutors one student
every 20 minutes for
three students per
hour
1.0 FTE for every 100
at-risk or English
Learner students
2.33 1 FTE (also
listed above
under specialty
teachers)
243
Table F28, Continued
Special Education
(self-contained):
Classes are for
severely disabled
students and include
aides; number allotted
based on school needs
1 FTE Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
I FTE SDC
Teacher and 1
FTE SDC Aide
1 FTE Resource
Teacher and 2
FTE Resource
Aide
1 FTE one-on-
one aide
Extended Day:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced
Price lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students. Two hour
extended day available
to students that
qualify, average class
size of 15.
Recommended session
of 8 weeks, 6 hours
per day
0.5 FTE $20,000 monies
for extra
instruction (e.g.,
intervention)
Summer School:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced
Price lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students. Two hour
extended day available
to students that
qualify, average class
size of 15.
Recommended session
of 8 weeks, 6 hours
per day
0.5 FTE 0
Fee-based
summer school
optional for
participating
families
Professional
Development:
10 additional days
added to teacher
contract for
professional
development.
Funds allotted:
approximately $100
per pupil.
Collaborative work
with teachers during
the school day. On site
coaching.
$61,500 No funding given
to school.
District BTSA
personnel assist
with staff
development.
Three staff
development
days allotted per
teacher contract.
Instructional
Specialists:
1 FTE for every 200
students; 2.5 FTEs
with a school of 432
students
3.15 FTE 0
Instructional Aides: No allocations in
prototype school for
instructional aides.
Librarian Aide –
24 hours/week;
Computer/Media
Center Aide – 24
hours/week
244
Table F28, Continued
Supervisory Aides: 2.0 FTE supervisory
aides for each
prototype school of
432
2.52 5 supervisory
lunch aides, that
work 2 hours a
day each
Student Support: 1.0 FTE licensed
professional for every
100 student enrolled in
the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program, with a
minimum of one for
prototype school of
432
1.42 0.5 Counselor,
0.5 Psychologist,
0.6 Speech, 0.5
Health Nurse
Summary
School F Elementary has continued to achieve tremendous gains in student
achievement. Use of school wide goals, ongoing data analysis, and assessment systems
are aligned with professional development and Professional Learning Communities at the
school site. In addition, a school wide focus on Response to Instruction/Intervention both
identifies and provides intervention for students not yet proficient, which helped to
address the school achievement gap between different subgroups of students. Time
reallocation to maximize learning was discussed. Finally, the leadership of the principal
of School F Elementary to guide school culture, including parent group support, is central
to the success of School F Elementary.
School G Elementary: A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
School G Elementary is a kindergarten through fifth grade school with
approximately 650 students. School G Elementary is located in a small-sized school
district in Los Angeles County in Southern California. District E educates approximately
9,500 kindergarten through 12 grade students across one city. Approximately 4% of the
245
students at School G Elementary are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Most students at
School G identify themselves as Asian (55%) or White (32%), although ten percent of the
school is Hispanic and 2% is African American. Five percent of the school receives
special education services, and approximately 17% percent of the student body
population is second language learners.
School G Elementary was constructed in 1949 but has undergone two renovations
to repair and modernize the facilities. A recently passed bond has allowed the school to
begin a new round of modernizations, including technological innovations to support
instruction, later this year. For over the past several years, School G Elementary teachers
and staff have committed to ensuring a rigorous educational program with high academic
expectations for their students. The school has been recognized as a Top 60 Great
Schools by the Los Angeles Magazine, and received a California Business for Education
Excellence Honor Roll award. The principal began her tenure as principal at School G
and is now entering her eighth year in the principalship. Prior to this, she was an assistant
principal in a neighboring school district. This case study will describe the improvement
efforts and how the resources have been allocated.
School G Elementary students are considered high performing and have been
stable over several years. Table F29 demonstrates API growth over time. Table F30
displays the percent of students achieving at the Proficient or Advanced performance
levels on the California Standards Test (CST). Table F31 displays the CST Results by
student subgroup for three years.
246
Table F29 School G Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year Comparison
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
API Score 934 951 952
Statewide Rank 10 10 n/a
Similar School
Rank
3 5 n/a
Source: California Department of Education
Table F30 School G Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Subject School District State
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
ELA 85 87 88 81 83 84 42 43 52
Math 87 90 92 83 85 87 40 40 54
Science 76 87 86 76 87 80 35 38 49
Source: California Department of Education
Table F31 School G Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year
Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Student Group 2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007
-08
2008
-09
English Language
Arts
Mathematics Science
African
American
* * * * * * * * *
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
* * * * * * * * *
Asian 88 93 92 92 95 95 78 90 87
Filipino * * 81 * * 93 * * *
Hispanic or
Latino
59 63 63 59 68 75 * * 69
Pacific
Islander
* * * * * * * * *
White 86 88 90 87 88 94 * * *
Male 82 84 84 88 90 88 85 89 88
Female 88 91 91 86 90 92 66 85 83
Economically
Disadvantaged
* 80 66 * 91 81 * * *
247
Table F31, Continued
English
Learners
50 62 77 60 67 86 * *
Students with
Disabilities
28 53 56 54 73 60 * *
Source: California Department of Education
*Note: Due to California reporting systems, the blank boxes mean data are not currently
available.
