University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

(USC Thesis Other)

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SCHOOL-LEVEL RESOURCE ALLOCATION
TO IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

by
Antonio Gonzalez

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Antonio Gonzalez
ii
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my lovely family:
Sarah Rose Gonzalez, my inspirational wife
Zane Genry Gonzalez, my “biggest boy”
and
Zackary Myles Gonzalez, my “baby boy”

Without their love, support, and patience,
this dissertation would not have been possible.

iii
Acknowledgements
There are a number of people who deserve my acknowledgement. First, I
would like to extend my sincerest love, appreciation, and gratitude to the Koopmans
(Gene, Nancy, Henry, and Thelma). Without their unknowing support, graciousness,
and generosity I would not have even considered embarking on this arduous journey.
Their support has truly made this dissertation and degree a reality.
I would also like to thank Sebastian and Susie Cognetta for offering their home
and hospitality during those long weekend classes. “Thank you” to my sister-in-law,
Thelma Heatlie, for taking care of my boys when necessary. To Dr. Lawrence Picus, I
truly owe him for his guidance and support throughout the dissertation writing
process; as well as Dr. Gib Hentschke and Dr. John Nelson for serving on my
committee.
To my “mum” (Charlene Heatlie) I would like to extend my gratitude and love
for her love, encouragement, and support. To my mother (Rosa Gonzalez), I thank her
for her sacrifices that have allowed me to reach as far as I have.
I would like to extend a special acknowledgment to my 5
th
/6
th
grade teacher,
Mrs. Sherry Sevilla. It’s because of her that I decided long ago to become a teacher.
Finally, the most significant source of love, support, and inspiration comes
from my family: my beautiful wife Sarah and my boys Zane and Zackary. For three
years their love, patience, and understanding has allowed me to focus on this process
to get it done. This is for you!

iv
Table of Contents

Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables vii

List of Graphs xiii

Abstract xv

Chapter One: Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 10
Importance of the Study 11
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions 12
Definitions 15

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 20
School Funding in California 21
Chronology of School Funding in California 21
Current Structure of California’s Finance System 24
Educational Adequacy 28
From Equity to Adequacy 28
Does Money Matter? 29
Determining Adequacy 31
Professional Judgment 33
Successful School Districts 33
Cost-Function Analysis 34
Evidence-Based Model 34
Resource Use 36
Overview of Resource Use 36
School Level Resources 40
Resource Reallocation for Improving Student Performance 43
The Change Process 45
Resource Reallocation 49
Improving Performance 52
Professional Development 70
Conclusion 73

Chapter Three: Methodology 76
Sample and Population 77
Instrumentation 81
Data Collection 84

v
Data Analysis 85
Ethical Considerations 86

Chapter Four: Findings 87
Research Questions 1, 2, and 3 88
Evidence-Based Model 100
RQ4: How Are the Actual Resource Use Patter at the School
Sites Aligned with or Different from the Resource Use Strategies
in the Evidence-Based Model? 100
Staffing Category 101
Extra Help 104
Professional Development 107
Student Support 110
Administration 112
Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance 113
Step 1: Understand Performance Problem 114
Step 2: Set and Maintain Higher Standards 117
Step 3: Adopt New Curriculum and Improve Instructional
Practices 118
Step 4: Using Data to Drive Instructional Decisions 119
Step 5: Ongoing Professional Development for Teachers 120
Step 6: Use Time More Efficiently 121
Step 7: Support for Struggling Students 121
Step 8: Creating Professional Learning Communities 125
Step 9: Professional Behavior and Promising Practices 126
Step 10: Human Capital 126
Conclusion 127

Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications 131
Summary 131
Conclusions 137
Staffing Category 137
Extra Help 138
Professional Development 140
Student Support 142
Administration 144
Implications 145
Final Thoughts 148

References 150

Appendices:
Appendix A – Case Study 1: Santana High School 156
Appendix B – Case Study 2: Kaman High School 185
Appendix C – Case Study 3: Belvedere High School 210

vi
Appendix D – Case Study 4: Genry High School 238
Appendix E – Case Study 5: Lakeside High School 267
Appendix F – Case Study 6: Southside High School 296
Appendix G – Consent Form 321
Appendix H – Pre-Visit Form 322
Appendix I – Data Collection Protocol 324
Appendix J – Open-Ended Interview Protocol 331

vii
List of Tables

Table 1.1: Demographics Comparisons of Participating High Schools 13

Table 2.1: Comparisons of Adequacy Models 32

Table 2.2: Three Stages of Large-Scale Educational Change Process 45

Table 2.3: EBM Resources for a Prototypical High School of 600 Students 50

Table 2.4: Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance 53

Table 2.5: Instructional Categories and Specific Behaviors 58

Table 2.6: Summary of Major Roles Data Plays in the Education Process 61

Table 2.7: Strategies to Support Struggling Students 63

Table 2.8: Aspects of a Professional Learning Community 65

Table 3.1: Comparison of Participating High Schools’ Criteria 80

Table 3.2: School Resource Indicators 83

Table 4.1: Summary of Schools’ Respective Improvement Strategies 90

Table 4.2: Summary of Data-Driven Decisions 92

Table 4.3: EBM Comparisons for Core Academic Teachers (in FTEs) 101

Table 4.4: EBM Comparisons for Specialist & Elective Teachers (in FTEs) 102

Table 4.5: Specialist & Elective Teachers as a Percentage of Core
Academic Teachers 103

Table 4.6: Special Education Teachers and Aides (in FTEs) 106

Table 4.7: EBM Comparisons for GATE Funds 106

Table 4.8: EBM Comparisons for PD Funds 109

Table 4.9: EBM Comparisons for Student Support 110

Table 4.10: EBM Comparisons for Assistant Principals (in FTEs) 112

viii
Table 4.11: Summary of Performance Problems 114

Table 4.12: Summary of High Standards 117

Table 4.13: Summary of Support Provided for Struggling Students 121

Table 4.14: Summary of PLC Elements 125

Table 4.15: Summary of Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student
Performance 129

Table A1: Student Demographics Comparison: Santana, District, and CA 156

Table A2: API Comparisons Santana and CA (2005-2009) 160

Table A3: API Subgroup Comparisons Santana and CA (2009 STAR Results) 161

Table A4: Santana STAR Results (Percent Proficient or Advanced 2002-2009) 162

Table A5: STAR ELA Results – Santana and CA (Proficient or Advanced
2007-2009) 162

Table A6: STAR Mathematics Results – Santana and CA (Proficient or
Advanced 2007-2009) 163

Table A7: Overall Graduation Rate – Santana and CA (2006-2009) 165

Table A8: Percentage of Graduates Having Completed UC/CSU Courses with
At least a “C” – Santana and CA (2006-2008) 165

Table A9: SAT Data – Santana and CA (2006-2008) 166

Table A10: Summary of Santana’s Strategies for Improving Student
Achievement 168

Table A11: Santana and EBM Comparisons 175

Table A12: Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at Santana 179

Table B1: Student Demographics Comparison: Kaman, District, and CA 185

Table B2: API Comparisons Kaman and CA (2005-2009) 189

Table B3: API Subgroup Comparisons Kaman and CA (2009 STAR Results) 189

ix
Table B4: Kaman STAR Results (Percent Proficient or Advanced 2002-2009) 190

Table B5: STAR ELA Results – Kaman and CA (Proficient or Advanced
2007-2009) 191

Table B6: STAR Mathematics Results – Kaman and CA (Proficient or
Advanced 2007-2009) 192

Table B7: Overall Graduation Rate – Kaman and CA (2006-2009) 194

Table B8: Percentage of Graduates Having Completed UC/CSU Courses with
At least a “C” – Kaman and CA (2006-2008) 194

Table B9: SAT Data – Kaman and CA (2006-2008) 195

Table B10: Comparison of Kaman’s Student Demographics between
1998-99 and 2009-10 196

Table B11: Summary of Kaman’s Strategies for Improving Student Achievement 197

Table B12: Kaman and EBM Comparisons 201

Table B13: Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at Kaman 204

Table C1: Student Demographics Comparison: Belvedere, District, and CA 210

Table C2: API Comparisons Belvedere and CA (2005-2009) 214

Table C3: API Subgroup Comparisons Belvedere and CA (2009 STAR Results) 215

Table C4: Belvedere HS STAR Results (Percent Proficient or Advanced
2002-2009) 215

Table C5: STAR ELA Results – Belvedere and CA (Proficient or Advanced
2007-2009) 216

Table C6: STAR Mathematics Results – Belvedere and CA (Proficient or
Advanced 2007-2009) 217

Table C7: Overall Graduation Rate – Belvedere and CA (2006-2009) 219

Table C8: Percentage of Graduates Having Completed UC/CSU Courses with
At least a “C” – Belvedere and CA (2006-2008) 219

Table C9: SAT Data – Belvedere and CA (2006-2008) 220

x
Table C10: Summary of Santana’s Strategies for Improving Student Achievement 222