School G Elementary students’ scores have made steady growth over several
years. High levels of student achievement have allowed the school to hone in on
successful instructional techniques and design programs to intervene with each student
not yet successful. Goal setting and data analysis, assessment systems, professional
development, Professional Learning Communities, Response to Instruction/Intervention
to addressing the achievement gap and serve students not yet proficient, leadership
factors, time reallocation and incentives will be discussed. The following strategies will
be outlined in the next section.
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Goal Setting/Data Analysis The principal of School G Elementary and the staff identified
three Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) goals to continue to work toward
shared success. School G’s SPSA three goals are to improve particular clusters on the
CST, including Writing Strategies, Reading Comprehension, and to move beyond basic
facts in math to comprehensive problem solving strategies. These goals monitored
throughout the year and help to focus collaborative meetings around student outcomes in
these areas. Further, the development of teachers’ skills is aligned with the school plan to
ensure fortification of the school goals. Data is realized in the identification of students
that are not yet proficient for instructional groupings and cognitive planning.
248
Assessments Teachers assess progress toward meeting California State Standards on
formative assessments throughout the school year in language arts and mathematics.
Students are formally assessed three times a year with the district wide reading test
(DIBELS) to monitor students’ progress in reading fluency and comprehension and a
district wide writing assessment. Teachers also utilize curriculum based measures such as
end-of-unit tests and quizzes to determine students’ mastery on standards. Classroom
observations, homework, and class work are also used as informal assessments of
students. Although report cards are used as the formal mechanism for communicating
student assessment outcomes to parents, School G boasts student-led conferences with
parents and teachers to also discuss student progress. In addition, Accelerated Reading,
Scholastic Reading Inventory, and Math Masters, timed tests used during frequent
intervals to ensure mastery of facts in addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
Professional Development School G teachers and staff has enjoyed several years of
professional development paid for by the district office. This included time for staff
collaboration, planning and staff development days. Three professional development day
topics have included data analysis to promote student achievement, standards-based
instruction, writing conventions, differentiated instruction, teaching English learners,
teaching and assessing problem solving, Thinking Maps, strategies to promote reading
comprehension, and Responsive Classroom philosophy and strategies to promote a
respectful and caring school community. This year, due to budget cuts, no professional
development is permitted. The expectation of the district during the three mandatory
249
professional development days is to align training with district learning goals: (1)
students engaged in meaningful work; (2) differentiated instruction; (3) problem solving
within the classroom.
The principal of School G indicated the teachers’ use of data was “extraordinary”;
the teachers carefully reviewed students’ growth over time and over multiple measures to
monitor student learning. Teachers use a variety of assessments – CST, benchmark, and
curriculum-based assessments – to identify individual student needs. The teachers
collectively weave the entire student body’s data together to determine school-wide
curricular strengths and weaknesses, thus forming the basis of the goals for the SPSA
plan. The SPSA goals drive the decisions and professional development at the school site.
Professional Learning Communities The teachers of School G frequently ask for time to
work together and collaborate with one another. Teachers are established in the school
and have worked together toward common goals for several years. The principal has
worked with the teachers to build in leadership capacity of the teachers. In other words,
the teachers are empowered to solve problems as teams. This problem-solving capacity
allows the teachers to serve as positive influences over one another and their overall
school community. The principal’s intentional institutionalization of problem-solving
empowers grade level teams to serve as teacher-created systems of support. The
principal’s role, then, is facilitator and not the center.
Teachers are given district-created pacing guides in all subjects and for all grade
levels. Teachers are given the freedom to make adjustments to this pacing guide in order
to respond to student assessment outcomes. Further, the grade level teams typically work
together to teach students. Several grade levels work together to shift the traditional
250
model to shared instruction. Teachers are given the freedom to become experts in subject
areas (e.g., English-Language Arts and physical education) while other teachers are
responsible to teach other areas (e.g., science and mathematics). She believes this allows
teachers to share students and work smarter, not harder. These student rotations invite
teachers to share strategies with one another for instruction while supporting student
learning. The expectation at School G is that all teachers participate in and provide input
for student learning. Teachers are invited to share in a respectful environment. Norms are
established annually to ensure the atmosphere is respectful and inviting for staff members
to feel safe in an inclusive arena.
Teachers are allocated planning time during one short day a week. Further, the
parent community funds a weekly Performing Arts program that allows teachers to be
released in grade-level teams for collaboration and planning. The principal notes that
teachers work informally throughout the day in the hallways and staff lounge as well,
weaving a supportive culture for teachers and student learning throughout the school.
Achievement Gap An achievement gap exists between the Asian students and all other
student groups in the school. While Asian students have over 90% proficiency on the
CST in language arts and mathematics, Hispanic students’ scores have remained about
60% in language arts and 75% in mathematics. The White students’ scores have
gradually increased over time, but students that are labeled Economically Disadvantaged
(66%, 81%), English Learners (77%, 86%), Students with Disabilities (56%, 60%) in
language arts and mathematics. In addition to providing intensive instruction as described
in the RTI section, the staff and students have adopted the Responsive Classroom
philosophy.
251
The Responsive Classroom is an approach to teaching that focuses on social,
emotional and academic growth within a strong, safe school community. The goal of this
program is to enable optimal student learning. The principal stated the Responsive
Classroom approach asserted children learn best when academic and social-emotional
skills are addressed. School G has adopted school wide and classroom practices for
assuring all students learn at high levels while building a warm school community. Seven
guiding principles are in place at School G based on the Responsive Classroom:
The social curriculum is as important as the academic curriculum.
How children learn is as important as what they learn: Process and content go
hand in hand.
The greatest cognitive growth occurs through social interaction.
To be successful academically and socially, children need a set of social skills:
cooperation, assertion, responsibility, empathy, and self-control.
Knowing the children we teach-individually, culturally, and developmentally-is as
important as knowing the content we teach.
Knowing the families of the children we teach and working with them as partners
is essential to children's education.
How the adults at school work together is as important as their individual
competence: Lasting change begins with the adult community.
The principal indicated this school philosophy was critical to ensuring all students
had access to and were connected within the school community, no matter their ethnicity
or language fluency.
252
Response to Instruction/Intervention The teachers collaboratively designed their Pyramid
of Collaboration – the plan which assigns tiered instruction and interventions to teaches
and grade levels based on the four goals of the school plan. A team effort to instruction
and intervention is pervasive and persistent. The teachers begin their conversations about
students with Dufour’s four questions: (1) How will we work together as a team to
collaborate and support each other in accomplishing our goals?; (2) How will we work as
a team to collaborate and support all students at our grade level who don’t “get it”?; (3)
How will we work as a team to collaborate and challenge students at our grade level to be
thinkers and problem solvers?; (4) How will we work together to analyze individual
student work and share possible strategies to support individual students to meet grade
level proficiency? Which students?
Since the principal has worked for years to build collaboration among grade level
teams, the teachers were able to fold in the RTI pyramid quite seamlessly. The principal
has noted the teachers are able to “nitpick” and find the students that are not yet
proficient because there are so few of them. Despite budget cuts required of the district,
School G was able to maintain two fully-funded intervention coaches. A Teacher on
Special Assignment and English Learner Specialist continue to be fully funded by the
district. The Teacher on Special Assignment directly supports teachers with use of data
and use of modeled lessons in classrooms. She pulls groups of students not yet proficient
for Tier II instruction to support the teachers in the classrooms. Further, the district also
provides a teacher specializing in instruction for second language learners for the school.
She conducts push-in lessons for English Learners aligned with the goals for the SPSA.
Further, their teacher also provides parent education trainings throughout the year to help
253
parents learn strategies to help their children. As a result, there are extensive
opportunities for student to receive Tier II instruction and become proficient in grade-
level standards.
The district provides $20,000 in additional monies to allocate toward intervention.
The schools may hire substitute teachers to provide double doses of reading or
mathematics instruction, until the monies run out. In addition to this Intervention money,
School G’ parent community also coordinates Rolling Readers, providing support to
students not yet proficient as well. Students that are struggling readers are able to read
with a volunteer in a structured lesson four times a week. Remedial summer school
programs have been eliminated during budget cuts. Parents may pay for fee-based
enrichment summer school for their children if they choose.
School G Elementary Response to Intervention model is defined in Table F32.