Table C11: Belvedere and EBM Comparisons 228

Table C12: Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at Belvedere 232

Table D1: Student Demographics Comparison: Genry, District, and CA 238

Table D2: API Comparisons Genry and CA (2005-2009 243

Table D3: API Subgroup Comparisons Genry and CA (2009 STAR Results) 244

Table D4: Genry STAR Results (Percent Proficient or Advanced 2002-2009) 244

Table D5: STAR ELA Results – Genry and CA (Proficient or Advanced
2007-2009) 245

Table D6: STAR Mathematics Results – Genry and CA (Proficient or Advanced
2007-2009) 246

Table D7: Overall Graduation Rate – Genry and CA (2006-2009) 248

Table D8: Percentage of Graduates Having Completed UC/CSU Courses with
At least a “C” – Genry and CA (2006-2008) 248

Table D9: SAT Data – Genry and CA (2006-2008) 249

Table D10: Summary of Genry’s Strategies for Improving Student Achievement 251

Table D11: STAR Testing Performance Bands 256

Table D12: Genry and EBM Comparisons 257

Table D13: Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at Genry 260

Table E1: Student Demographics Comparison: Lakeside, District, and CA 267

Table E2: API Comparisons Lakeside and CA (2005-2009) 272

Table E3: API Subgroup Comparisons Lakeside and CA (2009 STAR Results) 272

Table E4: Lakeside STAR Results (Percent Proficient or Advanced 2002-2009) 273

Table E5: STAR ELA Results – Lakeside and CA (Proficient or Advanced
2007-2009) 274

xi
Table E6: STAR Mathematics Results – Lakeside High and CA (Proficient or
Advanced 2007-2009) 274

Table E7: Overall Graduation Rate – Lakeside and CA (2006-2009) 277

Table E8: Percentage of Graduates Having Completed UC/CSU Courses with
At least a “C” – Lakeside and CA (2006-2008) 277

Table E9: SAT Data – Lakeside and CA (2006-2008) 278

Table E10: STAR Testing Performance Bands 279

Table E11: Summary of Lakeside’s Strategies for Improving Student
Achievement 280

Table E12: Lakeside and EBM Comparisons 285

Table E13: Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at Lakeside 289

Table F1: Student Demographics Comparison: Southside, District, and CA 296

Table F2: API Comparisons Southside and CA (2005-2009) 300

Table F3: API Subgroup Comparisons Southside and CA (2009 STAR Results) 301

Table F4: Southside STAR Results (Percent Proficient or Advanced 2002-2009) 302

Table F5: STAR ELA Results – Southside and CA (Proficient or Advanced
2007-2009) 303

Table F6: STAR Mathematics Results – Southside and CA (Proficient or
Advanced 2007-2009) 303

Table F7: Overall Graduation Rate – Southside and CA (2006-2009) 306

Table F8: Percentage of Graduates Having Completed UC/CSU Courses with
At least a “C” – Southside and CA (2006-2008) 306

Table F9: SAT Data – Southside and CA (2006-2008) 306

Table F10: Summary of Southside’s Strategies for Improving Student
Achievement 308

Table F11: Southside and EBM Comparisons 311

xii
Table F12: Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at Southside 315

xiii
List of Graphs

Graph 2.1: California School Funding Sources 25

Graph 2.2: National School District Expenditure Averages 39

Graph A1: Santana High School API from 1999-00 through 2008-09 159

Graph A2: Santana High School CAHSEE Passing Rates 2001-02 through
2008-09 (10
th
Grade) 164

Graph A3: Santana High School CAHSEE Passing Rates 2001-02 through
2008-09 (All Grades) 164

Graph B1: Kaman High School API from 1999-00 through 2008-09 188

Graph B2: Kaman High School CAHSEE Passing Rates 2001-02 through
2008-09 (10
th
Grade) 193

Graph B3: Kaman High School CAHSEE Passing Rates 2001-02 through
2008-09 (All Grades) 193

Graph C1: Belvedere High School API from 1999-00 through 2008-09 213

Graph C2: Belvedere High School CAHSEE Passing Rates 2001-02 through
2008-09 (10
th
Grade) 218

Graph C3: Belvedere High School CAHSEE Passing Rates 2001-02 through
2008-09 (All Grades) 218

Graph D1: Genry High School API from 1999-00 through 2008-09 242

Graph D2: Genry High School CAHSEE Passing Rates 2001-02 through
2008-09 (10
th
Grade) 247

Graph D3: Genry High School CAHSEE Passing Rates 2001-02 through
2008-09 (All Grades) 247

Graph E1: Lakeside High School API from 1999-00 through 2008-09 271

Graph E2: Lakeside High School CAHSEE Passing Rates 2001-02 through
2008-09 (10
th
Grade) 275

Graph E3: Lakeside High School CAHSEE Passing Rates 2001-02 through
2008-09 (All Grades) 276

xiv
Graph F1: Southside High School API from 1999-00 through 2008-09 300

Graph F2: Southside High School CAHSEE Passing Rates 2001-02 through
2008-09 (10
th
Grade) 304

Graph F3: Southside High School CAHSEE Passing Rates 2001-02 through
2008-09 (All Grades) 305

xv
Abstract
One of the most important decisions made by school leaders is deciding how to
allocate their limited resources to educate students to high standards. In an era when
schools are faced with severe budget reductions and greater accountability for student
performance under the No Child Left Behind Act, it is perhaps even more important
than ever before that their decisions yield the greatest impact on student achievement.
This study analyzes six Southern California high schools successful in serving
their high-needs populations and compares their resource allocation strategies to those
recommended by the Evidence-Based Model. Furthermore, with their resources, are
they implementing any of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance? What
this study discovered is that all six schools lacked the resources to match the EBM, yet
were able to implement at least nine (in some cases, all) of the ten steps. Even more
impressive is that the schools have sustained their success in the midst of
unprecedented reductions in K-12 funding.

1
Chapter 1
Introduction
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 has introduced an
unprecedented level of accountability to America’s K-12 schools (Linn, 2005) by
mandating that schools meet minimum annual gains in student achievement or face
consequences imposed by either the state or the federal government. Although it is
underfunded (Duncombe, Lukemeyer, & Yinger, 2008), it mandates that 100% of
students demonstrate levels of proficiency in mathematics and English Language Arts
(ELA) by 2014. As indicated by the 2008 California Standards Tests (CSTs) results,
only 48% of California’s students demonstrated satisfactory achievement in ELA and
51% in mathematics. The 2009 CSTs reflected only a slight increase in ELA to 52%
proficient and 54.2% in mathematics. At this rate, many of California’s schools will be
labeled as failing under NCLB’s timeline.
It should be noted, however, that although the federal government mandates
proficiency, it is up to each individual state to define and measure its own level of
proficiency. California’s standards for proficiency are among the most stringent in the
nation. Two separate organizations have rated California’s standards among the
highest in the country (EdSource, 2008b). The Fordham Foundation, which is an
organization that supports research in American education, gave California an A-minus
rating in 2006 for its content standards—only two other states received the same
rating. It can be argued that if the state lowered its expectations of students, then more
students would meet proficiency standards. This however, is not an option state
leaders are willing to consider.

2
Despite challenges faced by the state in satisfying federal requirements in
education, the responsibility of educating the state’s over 6.2 million students as of
2009 to high standards has not diminished. One of the many factors for the state’s lack
of significant growth in K-12 student achievement is the underfunding of schools to
adequately meet student needs and demands (EdSource, 2008b). Other factors are
addressed in the proceeding pages.
A brief look into the background of school funding would be useful in
understanding where California ranks currently with respect to school spending and
how that has an impact on the level of student achievement. Prior to the passage of
Proposition 13 in 1978 local property taxes constituted as much as two-thirds of
school funding (EdSource, 2009b). However, by placing a limit of the amount
properties can be taxed (1% of an artificially defined and thus low total assessed
value), Proposition 13 had a significant negative impact on money available to schools
through local property taxes. Property taxes declined from two-thirds to one-third of
total school revenues, which combined with the growth in spending led to
considerable pressure on the state to exercise greater control over school funding.
Local control of school funding was in essence relinquished to the state level.
Another proposition having a great impact on the state’s funding for schools is
Proposition 98, passed in 1988. Under this amendment to California’s Constitution K-
14 schools are to receive at least the same amount of funding received the previous
year adjusted for enrollment changes and per capita personal income. Although one of
three formulas determine exactly how much money schools would receive in any

3
academic year, Proposition 98 funding constitutes roughly 70% of total K-12 funding
(Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2009).
In 2005-06 California spent about $614 less per pupil than the national average
and ranked last in total school staff per student ratio (EdSource, 2008b). Although the
state spends over $50 billion dollars annually on education, there are over 6.2 million
students to educate with those funds—more than any other state. With so many
students, there are many challenges that arise.
In the midst of the nation’s current economic recession and considering that
education represents the state’s single largest expenditure, California has been forced
to make further cuts to education. In 2007-08 Prop. 98 funding called for $50.3 billion;
that figure increased slightly to $51.6 billion by September 2008. Due to mid-year
reductions in the state’s budget, February 2009 saw that figure drop to $44.7 billion
and finally settled to $43.1 billion on the final budget passed for 2009. The budget for
2009-10 that was passed in July 2009 allocates $44.6 billion to education. However, as
of the early part of 2010, the state continued to make cuts to its K-12 education
budget. The governor’s current budget proposal for next year calls for an additional
$250 per student funding reduction, essentially moving the state last in the country in
regards to per pupil expenditures.
In addition to underfunding, California’s schools have the highest quantity and
percentage of English Learners (EL) in the country: 44% speak a language other than
English (EdSource, 2008b). Challenges that accompany this population extend beyond
teaching them the content standards; language acquisition is a concern. If students are
not fluent in English, instructional materials provided to them are rendered ineffective,