Table F32 School G Elementary Response to Instruction Tiered Intervention Model
Grade Intervention 1:
Recognition/
Decoding and
Fluency
Intervention 1:
Recognition/Decoding and
Fluency Placement and Progress
Monitoring
Intervention 2:
Writing
Intervention 2:
Data Used
K Road to the Code District Phonemic Awareness
Test/Dibels
Word, Idea, and
Sentence
Fluency
District Writing
Assessment
1 Interventions for
Reading
Success/Phonics
for Reading Level
1
District Phonics Test/Dibels Six Traits Crate District Writing
Assessment
2 Phonics for
Reading Levels 1,
2
Dibels/SRJ/Nonsense
Words/Phonics for Reading
Placement Test
Six Traits Crate District Writing
Assessment
3 Phonics for
Reading Levels 1,
2, 3
Dibels/SRJ/CST/Names
Test/Phonics for Reading
Placement Test
Six Traits using
Write from the
Beginning, Jeff
Anderson, Gail
Carson Levine,
and More
District Writing
Assessment
254
Table F32, Continued
4 Rewards Dibels/SRJ/CST/Rewards
Placement Test
Six Traits using
Write from the
Beginning, Jeff
Anderson, Gail
Carson Levine,
and More
District Writing
Assessment
5 Rewards Dibels/SRJ/CST/Rewards
Placement Test
Six Traits using
Write from the
Beginning, Jeff
Anderson, Gail
Carson Levine,
and More
District Writing
Assessment
Grade Intervention 3:
Reading
Comprehension
Intervention 3: Reading
Comprehension Data Used
Intervention 4:
Math Facts
Intervention 4:
Math Facts
Placement
1 CST/Maze
Test/Reading
Comprehension
Test
Comprehension Tool-Kit/Fab 4 Math Fact
Families
CST/Math
Benchmark/Mat
h Fact Families
Placement Test
2 CST/Maze
Test/Reading
Comprehension
Test
Comprehension Tool-Kit/Fab 4 Math Fact
Families
CST/Math
Benchmark/Mat
h Fact Families
Placement Test
3 CST/Maze
Test/Reading
Comprehension
Test
Comprehension Tool-Kit/Fab
4/Read Naturally
Math Fact
Families
CST/Math
Benchmark/Mat
h Fact Families
Placement Test
4
CST/Maze
Test/Reading
Comprehension
Test
Comprehension Tool-Kit/Fab
4/Read Naturally
Math Fact
Families
CST/Math
Benchmark/Mat
h Fact Families
Placement Test
5 CST/Maze
Test/Reading
Comprehension
Test
Comprehension Tool-Kit/Fab
4/Read Naturally
Math Fact
Families
CST/Math
Benchmark/Mat
h Fact Families
Placement Test
Grade Intervention 5:
Math Concepts and
Word Problems
Intervention 5: Math Concepts
and Word Problems Placement
3 Harcourt
Intervention
CST/Math Benchmark
4 Harcourt
Intervention
CST/Math Benchmark
5 Harcourt
Intervention
CST/Math Benchmark
255
School Leadership: School Culture School G has an established, dynamic school
community. The principal believes this is mostly due to the implementation of the
Responsive Classroom Philosophy. This program builds community and expects all
community members to behave in respectful ways. The school community has been
trained in this philosophy and the principal notes this has “changed everything”. A three-
way contract is signed by the teacher, student, and parents to treat all members of the
community with dignity, respect, and caring for all people. The year begins with
establishing goals and stating each individual’s dreams for how the school year. The
goals are formulated together. All individuals are given a choice. The Responsive
Classroom philosophy is that each staff member is here to serve children. Further, all
community members are given the opportunity to learn from their errors. For this reason,
the school community has flourished into a respectful environment where all participate
and learn from one another. School G is proud of their school community.
School Leadership: Parent Support The district has been able to fully fund the budget in
large part due to the ongoing contributions of the parent community. Parents were asked
to donate $500 per child last year in order to prevent budget cuts. An educational
foundation channeled the monies back to the school district to supplement school site
cuts. Financially, the district has been able to hold back the deep cuts other school
districts have sustained due to the efforts of the parent community.
Further, the parents offer financial support at School G as well. Parents volunteer
in the classroom and provide supervised small group instruction to students. Parents also
support with copying papers, preparing materials for lessons, and making bulletin boards.
256
Parents actively support teachers by pouring countless volunteer hours into the school
and classrooms. Unique to School G is the Performing Arts program provided by the
parent community. Every student is engaged in active learning including music
appreciation, multicultural music experience, musical note reading, rhythm activities,
instruments, drama, song, and dance on a weekly basis. These lessons culminate into two
performing arts programs a year. Additionally, students in kindergarten through fifth
grade receive in-class instruction for six-week intervals in music appreciation, the study
of composers, and eras of music, dance, and movement, oral presentation, and
improvisation. Parents also coordinate a dedicated school cable channel and broadcast
room for which students produce and present weekly broadcasts of news, weather reports,
character study, and school spirit activities.
District Leadership and Support The principal reported the district leadership in District E
is politically safe and not controversial. The School G principal does not have extensive
interaction with the district office personnel with the exception of the Maintenance
Department, which is coordinating her bond construction. However, the principals in the
school district have a warm, collegial relationship and share strategies for success.
Time Reallocation and Creating Incentives Teachers are allotted preparatory time for
teaching during students’ performing arts classes. This preparation time is highly valued
by staff. Further, the kindergarten team teaches all day but into two half-sessions of class
each, thereby ensuring that the large classrooms of 30-32 are divided into smaller, more
manageable instructional groups. The morning kindergarten classes are 16 students each,
and the afternoon classes are filled from 14-15 students each. This innovative structure is
257
in provides differentiated instruction to students and prepares them for instruction in the
first grade.
In addition, the teachers appreciate the collaboration time with the two district-
funded instructional coaches. This coaching infuses a sense of teamwork and excitement
into the staff as they seek to refine instructional practices. The two coaches provide both
time reallocation and incentives to the teachers, as the relationships between the staff and
coaches provide the motivation to continue to learn research-based instructional
practices.
Corresponding Resource Allocation Use
Table F33 compares the actual resource model in use at School G Elementary to
the Evidence Based Model.
Table F33 School G Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars)
Position/Strategy Model Model
Allocations for
School G
Actual
Administrator 1.0 FTE for prototype
school of 432; .5 FTE
for every 216 students
above 432
1.5 1.0
Core Teachers/Class
Size
K-3: 15 students per
teacher
4-12: 25 students per
teacher
K-3: 18.8
teachers
4-5: 10.24
teachers
Total number
of teachers:
29.04
K: 30.3 students
per teacher
1-3: 22 students
per teacher
4-5: 32 students
per teacher
Total number of
teachers: 27
258
Table F33, Continued
Specialist Teachers:
Relieve core teachers
during the school day
so they can
collaborate daily for
45-60 minutes
K-5: 20% of total core
teachers
K-5: 5.81
specialist
teachers
2 FTE Teachers
on Special
Assignment. One
for coaching
teachers and one
for English
Learners.
.2 Band Teacher
for fourth and
fifth grade
instruction once
a week
All positions are
district funded.
Extra Support Staff:
Tutors one student
every 20 minutes for
three students per hour
1.0 FTE for every 100
at-risk or English
Learner students
0.3 1 FTE (also
listed above
under specialty
teachers)
Special Education
(self-contained):
Classes are for
severely disabled
students and include
aides; number allotted
based on school needs
1 FTE
Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
I FTE SDC
Teacher and 1
FTE SDC Aide
1 FTE Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
I4 full inclusion
aides for autistic
and SED
students
Extended Day:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced
Price lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students. Two hour
extended day available
to students that
qualify, average class
size of 15.
Recommended session
of 8 weeks, 6 hours
per day
.3 FTE $20,000 monies
for extra
instruction (e.g.,
intervention)
Summer School:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced
Price lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students.
Recommended a 2
hour after school
program for 5 days a
week with teachers
providing at least one
hour of assistance
.3 FTE 0
Fee-based
summer school
optional for
participating
families
259
Table F33, Continued
Professional
Development:
10 additional days
added to teacher
contract for
professional
development.
Funds allotted:
approximately $100
per pupil.
Collaborative work
with teachers during
the school day. On site
coaching.
$64,800 $7,000 to cover
substitute
teachers, District
BTSA personnel
assist with staff
development.
Three staff
development
days allotted per
teacher contract.
Instructional
Specialists:
1 FTE for every 200
students; 2.5 FTEs
with a school of 432
students
3.24 FTE 0
Instructional Aides: No allocations in
prototype school for
instructional aides.
Librarian Aide –
24 hours/week;
Computer/Media
Center Aide – 24
hours/week
Supervisory Aides: 2.0 FTE supervisory
aides for each
prototype school of
432
3.0 5 supervisory
lunch aides, that
work 2 hours a
day each
Student Support: 1.0 FTE licensed
professional for every
100 student enrolled in
the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program, with a
minimum of one for
prototype school of
432
1.51 0.5 Counselor,
0.5 Psychologist,
0.6 Speech, 0.5
Health Nurse
Summary
School G Elementary has continued to achieve tremendous gains in student
achievement. Use of school wide goals, ongoing data analysis, and assessment systems
guides professional development and Professional Learning Communities at the school
site. In addition, a school wide focus on Response to Instruction/Intervention both
identifies and provides intervention for students not yet proficient, which helped to
260
address the school achievement gap between different subgroups of students. Time
reallocation and school wide motivational incentives were discussed. Finally, the
leadership of the principal of School G Elementary’ to guide school culture, including
parent group support, is central to the success of School G Elementary.
School H Elementary: A Case Study of Instructional Improvement and Resource Use
School H Elementary is a kindergarten through sixth grade school with
approximately 390 students. School H Elementary is located in a medium-sized school
district in Los Angeles County in Southern California. District F educates approximately
30,000 kindergarten through 12 grade students across two cities. Approximately 16% of
the students at School H Elementary are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Most students
at School H identify themselves as Asian (45.88%) Hispanic (21.15%) or White (23.9%),
although 4.4% percent of the school is Filipino and 4.4% is African American. Six
percent of the school receives special education services, and approximately four percent
of the student body population is second language learners.
School H Elementary was constructed in 2002 as an overflow site to a successful
neighboring school. Seven years later, the school is almost full to capacity and
performing in the top one percent of all elementary schools in Los Angeles County. It is
considered a small, quiet school up on the hill that overlooks the district. For over the
past several years, School H Elementary teachers and staff have committed to ensuring a
rigorous educational program with high academic expectations for their students. This
case study will describe the improvement efforts and how the resources have been
allocated.
261
School H Elementary students are considered high performing and have enjoyed a
high level of student achievement on the California Standards Test over several years.
Table F34 demonstrates API growth over time. Table F35 displays the percent of students
achieving at the Proficient or Advanced performance levels on the California Standards
Test (CST). Table F36 displays the CST Results by student subgroup for three years.