4
which in turn disrupts their learning process. This population along with other special
needs students requires many more additional resources that the general population
doesn’t require (Odden & Picus, 2008).
California’s levels of student achievement have many areas of concern. As
mentioned previously, only 52% of California’s students demonstrated satisfactory
achievement in ELA and 54.2% in mathematics on the 2009 CSTs. In 2006-07, 35 %
of schools in the state failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and 10% were
identified as restructuring (meaning they have failed to meet AYP for 5 consecutive
years). A contributing factor to this is the high percentage of EL students. As a whole,
California schools rank among the lowest in the nation on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), however, when the EL population is excluded, the state
is much closer to the national average. This is indicative of the unique challenges
California faces.
In 2005 the state ranked higher than 19 other states in graduation rates—just
one-tenth of a percent behind the national average of 74.7 percent. However, of those
graduating, only 25% enrolled directly into a 4-year college or university.
Given these areas of concern for California’s students, there are arguments
about how much student achievement can be increased if schools were allocated more
money and/or resources, or if they simply reallocate the resources they already have
with greater efficiency (Odden & Archibald, 2001). Since it doesn’t appear that more
funding will be made available to schools considering the current economic crisis
faced by the nation, California, and the state’s schools, it is imperative that current
school leaders be strategic in allocating their current limited resources. Even with the

5
stimulus funds from President Obama’s signing of the America Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, there will still remain a substantial deficit in the
budget available for schools that did not exist in recent years.
Do schools already have enough money to educate their students? Are school
leaders making the best decisions in allocating their current resources to impact
student achievement in a positive way? Are the resources currently available but
simply are not being allocated in such a way that student achievement is maximized?
To answer these and other questions one must define adequacy to determine if each
school or district already has the necessary resources. If they do not, how can they be
more effective with what they do have? Increasing the efficiency of limited school
resources is a key factor in improving student performance (Picus, 2000). Again,
considering the recent budget reductions in public education, the need for increased
efficiency in resource allocation decisions have become ever so pressing.
While numerous definitions of adequacy regarding school funding exist,
Odden’s (2003) definition will be the one utilized for the purpose of this study. Odden
defines it as having the appropriate resources to teach students to high standards.
Presently there are four models available to determine levels of adequacy: professional
judgment, successful schools or districts, cost function analysis, and the Evidence-
Based Model (EBM) developed by Odden and Picus (2008). It is the EBM that serves
as the framework for this study.
The successful schools approach entails outlining desired outcomes and
looking to schools or districts that have already achieved those outcomes. The purpose
is not so much to replicate what has been done, but rather to learn from those districts

6
or schools and determine the best way to achieve those desired results. One challenge
with this model is determining its practicality for both urban and rural districts
(Odden, 2003).
Professional judgment constitutes a focus group of educators making
determinations based on professional experience and hypothetical situations. Although
experience can be a positive factor in determining resource allocation, the link to
student achievement remains weak (Odden, 2003). There is little evidence to suggest
that one’s personal experience is correlated with empirical evidence.
The cost function approach requires a complex statistical analysis of resources
and budgets. Due to the complexity of this approach, few actually implement this
strategy. Although this approach can offer solid data, it still remains a challenge to
make a direct connection between resource allocation and student achievement
(Odden, 2003).
The fourth and perhaps most successful approach to determine adequacy is the
Evidence-Based Model (EBM) developed by Odden and Picus (2008). The EBM
approach makes use of sound empirical evidence on what improves student
achievement to make recommendations for staffing, professional development
funding, funding for special needs students, and other resource allocation decisions. It
is this model that is used as the basis to determine adequacy for this study.
In determining adequacy, it is necessary for schools to exercise their control
over school level resources. Since the focus of schools should be to improve the
performance levels of their students, this becomes a necessary endeavor. This is

7
especially true considering the level of accountability under the No Child Left Behind
Act. Some of those school level resources identified by Odden and Picus (2008) are:
• Staffing and expenditures by…
o “…program—the regular instruction program; programs for
special-need students such as compensatory, bilingual, and special
education; administration; staff development; and instructional
materials” (p. 13)
o …educational strategy—CSR, PD, and support for struggling
students
o …content area
o “…interrelationships among these staffing and expenditure
patterns” (p.13)
o “…relationships of these staffing and expenditure patterns to
student performance” (p.13)
These resources, among others, are essential to improving student
achievement. If it were found that a school is not meeting the needs of its students—as
is currently the case in many of California’s schools under NCLB provisions—one
possible solution would be to undergo a large-scale change process (Odden &
Archibald, 2001) whereby the final outcome would be focused on improving the level
of student performance. In California’s high schools it is the CSTs, the CAHSEE, and
graduation rates that determine a schools success. The process would require a school
to undergo a yearlong self-assessment to create a more effective instructional vision

8
and plan. This would undoubtedly result in a school needing to reallocate its current
available resources to meet the new demands of the revised vision and plan.
Using the EBM would allow schools to address six main components of their
resources:
• Core content teachers (25:1 pupil-to-teacher ratio at the high school
level)
• Specialist teachers (33% of teaching staff at the high school level)
• Extended support (summer school, extended day, EL, tutors)
• Specialized education (special education, GATE, career and vocational
education)
• Professional development (teacher training, instructional coaches)
• Additional support (teacher compensation, pupil support services,
instructional materials, technology)
Once again, increasing efficiency in the use of these resources can result in a
significant increase in the level of student performance (Picus, 2000; Odden & Picus,
2008).
Statement of the Problem
Although California spends over $50 billion annually on K-12 education, in
2006 it spent on average $614 less per pupil than the rest of the nation (EdSource,
2008b). There may be arguments that the state is providing adequate funding given
that other states are achieving better results with less (such as South Carolina), but to
make such an argument one must know the correlation, or lack thereof, between its

9
allocation of resources at the school level and student achievement. Understanding this
relationship is a key aspect of improving student performance.
School leaders and district personnel often lack the ability to link their
allocation of limited resources to student achievement. Understanding that resources
are limited—especially in the midst of the current economic turmoil—suggests the
need for school leaders to find more strategic ways to allocate their resources with a
greater focus on what works to improve student achievement. One of their many
challenges, however, is how the state categorizes about one-third of the funding made
available to school districts, which limits how spending is conducted at the local level
(Duncombe & Yinger, 2007). Ultimately, this determines the parameters of how a
school principal is able to allocate his or her resources. In the event that school leaders
have a solid understanding of how to link resources to what works in schools, there
still exist many restrictions keeping them from spending much of their funds how they
deem appropriate (Hanushek, 2006).
Currently, many resources are used inefficiently (Picus, 2000) and as a result,
student achievement suffers. Schools can do more with what they already have by
strategically reallocating resources with a greater focus on student achievement
(Odden & Archibald, 2001). To do so requires a school to undergo an extensive
change process in which they recognize that change is necessary and consequently
creating a new educational strategy to move the school in the desired direction (Odden
& Archibald, 2000). Although more complex than suggested here, there are numerous
studies available that provide empirical evidence of how schools were able to achieve
a higher level of student performance by allocating available resources.

10
Purpose of the Study
Given the current budget crisis having a significant impact on resources
available to California’s public education system, school leaders can benefit from
information that will allow them to make better decisions in allocating resources with
a greater focus on student achievement. This study analyzes how six Southern
California high schools allocate their resources and how those compare to the
recommendations outlined in the Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and
Picus (2008). With the resource allocation decisions and recommendations of the
EBM, this study also examines evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student
Performance (2009). These are ten strategies that are rooted in empirical evidence and
have shown to have a positive impact on student performance. Although none of the
participating schools have made doubling performance a focus, nor does this study
intend to measure if a school has doubled student performance, the Ten Steps are
research-based strategies that improving schools have used to successfully improve
student performance. Therefore, it is worthwhile to assess whether or not any of these
strategies are in place at the six participating schools.
Additionally, the following research questions will guide the study:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the
recent budget reductions?