Table F34 School H Elementary API Results for All Students – Three-Year Comparison
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
API Score 966 968 969
Statewide Rank 10 10 n/a
Similar School
Rank
10 10 n/a
Source: California Department of Education
Table F35 School H Elementary CST Results for All Students- Three-Year Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Subject School District State
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
ELA 90 92 91 35 38 43 42 43 52
Math 95 94 96 33 34 44 40 40 54
Science 82 80 94 29 36 40 35 38 49
Source: California Department of Education
262
Table F36 School H Elementary CST Results by Student Group – Three-Year
Comparison
Percent Proficient and Advanced
Student
Group
2006
-07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008
-09
English Language
Arts
Mathematics Science
African
American
* * 76 * * 100 * * *
American
Indian or
Alaskan
Native
* * * * * * * * *
Asian 97 97 97 98 98 99 89 91 100
Filipino * 82 85 * 73 92 * * *
Hispanic or
Latino
74 87 83 89 96 95 * * *
Pacific
Islander
* * * * * * * * *
White 89 93 95 97 90 93 71 81 95
Male 90 92 91 95 92 94 80 82 94
Female 89 93 90 94 95 97 95 77 95
Economically
Disadvantage
* 69 87 * 93 95 * * *
English
Learners
* 88 88 * 94 100 * * *
Students with
Disabilities
* 70 66 * 85 88 * * *
Source: California Department of Education
*Note: Due to California reporting, blank boxes mean data are not currently available.
School H Elementary students’ scores have made steady growth over several
years. High levels of student achievement have allowed the school to hone in on
successful instructional techniques and design programs to intervene with each student
not yet successful. Goal setting and data analysis, assessment systems, professional
development, Professional Learning Communities, Response to Instruction/Intervention
to serve students not yet proficient, leadership factors, time reallocation will be discussed.
The following strategies will be outlined in the next section.
263
Instructional Improvement Strategies
Goal Setting/Data Analysis The principal of School H Elementary sets high goals for his
staff to have the highest API in the state. His enthusiasm for his student achievement is
paramount, and he believes it is possible to improve the school wide API each year. He
aligns his belief set with the six essential goals from the district office. These six goals
are:
• Student Work and Data: providing the means to access learning
• Aligned Resources: sustaining and supporting student learning
• Family and Community: supporting student learning
• Shared Leadership: sustaining a collaborative culture
• Professional Development: improving instruction
• Responsive Instruction: reaching each student
This year, the principal has identified no additional curricular goals for the
teachers, rather to continue to focus on goals set in previous years. The principal
described his school’s philosophy on instruction as “open”, exposing each student to a
wealth of curriculum, teaching strategies, and a wide range of knowledge. The principal
believes this freedom allows students to master grade-level proficiency standards and
excel in all areas. One critical goal for the school is to improve the technology at the
school site. Since the school has been built, no new computers have been brought into the
school, leaving the technology available outdated. The principal is committed to bring in
a new computer lab and other instructional technology this year.
264
When the teachers return to a new school year, the teachers receive reports of
school data, a breakdown of school wide student outcomes in each performance band.
The principal indicated that each student’s outcome on the CST was reviewed, this luxury
afforded to the school since it was such a small school. Three year data trends are
analyzed and the goal setting begins. School wide and grade level Single Plan for Student
Achievement (SPSA) goals are set based on the weakest cluster areas, particularly
reading comprehension, writing, and science. The teachers also compare their school’s
results with other high performing school results in Los Angeles County.
Assessment Systems Teachers examine student data throughout the year at School H
Elementary. Student outcomes are reviewed in grade level teams by grade level and
subgroup data. In addition to the CST, teachers administer formative assessments in
reading, writing, and mathematics three times during the year. These assessments are
aligned with the district assigned pacing guides, but the teachers are given permission to
adjust the instruction and assessments.
Professional Development School H Elementary teachers and staff participate in six
professional development days each year – three district wide and three site-based. These
professional development days are driven by student achievement data and staff learning
needs. The district has provided a wealth of professional development for several years.
The schools in the district fund substitutes to cover teachers’ classes so they may attend
the professional development as it becomes available in the district. The teachers have
received extensive training in Write from the Beginning writing strategies, Thinking
Maps graphic organizers, lesson design and delivery, instructional technology, and
265
collaborative conversations for student success. Topics are selected collaboratively
between the teachers and school principal.
Professional Learning Communities Teachers work collaboratively in grade level teams
formally once a week to plan lessons and discuss student progress. Teachers review
student data together, particularly in grade level teams; after identifying student
weaknesses in the data, teachers alter instructional practices to improve student
outcomes. In addition, teachers also work together informally throughout the day for on
the spot lesson planning and advice. An early release Wednesday and a late start Friday
allows the staff time to meet together and cognitively plan instruction. Teachers focus on
one instructional area each time they meet – language arts, mathematics, science, English
Language Development, or student intervention. Teachers focus on grouping students in
homogenous instruction in order to remediate or accelerate instruction where appropriate.
Response to Instruction/Intervention The RTI philosophy came into sharp focus this year.
Due to funds from the national stimulus package this year, all elementary schools
including School H Elementary in District F, received one Teacher on Special
Assignment. This teacher must place a priority on intervention and provide a double dose
of reading instruction for all students, particularly focused in first and second grade.
Interventions could be supported within the school day. This coach assessed and
monitored students in phonics, guided reading, and vocabulary. Students receive
instruction four times a week in groups of four to six students each. This instructional
coach is for one year only, but the teachers are focused on how RTI can be embedded
throughout the school.
266
Grade level teams design initial interventions for students struggling in the
curriculum. When these interventions are not successful, some students may attend Tier
II instruction in reading with the RSP teacher. Teachers may also participate in paid,
after school tutoring from the district for students acquiring English and struggling to
master the state standards. When individual students continue to struggle in the
curriculum despite these interventions, the special education teacher, speech teacher, and
school psychologist may consider a full special education assessment. Table F37
describes the process for RTI at School H Elementary.
267
Table F37 School H Elementary Response to Instruction/Intervention Model
School Leadership: School Culture The principal of School H Elementary indicated
teachers cared deeply about the students at School H. They worked diligently to
individualize instruction and, when necessary, have difficult conversations with parents
268
to ensure students were successful at school. Since the teachers, staff and principal are a
relatively small group, they are able to work collaboratively. The principal reported the
students were happy. He is attentive to “keep his ears open” for problems among
students. He told me that 95% of the students reported on the Healthy Kids Survey that
students have fun and feel safe. He reported there is not much behavior management
problems and this allows him time to support teachers and meet with the parent
community.
School Leadership: Parent Support The principal of School H Elementary works closely
with the parent group to ensure the school is successful. He reports it is a collaborative
partnership, and indicated their support is “incredible”, a positive force that recruits early
throughout their students’ educational careers at School H. The Parent Teacher
Organization (PTO) utilizes Google to communicate to other parents in the school
community. Both the principal and parent group are focused on communication this year.
It is their goal to reduce the fliers sent home by 70%, so the principal will post the
information on the school website or the parent group will send this information out via
Google.
The PTO’s budget ($40,000) is larger than School H Elementary’s funds allotted
by the school district ($38,000). For this reason, the principal and PTO meet and jointly
plan the PTO budget. Monies are allocated for Art Masters, assemblies, field trips and
instructional materials. The principal reported he is continually frustrated by the lack of
money available to him, and so he is ever-appreciative of the contributions and
fundraising of the PTO.
269
Teachers work to communicate with their classroom parents as well. Parents often
teach small groups in classrooms and support teachers with preparation of instructional
materials. Teachers appreciate this parent support in the classrooms. The principal
indicated this parent support was essential to making the school run smoothly and
achieving high levels of student success.
District Leadership and Support The school principal indicated that the district
superintendent is “phenomenal”. She visits the school often and works hard to listen to
the community. As an example, four schools were reconfigured to K-8 schools,
responding to the parent community. In addition, the district directors and assistant
superintendents were supportive, but spread thin over a school district with 34 schools.
The principal perceived the Board of Education often worked against the needs of the
schools, thus tying the hands of district administrators. In addition, the district has many
schools in Program Improvement, so they receive additional support to overcome NCLB
accountability measures.
Time Reallocation The teachers of School H Elementary participate in developing
curricula for the district on liaison committees. These committees, composed of teacher
and administrative representatives, meet in grade level groups and examine research and
State directives, discuss new curricular issues, and identify needs for new or updated
district documentation.
The instructional school day has been modified so that teachers can meet
collaboratively throughout the school week. Wednesdays are School H’s early release
day, and Fridays are late start for staff meetings, teacher planning, and professional
development. In addition, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade teachers receive 90 minutes of
270
preparatory time when their students receive music instruction. Each of these preparation
and collaboration times are critical for the staff to plan as a team to ensure School H is a
well executed. As it receives few resources, this time provides teachers time to plan and
ensure school wide success.
Corresponding Resource Allocation Use
Table F38 compares the actual resource model in use at School H Elementary to
the Evidence Based Model.
Table F38 School H Elementary Resource Use (FTE and Dollars)
Position/Strategy Model Model
Allocations for
School H
Actual
Administrator 1.0 FTE for prototype
school of 432; .5 FTE for
every 216 students above
432
0.90 1.0
Core Teachers/Class
Size
K-3: 15 students per
teacher
4-12: 25 students per
teacher
K-3: 16.2
teachers
4-5: 7.36
teachers
Total teachers:
23.56
K: 31 students per
teacher
1-2: 20 students
per teacher
3: 31 students per
teacher
4-5: 32 students
per teacher
6: 24 students per
teacher
Total number of
teachers: 16
Specialist Teachers:
Relieve core teachers
during the school day so
they can collaborate
daily for 45-60 minutes
K-5: 20% of total core
teachers
K-5: 4.7
specialist
teachers
.5 Itinerant band
teacher for 4
th
-6
th
grade teachers.
District funded.