11
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?
Importance of the Study
This study is expected to contribute to the growing body of research on how
strategic allocation of resources at the school level can have a positive impact on
student performance. Due to the qualitative nature of this study, determining a direct
link between the two is not a focus; rather it will provide data on how schools
successful in educating its students allocate their resources. Awareness of the schools’
resource use patterns will provide school-level leaders with evidence on how six
California high schools were able to improve the performance level of their students
by making better decisions with their available resources. With this knowledge school
leaders can make similar decisions and cite this study—among others—as evidence.
Considering the mandates of NCLB as well as the outlook of the current economic
landscape and budget reductions increases the need for school leaders to engage in the
practice of maximizing the impact of the current level of resources on student
achievement.
The results of this study can also inform policy-makers in either removing or
adjusting current spending restrictions to allow more freedom for local school leaders
to make the necessary spending decisions in order to improve student outcomes.
Giving schools more freedom (although not total autonomy) with their funds may
prove beneficial for their students. It follows that local school leaders may have better

12
insight as to the needs of their students and with proper guidance from state leaders,
can make appropriate funding decisions to meet those needs.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
To gain a better understanding of the limitations, delimitations and
assumptions of the study a brief overview of the methodology will be presented here
(Chapter 3 will describe in greater detail the methodology that guided this study).
This study incorporates a criterion sampling strategy (Patton, 2002) of six
public high schools. Although the original criteria are listed below, there were less
than twenty schools in the entire state of California that came close to satisfying all
criteria. This issue is later addressed in Chapter 3.
• High schools located in the Los Angeles County or Orange County
• School must have met AYP each of the previous three academic years
(2005-06 through 2007-08)
• School must maintain a similar schools rank of 7 or higher (out of 10)
as of 2008
• At least 75% of the student population must be of ethnic minority
• At least 50% of the student population must qualify for Free and
Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL)
• Approximately 25% of the population must be designated as English
Learners (EL)
The rationale for the specific criteria is that it was the researchers desire to
analyze how high schools allocate their resources to meet the needs of not just any
population, but those of a high-needs population. Additionally, California’s K-12

13
demographics are very much aligned with the criteria of this study in regards to those
qualifying for FRPL and those designated as EL. Regarding ethnicity, all six schools
in this study exceed California’s current population. Table 1.1 compares the
demographics of the participating schools to both California and the EBM’s
prototypical high school of 600 students.
Table 1.1: Demographics Comparisons of Participating High Schools
Characteristic
Study Schools
Criteria
EBM Prototypical
High School
CA
Minority 75.0% 30.0% 72%
FRPL 50.0% 50% 49.7%
EL 25% 10% 24.7%

Through interviews with site principals the researcher expected to learn about
the instructional practices of the school, the manner by which school leaders allocate
resources with respect to staffing and support for struggling students, and how with
the current level of resources, how schools implement (albeit, unknowingly) Odden’s
(2009) Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance. In addition to interviews, an in-
depth analysis of various school documents provided additional insight on staffing and
other data gleaned through the interview process. Ultimately, comparisons to the EBM
are drawn as well as searching for evidence of implementing Odden’s Ten Steps to
Doubling Student Performance (whether or not the school is aware of the Ten Steps is
not a relevant issue).
Given the aforementioned description of the methodology, there are resulting
limitations. First, the study does not attempt to determine causation between resource

14
allocation and student achievement. Rather, it simply provides data on how successful
schools (as defined by this study) allocate their resources to offer insight for other
school leaders looking for evidence of successful resource allocation strategies.
Second, generalizations cannot be made from the findings of the study. Any findings
are exclusive to the participating schools. This is due to several reasons: given the
parameters of the study, randomization was not possible. Schools had to meet very
specific criteria and were purposely sought, and only those principals willing to
participate were included.
In addition to the limitations, there are also five delimitations of the study.
First, due to geographic convenience and travel constraints of the researcher, only
schools in Los Angeles and Orange counties were considered. Second, although there
exist four models in practice to determine adequacy, only the EBM developed by
Odden and Picus (2008) was used as a framework. Third, neither the amount of
revenues nor their sources for each participating school were considered as a basis for
analyzing their resource allocation decisions. The resource allocation strategies were
simply compared to the EBM recommendations. Fourth, the researcher desired to
analyze only successful urban schools, so schools not meeting these criteria were
automatically excluded. Finally, only schools that granted permission to the researcher
took part in this study.
Due to practical reasons, certain assumptions have been made on behalf of the
researcher. First, all responses given by school personnel either in print or verbally
were assumed to be true and correct. Second, it is assumed that the instruments used to
gather data are accurate and reliable. This stems from the fact that a previous research

15
group led by Lawrence Picus at the University of Southern California has utilized the
instruments successfully.
Definitions
1. Academic Performance Index (API) – California’s accountability scoring system
used to determine success of schools. It is based on a scale of 200 to 1000 points,
with 800 being the target for all schools.
2. Adequacy – proving the necessary resources to educate all students to high
standards.
3. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) – NCLB mandates that each school receiving
federal funding demonstrate adequate growth each year based on various factors
(i.e., API, graduation rates, passing rates on the CAHSEE, and scores on tests such
as the SAT and ACT).
4. Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) – student (school-wide and subgroups)
performance targets set by the state for individual schools aimed at satisfying
NCLB mandates associated with AYP. At the high school level these include
proficiency rates on the CSTs, passing and proficiency rates on the CAHSEE, and
graduation requirements.
5. Average Daily Attendance (ADA) – a district’s average student attendance is a
major contributing factor in determining how much funding the state will provide.
6. California English Language Development Test (CELDT) – a state test required
for K-12 students whose primary language is not English. There are five levels
ranging from Beginning to Advanced.

16
7. California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) – a graduation requirement for all
students in California expecting to receive a diploma. The test is comprised of two
parts: mathematics and ELA. Students are required to pass both sections and are
given multiple opportunities to do so beginning in the tenth grade.
8. California Standards Tests (CSTs) – part of the STAR program, these tests are
administered annually beginning in the third grade through eleventh grade and
address mastery of the state’s content standards in the core academic areas.
9. Class Size Reduction (CSR) – movement in education to reduce the student-to-
teacher ratio in an attempt to increase student achievement. The EBM calls for a
25:1 ration for secondary core content areas.
10. Core Content – refers to the content areas of mathematics, ELA/reading, science,
the social sciences, and foreign languages.
11. English Learners (EL) – students who are not yet proficient in the English
language and require additional services to make them successful in school.
12. Equity – equal disbursement of funds per pupil
13. Evidence-Based Model (EBM) – adequacy model developed by Odden and Picus
(2008) that addresses staffing and other resources necessary to make all students
successful.
14. Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL) – program providing free school meals to
eligible students from economically disadvantaged households (as an example, a
household of four with an annual income of less than $27,500 qualifies for free
school meals). The percentage of students at a single school qualifying for this

17
program is a widely accepted indicator for determining the socio-economic status
of a school’s dempgraphics.
15. Full Time Equivalent (FTE) – one full time school employee.
16. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) – commonly referred to as
the nation’s report card, it is periodically administered to schools across the
country in an attempt to measure what American students have learned in the core
content areas. Since the tests are the same nationwide, it provides a fair
comparison of student achievement.
17. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) – enacted in 2001 by the federal
government, this act raised levels of accountability by requiring all students to
demonstrate proficiency in ELA and mathematics. Schools failing to satisfy AYP
targets for consecutive years are faced with consequences imposed by either the
state or the federal government.
18. Non-core Content – refers to those classes outside of the core content areas such as
vocational education, art, music, and other special electives.
19. Professional Development (PD) – authentic opportunities for educators to become
more effective in their trade. It can range from collaboration with colleagues to
formal coursework or conference attendance.
20. Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) – characterized by five aspects: a
focus on learning, a collaborative culture with a focus on learning for all,
collective inquiry into bet practice and current reality, action orientation (learning
by doing), a commitment to continuous improvement, and results orientation. The

18
term is use loosely in K-12 education, but a true PLC has strong evidence of each
of the five elements.
21. Program Improvement (PI) – when a school fails to meet AYP for three
consecutive years, it is designated a PI-1 school and if it continues can possibly
reach PI-5 status (seven consecutive years without meeting AYP).
22. Revenue Limits – student revenue limits established by the state Legislature in an
attempt to equalize per pupil funding. The state provides the necessary amount to
assure districts are meeting this limit; districts exceeding the limit through local
sources are allowed to keep their excess funding.
23. Serrano v. Priest (referred to simply as Serrano) – California court case that
challenged the inequities of per pupil spending across the state. Settled in 1976 the
ruling established equalization of per pupil spending within $100, referred to as the
Serrano band.
24. Similar Schools Rank (SSR) – California uses this as a measure for comparing a
school to 100 other schools composed of similar students and challenges. A scale
of 1 to 10 is used; a higher ranking indicates that the school is demonstrating better
results than other comparable schools.
25. Socio-Economic Status (SES) – refers to one’s standing in terms of income,
education level of parents, parent occupation, and social status in the community.
Low SES students tend to pose greater challenges for schools in terms of meeting
their educational needs. Conversely, high SES students pose less of a challenge for
schools.

19
26. Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program – California’s standardized
testing system for its K-12 public schools that includes the CSTs, the CAHSEE,
and the CELDT, among other assessments.