271
Table F38, Continued
Extra Support Staff:
Tutors one student every
20 minutes for three
students per hour
1.0 FTE for every 100 at-
risk or English Learner
students
.62 1 FTE RTI coach.
District funded
for one year.
Special Education (self-
contained):
Classes are for severely
disabled students and
include aides; number
allotted based on school
needs
1 FTE Resource
Teacher and 1
FTE Resource
Aide
I FTE SDC
Teacher and 1
FTE SDC Aide
1 FTE Resource
Teacher
3 full inclusion
aides for General
Education
students
Extended Day:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced Price
lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students. Two hour
extended day available to
students that qualify,
average class size of 15.
Recommended session of
8 weeks, 6 hours per day
.5 FTE 0
Summer School:
50% of the Adjusted
Free and Reduced Price
lunch students
¼ FTE for every 30
students. Recommended
a 2 hour after school
program for 5 days a
week with teachers
providing at least one
hour of assistance
.5 FTE 0
Professional
Development:
10 additional days
added to teacher
contract for professional
development.
Funds allotted:
approximately $100 per
pupil. Collaborative
work with teachers
during the school day.
On site coaching.
$39,000 Allotted for
release time for
teachers, for
planning lessons
but teacher
contract not
increased for ten
PD days
Instructional Specialists: 1 FTE for every 200
students; 2.5 FTEs with a
school of 432 students
1.9 FTE .5 FLAP Grant for
Mandarin
Instructional Aides: No allocations in
prototype school for
instructional aides.
.4 instructional
aide for library
272
Table F38, Continued
Supervisory Aides: 2.0 FTE supervisory
aides for each prototype
school of 432
3 5 supervisory
lunch aides, that
work 2 hours a
day each
Student Support: 1.0 FTE licensed
professional for every
100 student enrolled in
the Free and Reduced
Lunch Program, with a
minimum of one for
prototype school of 432
0.9 0.2 Psychologist,
0.4 Speech, 0.4
Health Assistant
Summary
School H Elementary has continued to achieve tremendous gains in student
achievement. Use of school wide goals, ongoing data analysis, and assessment systems
served as woven braid for determining professional development and Professional
Learning Communities at the school site. In addition, a school wide focus on Response to
Instruction/Intervention both identifies and provides intervention for students not yet
proficient. Time reallocation was discussed. Finally, the leadership of the principal of
School H Elementary to guide school culture, including parent group support, is central
to the success of School H Elementary.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study selected a purposeful sample of eight high performing southern California elementary schools which achieved API scores above 900 over a three year period. A review of instructional strategies for each study school during the improvement process and resource allocation patterns was determined. Case studies of each school include interviews and analysis of student performance data and resource allocations choices. The findings were compared with the Evidence Based Model of school finance adequacy. The findings suggest that although the resources available to the study schools were significantly fewer than what the Evidence Based Model recommends, the schools implemented many of the strategies as suggested in the body of literature on school improvement. Effective strategies for implementing and sustaining school success included setting the urgency for learning, goal setting, use of assessments, designing multiple strategies to close the achievement gap (including use of Response to Intervention and Professional Learning Communities), high quality leadership, professional development, and time reallocation and use of incentives. Despite already limited school resources, the schools faced significant budget reductions for the current year and impending additional cuts due to the bleak economic outlook. Implications for school leaders and policymakers are discussed.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: Case studies of school level resource use in California middle schools
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
Aligning educational resources and strategies to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model
PDF
Resource use and instructional improvement strategies at the school-site level: case studies from ten southern California elementary schools
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of six California schools within two school districts
PDF
The allocation of resources at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers: What is adequate?
PDF
Allocation of resources and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California Title I Program Improvement middle schools
PDF
Navigating troubled waters: case studies of three California high schools' resource allocation strategies in 2010-2011
PDF
Resource allocation in successful schools: case studies of California elementary schools
PDF
Better is as better does: resource allocation in high performing schools
PDF
Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools
PDF
Successful resource allocation in times of fiscal constraint: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California elementary schools
PDF
School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools
PDF
School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement
PDF
Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution
PDF
Resource allocation practices in relation to identified school reform strategies
PDF
Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies in rural single-school elementary districts
PDF
Evidence-based resource allocation model to improve student achievement: Case study analysis of three high schools
Asset Metadata
Creator
Hobbs, Alysia Jocelyn
(author)
Core Title
Resource allocation and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California with budget reductions
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
03/26/2010
Defense Date
03/04/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
budget reduction,high performing elementary school,OAI-PMH Harvest,school finance
Place Name
California
(states)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Picus, Lawrence O. (
committee chair
), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (
committee member
), Nelson, John L. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ahobbs@walnutvalley.k12.ca.us,alysiaj@verizon.net
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2881
Unique identifier
UC1420296
Identifier
etd-Hobbs-3438 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-297224 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2881 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Hobbs-3438.pdf
Dmrecord
297224
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Hobbs, Alysia Jocelyn
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
budget reduction
high performing elementary school
school finance