20
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
Addressing in greater detail topics mentioned in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 reviews
the literature relevant to this study in four main sections. Doing so will provide a
foundation for making appropriate determinations regarding resource allocation and
student achievement based on data collected while conducting school site visits.
The first section provides an overview of school funding in California. This
includes a chronological review of relevant court rulings, voter-approved measures,
and legislative decisions that have impacted how California funds its schools. This
section also provides a current view of how schools are funded and where those funds
originate.
The second section addresses the issue of adequacy in schools. Included will
be three main topics: the national shift in education from equity to adequacy, the issue
of whether or not more funding can have a positive affect on student achievement (in
other words, does money matter?), and determining adequacy. As mentioned in the
previous chapter, there are four methods available for determining adequacy—and all
four will be addressed. Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-Based Model (EBM) will
remain the focus of this section, as it will serve as the standard measure for staffing
resources throughout the study.
In the third section the focus shifts to the use of resources. This will provide
and overview of resources, as well as those at the school level.
The final section will address the reallocation of resources as a means to
improve student achievement. This section examines the following issues: large-scale

21
change process at the school level, resource reallocation at the school level, improving
performance (with a focus on Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance),
and professional development (PD). Realizing that a school needs to undergo a large-
scale change process leads to the school ultimately needing to reallocate their
resources to meet the resulting demands. By reallocating their resources, schools can
increase their effectiveness in improving their students’ performance level. Focusing
on appropriate PD for teachers is a very effective method for achieving higher levels
of student learning (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Odden & Picus, 2008).
The chapter concludes with a summary of all the topics addressed. In addition
to a summary, the conclusion will also address the relevancy of these topics to the
study.
School Funding in California
To explain in detail the entire school finance system in California is in itself an
entire study and would be unnecessary for the purpose of this particular study. Instead,
an overview will be provided to give insight to the current status of California’s school
funding. This approach would be more appropriate in providing the necessary
knowledge base to better understand resource allocation decisions made at the school
level. In essence, a chronological overview of relevant events will be provided, as well
as a view of the current landscape of California’s school finance.
Chronology of School Finance in California
California’s complex history of school finance is one comprised of litigation
and voter-approved measures. There was a time when local control far exceeded state
control in both funding and policy decision-making. Ultimately, there would be an

22
eventual shift of that control from the former to the latter. It is proposed that this shift
began in 1972 with Senate Bill (SB) 90. SB-90 basically set a limit on the amount of
per pupil tax-based revenue a district can receive. This bill was passed while the courts
were hearing the Serrano v. Priest case filed in 1968.
Serrano v. Priest charged that funding levels for pupils in the state were
unequal and therefore unconstitutional. It proposed that due to the great disparities in
local tax-revenues per-pupil revenues in more affluent districts were far greater than
those in economically disadvantaged districts. The ruling in 1976 mandated that
funding levels for all students be equalized within a range of $100, referred to as the
Serrano band.
A year later in response to Serrano Assembly Bill (AB) 65 was passed. AB-65
attempted to equalize revenue limits per district over time by making appropriate
inflationary adjustments based on a sliding scale.
During this time in California property values were growing at dramatic rates
causing property taxes to increase as well. This posed a problem for those, such as the
elderly, on fixed incomes because they continued to pay increasing amounts of
property taxes every year as their home values increased. This spurred the so-called
tax revolt, which led to voters passing Proposition (Prop.) 13 in 1978. As a result,
property assessed values could grow by no more than 2 percent a years until a property
was sold in which case it was reassessed at its current value, generally the price paid
for that property. Additionally, a tax rate limit of 1% was set. Prior to 1978 local
property taxes constituted as much as two-thirds of school funding (EdSource, 2009b);
however, by placing a limit on property taxes Proposition 13 had a significant negative

23
impact on money available to school revenues. The two-thirds of school revenues that
came from property taxes was reduced to only one-third, forcing state legislators to
make up the difference through state funds. This shortfall was bridged with funds from
AB-8, passed shortly after Prop. 13. In essence, the state had taken over the primary
role of funding public schools. The effects of Serrano and Prop. 13 resulted in
California dropping from the top in the nation to the bottom in terms of school funding
(Lindseth, 2006).
The Gann Limit was established in 1979 and set spending limits on
government agencies, including schools. This amount would be adjusted annually for
inflation and was later raised in 1990 when voters approved Prop. 111.
With SB-813 in 1983 California established a longer school day/year, content
standards, higher teacher salaries, additional categorical programs and more rigorous
graduation requirements all in an attempt to improve schools. Along with these new
components came additional funding as well.
California saw the implementation of its lottery system in 1984 that provided
additional money to schools. The Lottery Initiative guaranteed at least 34% of lottery
receipts to be given to all public educational institutions (including colleges and
universities) as supplemental revenue. Less than 2% of district revenues come from
lottery proceeds.
Proposition 98, passed in 1988, established a minimum funding level for
public schools. Under this amendment to California’s Constitution K-14 schools are to
receive at least the same amount of funding received the previous year adjusted for
enrollment changes and per capita personal income. Although one of three formulas

24
determine exactly how much money schools would receive in any academic year,
Proposition 98 funding constitutes roughly 70% of total K-12 funding (Legislative
Analyst’s Office, 2009).
In 1996 SB-1777 offered incentives to schools to reduce K-3 class sizes to 20
students per teacher as part of the Class Size Reduction (CSR) Program. As much as
$800 was offered per student enrolled in 20:1 classes as well as a one-time allocation
of $25,000 per additional classroom necessary to accommodate the new class sizes.
Two years later in 1998 similar CSR incentives were offered to high schools creating a
20:1 ratio in two 9
th
grade level classes. One class must be ELA and the other can be
in mathematics, social studies, or science.
Proposition 20 was approved in 2000 requiring half of lottery-based revenue be
spent only on instructional materials. That same year Proposition 39 established a
55%-vote requirement for approving General Obligation Bonds.
Also in 2000, Williams v. California challenged that the state was failing to
provide the basic educational necessities for all students. Settled in 2004, Williams
provided additional funds for necessary instructional materials, safe and decent school
facilities, and qualified teachers.
California has experienced significant changes to its school finance system
over the years. Provided here was a brief overview of some of the significant events
that helped shape its current landscape.
Current Structure of California’s Finance System
Resulting from the events outlined above, California’s school funding model
has evolved into a very complex system. As previously mentioned, it is unnecessary to

25
outline every detail of this system, rather, this section provides enough of an overview
to give the appropriate context of some of the issues school leaders must deal with
when deciding the manner by which they would allocate their resources. This includes
funding sources and the distribution of those funds to local districts. Graph 2.1
provides an overview of these components based on the state’s 2008-09 K-12 school
budget (EdSource, 2009a).
Graph 2.1: California School Funding Sources

Source: EdSource (2009a)

There are five main sources of school funding that range in their contributions:
• Federal government – approximately 12%
• Local property taxes – just under 21%
• California State lottery – less than 2%
• Various local sources – about 6%
• State funds – about 59%

26
Schools do not have total autonomy to spend their funds in any manner they
deem necessary; instead, these funds are allocated into many different operating
budgets with their own restrictions. About one-third of the funding is allocated into
special categorical budget, and the other two-thirds is allocated for general purposes.
Categorical funds are those that can be spent only on specific purposes or student
populations as designated by the state. Such categories include expenditures for EL
students, textbook purchases, operating expenses, special education services, meals for
economically disadvantaged students, class-size reduction (CSR) incentives, and other
specific purposes. Each district receives a proportional amount according to level of
these needs. The significance of categorical funds is that district leaders cannot use the
funds for other purposes and their use is limited to just those categories (Duncombe &
Yinger, 2007). For example, if a school has been efficient in its allocation of special
education funds and was able to meet the needs of its students without using up all the
funding, that remaining money cannot be spent on other areas such as additional
support for non-special education students. This scenario has led school leaders to
seemingly spend unnecessarily.
The amount each district receives depends on the number students attending
school throughout the year, or the average daily attendance (ADA). The extent to
which districts qualify for certain categorical funds also determines the amount of
funding to be received. Although less than 8% of district revenue comes from the
lottery and miscellaneous local sources, they are considered discretionary funds.
Discretionary funds are those that can be spent as schools and districts deem
appropriate.

27
Resulting from Serrano and Prop. 13 the state Legislature established revenue
limits for each district that are adjusted annually for inflation and other contributing
factors. Only the Legislature—not the voters, local districts, school boards, or
superintendents—can change these limits. The purpose of revenue limits is to equalize
per pupil funding across the state. For those districts not reaching the limit through
local revenues, the state provides the funds necessary to make up the difference. In
this regard, some districts get more than others if their local taxes are low. Currently,
about 60 districts throughout California exceed their limits through local taxes and are
allowed to keep their excess funds. Additionally, the state still provides them with per
pupil funding, in essence adding to the disparity of school revenues.
In the midst of the nation’s current economic recession and considering that
education represents the state’s single largest expenditure, California has chosen to
make further cuts to education. In 2007-08 Prop. 98 funding called for $50.3 billion;
that figure increased slightly to $51.6 billion by September 2008. Due to mid-year
reductions in the state’s budget, February 2009 saw that figure drop to $44.7 billion
and finally settled to $43.1 billion on the final budget passed for 2009. The budget for
2009-10 that was passed in July 2009 allocates $44.6 billion to education. However, as
of the early part of 2010, the state continued to make cuts to its K-12 education
budget. The governor’s current budget proposal for next year calls for an additional
$250 per student funding reduction, essentially moving the state last in the country in
regards to per pupil expenditures.
Above is a brief overview of California’s current school finance system. In
reality it is much more complex and has many more categorical funds than mentioned

28
here. However, having this general knowledge base provides context for
understanding some of the challenges school leaders face when trying to make
allocation decisions to meet the needs of their students.
Now that school financing in California has been addressed, the next
appropriate issue to examine is assessing what an adequate level of funds might be for
schools to educate their students to high standards. The next section will address the
issue of educational adequacy.
Educational Adequacy
Since the 1990s, American schools have experienced a shift in trend from
equity to adequacy; meaning the argument is no longer trying to determine if each
student is receiving the same amount of funding, rather, do schools have adequate
resources to teach students to high standards (Odden, 2003)? To determine if schools
have met adequacy standards, four models are available in practice: professional
judgment, successful schools/districts, cost-function analysis, and the Evidence-Based
Model (EBM). This section will provide an overview of the shift in trend from equity
to adequacy. Then each of the four models mentioned will be described in greater
detail addressing the strengths and weaknesses of each. It should be noted that the
EBM provides the framework to determine adequacy by this study.
From Equity to Adequacy
The shift in the national trend from equity to adequacy began sometime in the
1990s (Odden, 2003) and is rooted in litigation challenging disparities in per pupil
spending. There were two main reasons for this shift. First, the argument of whether or
not money really made a difference in student achievement was growing. Second, as

29
states began to implement standards-based education reform, there was a greater focus
on student outcomes and increased accountability (Odden, 2003).
At that time there were twenty-five states across the country that began hearing
lawsuits challenging inequities in student spending. The vast majority of those cases
(approximately three-fourths) were ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, indicating that there
were indeed inequalities in America’s student spending. Resulting from these cases
were more equitable funding systems (Ladd, Chalk, & Hansen, 1999).
During the 1990s as content standards became more popular the achievement
gap between minorities and white students was widening. This drew attention as to
how this could’ve happened despite seemingly equal spending levels across all
students. When the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was implemented in 2001 it
simply magnified this disparity in achievement (Hanushek, 2006). The question of
whether or not money mattered in improving student achievement became politically
charged as state politicians began making funding decisions for their public schools.
Would allocating additional funding to schools even make a difference, or are schools
simply inefficient in their allocation of available resources?
Does Money Matter?
Although there are many studies proposing that money does make a difference
in improving student achievement (to be addressed later in this section), Hanushek
(2006) and others offer an opposing view. Since the 1960s America has tripled its per
pupil spending without realizing significant gains in student achievement. In fact,
America remains one of the highest spending countries with respect to education but
its students continue to fall further behind other nations that spend significantly less

30
(Walberg, 2006). How then can one make the argument that schools need more money
to improve achievement?
Evers and Clopton (2006) present case studies of five school districts whose
per pupil spending in 2002-03 well exceeded the national average but still managed to
be among the lowest performing districts in the nation. They propose, along with
Hanushek (2006), that studies linking spending to student outcomes are inconsistent
and therefore cannot produce viable results. Contributing to this argument is
Walberg’s (2006) analysis of high-poverty schools and districts where per pupil
expenditures fell well below the national average but whose students performed well
above the national average on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP). Further evidence can be found in a profile of 366 American schools having
levels of poverty over 50% but still managed to fall under the category of high
performing schools (Education Trust, 1999). Carter’s (2000) analysis of 21 similar
schools had similar findings as well.
Both studies found common characteristics of these schools; such as: use of
state standards to effectively teach and assess students, increased instructional time in
reading and mathematics for low-performing students, generous allotment of funds to
PD, and an accountability system in place. These are all achievements attained with
less funding than most other American schools.
There are a number of reasons why this may be the case. Although arguments
against the true impact of money on student outcomes are many, there are studies
implying that money indeed matters. Thus, sparking the argument of adequacy in
American schools (Odden, 2003). Furthermore, one explanation for the low

31
performance of some high spending schools is that they failed to appropriately allocate
their resources to address the needs of their students (Odden, Monk, Nakib, & Picus,
2005)—an issue referred to as educational productivity (Picus, 2000). Odden and
Archibald (2003) and Picus (2000) would argue that the low-funded high performing
schools have been more effective in allocating their resources to meet the academic
needs of their students than the well-funded poor performing schools.
Baker (2005) found consistencies in many adequacy studies regarding the
achievement levels of low SES students as well as those categorized as EL. He found
that there does exist additional costs in meeting the educational needs of traditionally
low-performing students and that providing funding levels to match those costs can
have positive affects on student outcomes. Odden, Monk, Nakib, and Picus (2005)
address the issue of resource allocation and contend that spending wisely can also
have a positive impact on student outcomes.
Despite Hanushek’s (2006) and others’ arguments against the impact (or lack
of impact) more money can have on student performance, or the argument for more
funding in schools, efficiency of those funds and accompanying resources is the key to
improving student performance.
Determining Adequacy
Before states can determine if schools have adequate funding, they must first
identify what constitutes adequacy given the different needs of different students
(Odden, 2003). Once this has been determined, the next step would be for districts and
schools to successfully manage those resources to assure that students are meeting the
state standards. In determining if schools have enough resources to do so, four models

32
are available. This section will provide an overview of each. The final model
addressed, the EBM developed by Odden and Picus (2008) will serve as the standard
for this study in determining if participating schools are appropriately allocating their
resources to meet the educational needs of their students, particularly in regards to
staffing issues. Table 2.1 offers an overview comparison of the four models
highlighting each one’s strengths and weaknesses.
Table 2.1: Comparisons of Adequacy Models
Model Strengths Weaknesses
Professional judgment
• Draws an expertise of
practitioners
• No clear connection
between identified
ingredients and student
outcomes
Successful districts
• Provides a link between
costs and desired
outcomes
• Relatively inexpensive
and timely
• Excludes large urban
and small rural districts
• No statistical control
for varied student
characteristics
• Not all districts keep
the necessary data to
conduct this study
Cost-function analysis
• Statistically controls for
external obstacles
• Precise identification of
successful districts
• Requires copious data
that may not be
available in all districts
• Strategies for desired
outcomes are not
identified
Evidence-Based Model
• Strategies identified are
based on empirical
evidence
• Some strategies
recommended may not
have been tested in
new environments
Source: Rebell (2007); Odden (2003)

33
Professional Judgment
Initially established as the Resource Cost Model (RCM) by Chambers and
Parrish, this has become the most widely used costing-out approach (Rebell, 2007).
This approach entails asking “a group of educational experts to identify effective
educational strategies” (Odden, 2003, p.122) for all students. Then they determine the
exact components needed to fulfill those needs, as well as what each of those
components would cost. After summing up these costs a determination can be made
on how much is required for each student.
An advantage of the professional judgment approach is that it draws on the
expertise “of highly qualified practitioners who are experienced in both program
implementation and resource allocation and are familiar with the learning needs of the
particular state or locale” (Rebell, 2007, p.1313). Odden (2003) offers a disadvantage:
there is no clear connection between the ingredients identified by the expert panel and
student outcomes.
Successful School Districts
A second approach to determining adequacy is the successful districts
approach. This approach entails looking to districts that have been successful in
having their students meet proficiency standards (Odden, 2003). An advantage of this
approach is that it provides a link between costs and desired outcomes (Rebell, 2007).
Furthermore, they are relatively inexpensive to conduct and can be completed in
timely fashion.
Rebell (2007) further addresses several disadvantages of this methodology.
First, it fails to include large urban or small rural districts and usually looks to districts

34
that are largely homogeneous making it much too difficult for large districts such as
Los Angeles or New York to draw relevant conclusions due to the disparity in district
demographics. Second, there exists a failure to control for varied student
characteristics. Third, it relies heavily on districts having maintained accurate data,
which isn’t always the case. Finally, these studies make it difficult to appropriately
calculate any additional resources needed for high needs students.
Cost-Function Analysis
Cost-function approaches used to determine adequacy incorporate regression
analysis and other precise statistical analyses to determine the cost of an adequate
education (Rebell, 2007). The precise calculated cost depends on the desired outcomes
of the school or district. The advantage of this methodology is that it can precisely
identify those districts that are successful despite external obstacles due to the
statistical controlling of those obstacles.
The disadvantages, however, outweigh the advantages. First, like the
successful districts approach, copious amounts of data are required and its success is
highly determined by the accuracy of that data. Second, it does not identify the
necessary strategies to produce desired outcomes.
Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
Odden and Picus (2008) developed the Evidence-Based Model as a means to
determine how schools should allocate their resources to meet the needs of their
students, and providing a framework for determining the appropriate expenditure level
of those resources. The influences of the EBM are currently found in Wyoming, New
Jersey, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Arkansas, and other states.

35
The EBM addresses major components of school resources and offers
suggestions based on empirical evidence. Furthermore, recommendations for high
schools are based on a prototypical school size of 600 students. Therefore, any school
exceeding or falling short of this number simply has to make the appropriate
proportional adjustments to satisfy the EBM requirements. Those components are:
• Core content teachers (25:1 ratio at the high school level)
• Specialist teachers (33% of teaching staff)
• Extended support (summer school, extended day, EL, tutors)
• Specialized education (special education, GATE, career and vocational
education)
• Professional development (teacher training, instructional coaches)
• Additional support (teacher compensation, pupil support services,
instructional materials, technology)
The major advantage of this approach is that it uses research-based strategies
to guide its recommendations (Odden, 2003). The suggestions provided by the EBM
have been proven to yield desired results and is effective in its use of school funds.
However, that same advantage may also be a weakness to the extent that not all
results of empirical evidence can be generalized to other populations (Rebell, 2007).
There exists the possibility that recommendations made according to the EBM have
not been tested in the new environment. For example, a particularly successful reading
intervention program implemented in a school with a specific population may not
yield similar positive results with a different student population in a different state.

36
Resource Use
This section will address the issue of how educational resources are used and
allocated at the school level. The first part will provide a general overview of resource
use patterns. The second part will then address specifics regarding school-level
resources. There are two main reasons why the focus of this section will remain at the
school level. First, this study will analyze 6-10 schools across different districts. The
intent is to gain insight on how specific successful schools—despite district provisions
or policies—are allocating their resources to address the needs of their students.
Second, the majority of a school district’s budget is spent on school level resources
(Odden & Picus, 2008), so any recommendations made as a result of this study should
remain at that same level.
Overview of Resource Use
Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) state that per pupil spending has increased at a
rate of 3½ percent over the hundred-year period from 1890 through 1990, but that
most of that spending has been virtually undocumented. Regardless, when analyzing
the data that are available, especially in recent years, there appears to be a general
trend. Although each school has some degree of freedom to use its funds as it deems
necessary to meet the needs of its students, it is worthwhile to look at spending and
resource allocation patterns to gain an idea of what each school values as having an
impact on student performance. Given that schools share similar functions with similar
inputs and outputs, it should follow that the production process will also appear
similar in many ways. With this in mind, schools need to “act more like producers of
high levels of student achievement than like consumers of educational resources”

37
(Odden, Monk, Nakib, & Picus, 1995). This is an indication that efficiency in the use
of school resources needs to be addressed (Picus, 2000).
The consumption of those educational resources falls into several categories, or
functions. Although there are several ways by which a school’s resources can be
categorized or identified, Odden and Picus (2008) have identified them by function as
follows:
• Instruction – all resources that are directly linked to providing
instruction to students. This includes benefits and salaries for teachers
and instructional aides, instructional coaches, books, purchased
services, tuition, and other instructional supplies.
• Instructional support – expenses related to curriculum development,
training for staff, libraries, media centers, and the benefits and salaries
related to those providing these services.
• Administration – includes district and site levels, benefits and salaries
for principals, assistant principals, and other administrators.
• Student support – “includes salary, benefits, purchased services, and
supplies dedicated to guidance, health, attendance, speech pathology
services, social workers, family outreach, and other functions that
support the instructional program or are focused on the well-being of
children” (p. 4).
• Operations and maintenance – “includes the salaries, benefits,
purchased services, and supplies for custodians, carpenters, plumbers,
electricians, groundskeepers and other support personnel as well as for

38
utilities, and other expenditures dedicated to operating, maintaining,
heating, cooling, and cleaning schools and grounds” (p. 4).
• Transportation – all costs related to transporting students to and from
school.
• Food services – all costs related to feeding students at school.
By the end of the 1990s Odden and Picus (2008) report the following
percentages of total expenditures allocated to each function: just over 60% for
instruction, 5% for instructional support, 5% for student support, 5% for site
administration, 5% for district administration, 10% for operation and maintenance, and
just under 10% for transportation, food, and other services (see Graph 2.2). Analysis
of these expenditures reveals that these percentages stayed relatively consistent over
time; considering Hanushek and Rivkin’s (1997) findings about the consistent
increases in per pupil expenditures dating back to 1880, it raises the issue of where the
new money was spent.

39
Graph 2.2: National School District Expenditure Averages

Source: Odden & Picus (2008)

Odden and Picus (2008) have identified that much of this spending actually
occurred within the instructional function. However, very little went into the core
content areas of mathematics, science, reading/ELA, the social sciences, and foreign
languages; much was spent outside the core content areas. Within this function, much
money went to increase teacher salaries, hire non-core teachers (vocational education,
art, music, and other electives) to the extent that as of 2006 they constituted
approximately 50% of all secondary teaching staff, and class size reduction (CSR)
initiatives. Expenditures also increased to provide services for special needs students
such as those identified as special education, GATE participants, and ELs.
Given that increased expenditures throughout education have resulted in
lackluster increases in student achievement, there exists a movement to increase the

40
percentage of instructional expenditures from 60% to 65%, known as the “65 percent
solution.” The idea behind this movement is to invest more into the core content areas
previously defined and to increase the efficiency of those resources (Picus, 2000).
A framework provide by Odden and Picus (2008) calls for the following
recommendations for a school’s budget:
• 30%-40% allocated to regular classroom teachers (including PD) and a
principal
• 30%-40% allocated to specialist subjects such as art, music and
vocational education, providing extra support for struggling students,
pupil personnel services (counseling), and other instructional services
• 20%-30% allocated to cover other expenses (maintenance, food
services, transportation, etc.)
Although only guidelines, specific recommendations for any school will
depend greatly on the needs of its population, not only for students but for staff and
teachers as well. However, Odden and Picus’ (2008) framework offers a viable
reference for school leaders.
School Level Resources
Although there has been a lack of a systematic data collection process to
address the use and efficiency of school level resources (Busch & Odden, 1997), some
states have been doing just that in recent years, including California. This is an
important process if one is to determine the efficiency of a school’s resources and how
they relate to student achievement. Unfortunately, too many schools have—for too
long—engaged in resource use and allocation practices that have been unproductive

41
(Odden, Monk, Nakib, & Picus, 1995). This section will address the use and allocation
of school-level defined resources.
Odden and Picus (2008) identify the following as necessary units of analysis
for any level of schooling (i.e., elementary, middle, or high school):
• Staffing and expenditures by…
o “…program—the regular instruction program; programs for
special-need students such as compensatory, bilingual, and special
education; administration; staff development; and instructional
materials” (p. 13)
o …educational strategy—CSR, PD, and support for struggling
students
o …content area
o “…interrelationships among these staffing and expenditure
patterns” (p.13)
o “…relationships of these staffing and expenditure patterns to
student performance” (p.13)
Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross (2003) offer a framework for
collecting and analyzing data on school-level expenditures broken into 9 categories.
The first six are instructional elements and the final three are non-instructional
elements. They are:
1. Core academic teachers – those who teach in the areas of mathematics,
ELA/reading, science, the social sciences, and foreign language

42
2. Specialist and elective teachers – those who teach non-core content
such as vocational education, physical education, art, music, drama, or
who provide planning time for core teachers
3. Extra help – licensed teachers who provide additional support to
struggling students
4. Professional development – expenditures related to providing teachers
with PD such as stipends, conference fees, transportation, and
coaches/training
5. Other non-instructional staff – aides, coordinators, teachers on special
assignment, and substitutes
6. Instructional materials and equipment – books, materials, and other
equipment necessary for providing instruction to students
7. Student support – counselors, social workers, nurses, and other support
staff
8. Administration – expenditures related to the administration of the
school including the principal, assistant principals, clerical staff, and
office supplies
9. Operations and maintenance – grounds keeping, custodial staff and
supplies, food services, transportation, security, and utilities
In addition to these categories, Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, and Gross
(2003) also provide indicators of non-dollar measures of resource use patterns. Some
of those indicators for secondary schools are:
• PD expenditures per teacher

43
• Special academic focus
• Length of class periods and the instructional day
• Length of core class periods
• Core class size
• Non-core class size
• Percent core teachers
By analyzing a school’s resource use patterns as outlined above, its efficiency
can be gauged. Thereby making it possible to determine how those resources are
impacting student performance. For the purpose of this study, the information
presented within this section will provide a framework of specific resources that can
have a positive affect on student performance if allocated effectively.
Resource Reallocation for Improving Student Performance
Recognizing that current practices are not yielding desired results is often the
catalyst in undergoing a large-scale educational reform process at the school level
(Odden & Archibald, 2001); a process that would require the reallocation of resources.
This section addresses that very issue in four parts.
First, the various stages of the change process will be addressed. There are
three stages: laying the foundation for change, creating a new and more effective
educational strategy, and implementing, monitoring and continuously improving.
Second, resource reallocation will be explored with a focus on improving
student performance. The Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus
(2008) will guide the recommendations in this section. There are four main
components that will be addressed for high school level: core content teachers,

44
specialist teachers, extended support for students, specialized education, professional
development, and additional support.
The third part of this section will address research-based strategies for
improving school-wide performance. Although the focus of this study is not
necessarily to double student performance, Odden’s (2009) Ten Steps to Doubling
Student Performance will guide its recommendations. The Ten Steps are:
1. Understand performance problem
2. Set and maintain higher goals
3. Adopt new curriculum
4. Data-based decision making and assessments
5. Professional development for teachers
6. Use time more efficiently
7. Support for struggling students
8. Create professional learning communities (PLCs)
9. Finding the right people/empowering leaders
10. Use of external expertise
Each of these steps will be explained in greater detail with other suggestions
addressed as well.
The final section will focus on professional development (PD) for teachers.
Considering that instructional practices have the most significant impact on student
performance (Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997), it is appropriate to address this
component via PD. First, if implemented effectively, PD can have a great positive
impact on teacher effectiveness in the classroom, which translates directly into

45
improved student performance. However, if not addressed in the proper manner
(which is much too often the case in public schools) PD is a great source of school
inefficiency and exemplifies what some might refer to as a waste of funds.
The Change Process
Understanding how resources are allocated at the school level and the resulting
outcomes, it is sometimes necessary to make some adjustments to increase the
efficiency of those resources (Picus, 2000). Although many schools have engaged in
some type of change process, too often this has been represented by auxiliary
programs or changes that have had little affect on student achievement (Odden &
Archibald, 2001). This section will address the necessary steps involved in a true
educational reform process that can yield desired results.
Odden and Archibald (2001) have identified three steps in the educational
change process. Table 2.2 outlines each stage and provides a summary of key points
for each. The three stages are:
• Laying the foundation for change to transpire
• Creating a new and more effective educational strategy
• Implementing, monitoring, and continuously improving
Table 2.2: Three Stages of Large-Scale Educational Change Process
Stages Key Points
Lay the foundation for change
• Intensive self-study
• Identify areas of strength and
improvement
• Data-analysis and needs assessment
• Involve all staff members in this
process

46
Table 2.2: Continued
Create a new educational strategy
• Choose the appropriate curriculum
• Create a plan for supporting both
special needs and struggling students
• Restructure the school to meet new
demands (staffing and scheduling)
• Professional development plan for
teachers
Implement, monitor, and improve
continuously
• Implement the new educational
strategy
• Monitor all aspects of new plan
• Analyze student data
• Continuously improve to meet the
needs of the school and students
Source: Odden and Archibald (2001)

Schools usually won’t engage in any type of extensive reform process unless
there’s real motivation behind the movement (Odden & Archibald, 2001). The most
common indicator that reform is necessary is a school’s failure to meet the needs of its
students, which itself can have many reasons. In other words, outcomes are not
satisfactory—something needs to change if student performance is to improve. This
realization can set off quite an extensive process that can have a great impact on
student outcomes in a positive way. Odden and Archibald’s (2001) framework for
large-scale change will guide this section.
The first step in large-scale educational reform is laying the foundation for
change. If done effectively, many future issues or concerns can be avoided. Odden and
Archibald (2001) give several examples of how different schools underwent a year-
long self-study process whereby all aspects of each school’s instructional practices and
resources were analyzed. In this first stage it is important to involve all members if
they are expected to accept the new changes to be implemented later in the third stage.

47
Through this first stage the areas of strength and concern are identified. This
allows for the school to build on its strengths and improve all other areas. Part of this
process involves a data-analysis component. Through analyzing student data each
school can learn the strengths of its student population and their areas of growth.
Having a data-driven decision-making component is essential for any successful
school (Johnson, 2002). It also lays the foundation for allowing a more successful data
decision-making process in the third stage of the change process. This will allow
school leaders to choose the most appropriate curriculum in the following stage of the
change process, creating a new educational strategy.
This second stage is characterized by three main components: choosing the
curriculum, creating a plan for special needs and struggling students, and restructuring
the school to meet the new demands resulting from the change process.
In choosing the curriculum in this age of NCLB requirements, all 50 states
have adopted a standards-based education; however, there still exists some freedom at
the school level to choose how they will meet those standards. By identifying student
strengths and areas of improvement, the school can be more effective in choosing the
curriculum (mainly in the core content areas) that will do just that. As an example, if a
school finds that its students are lacking in effective reading skills, the school would
be wise to invest in an effective reading intervention program to meet those needs. The
same would be true of any other content area. The key here is to identify the needs and
choose the appropriate program to meet those needs.
Once the curriculum has been chosen, it will be necessary to create a plan that
will offer additional assistance to those students who traditionally struggle

48
academically; such as special needs and EL populations. In order for this part of the
plan to be effective, it needs to be comprehensive in that it must truly address the areas
of need, and not just be an auxiliary component.
Part of this process includes careful restructuring of the school to meet the new
demands, including scheduling and professional development for teachers. PD will be
addressed in greater detail at the end of this section. Basically, it should be aligned
with teachers’ areas for growth to become more effective in their profession to address
the needs of the students. Regarding scheduling, it can be done in a way that allows
for teachers to collaborate with each other. This portion will require a reallocation of
the school’s resources, to be discussed in the next section.
The third stage of the change process is actually a three-step process. It
requires the implementation of the new educational strategy, monitoring all aspects of
the new strategy, and continuous improvement of the plan. After the yearlong process
of engaging in a self-study and creating the new educational strategy, the next logical
step is to implement the plan. Since implementation can be an extensive task that may
not be carried out as planned, it is crucial that each aspect is monitored. In doing so, it
can be discovered that some aspects require improvements or adjustments, or that
some are more effective that initially expected. Monitoring will allow a school to
improve those areas that aren’t effective.
The change process can be an arduous, yet rewarding task for staff and
students. Creating student success should be the goal of each school, and if that goal is
not being attained, it becomes necessary to engage in the process outlined above.

49
Resource Reallocation
Recognizing that a school needs to change its instructional practices as
outlined in the previous section, reallocating resources to meet the new demands is the
next crucial step (Odden & Archibald, 2001; Odden & Picus, 2008). As addressed
earlier in this chapter, the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) developed by Odden and
Picus (2008) provides not only an adequacy model, but also a framework for
accomplishing a successful reallocation of resources at the school level. It is this
framework that will inform this crucial step in restructuring a school for improving
student performance.
The EBM addresses all levels of K-12 education, however, because this study
will focus on high schools, only those aspects relating to this level will be addressed. It
should also be considered that the model provides guidance for prototypical high
schools of 600 students. Therefore, any school exceeding this limit would need to
adjust the proportions accordingly. The main components of the EBM are as follows
(summarized in Table 2.3):
• Core content teachers (25:1 ratio at the high school level)
• Specialist teachers (33% of teaching staff)
• Extended support (summer school, extended day, EL, tutors)
• Specialized education (special education, GATE, career and vocational
education)
• Professional development (teacher training, instructional coaches)
• Additional support (teacher compensation, pupil support services,
instructional materials, technology).

50
Table 2.3: EBM Resources for a Prototypical High School of 600 Students
Components Characteristics
Core content teachers
• 24 core content FTEs
• 25:1 student-to-teacher ratio
• Mathematics, science, social studies, foreign
language, and ELA/reading
Specialist teachers
• Comprise 33% of teaching staff
• Vocational education, performing arts, drama, and
other elective courses
Extended support
• 1 EL teacher per 100 EL students
• 1 credentialed tutor per 100 free and reduced lunch
students
• Summer school and extended day
Specialized education • 4 special education FTEs (mild to moderate)
Professional development
• Teacher training
• 3 instructional facilitators, or coaches
• 10 additional days of intensive PD
Additional support
• Pupil support services
• Instructional materials
• Technology
Source: Odden & Picus (2008)

Core content teachers refer to those who teach the core contents of
mathematics, ELA, social studies, science, and foreign language. Citing much research
on the effectiveness of smaller class sizes for students of color and ELs, the EBM
recommends a pupil-to-teacher ratio of 25:1. Although more costly than traditionally
large class sizes of 36-40 students per class, the effects on student achievement can be
extraordinary. With a prototypical high school of 600 students, given the ratio of 25:1
requires 24 core Full Time Equivalent (FTEs) teachers. In addition to core teachers, 8

51
specialist teachers are also required. These FTEs would be responsible for teaching
courses such as vocational education, drama or the performing arts, and other
specialized electives.
The EBM also calls for additional support in the form three instructional
facilitators, or coaches, and one technology coordinator. The coaches would be
responsible offering assistance to teachers in the form of training, co-teaching, lesson
demonstrations, or any type of appropriate PD. In addition to the coaches’ support, the
model includes 10 additional days of intensive PD for teachers to be carried out over
the summer or throughout the year. This will be discussed in greater detail in the final
segment of this section. The technology coordinator’s responsibilities would be to
would maintain all technology components at the school site as well as the network.
Other support includes one credentialed tutor for every 100 students on free
and reduced lunch, one teacher for every 100 EL students, four special education
teachers, and three non-instructional aides. The tutor should be trained in specific
intervention techniques to help struggling students, and not an aide. Aides, even if
trained, are not as effective as a credentialed teacher in improving student performance
(Shanahan, 1998). Instead of instructional aides, the aides referred to in the model are
to provide non-instructional assistance to teachers or staff. The EBM calls for the
special education teachers to be responsible for mild to moderate conditioned students,
and not severe cases due to the fact that the state should be fully funding support for
those students.

52
Also falling under the umbrella of additional support are summer school and
extended day programs. Students who struggle in the classroom often need more time
and support to be successful, therefore, the EBM includes these two components.
Although the cost of resources outlined by the EBM exceeds the funding
available to schools in California, it does provide a framework for schools to refer to
when making allocation decisions. With urban high schools averaging students in the
thousands, it may be a challenge for those school leaders to achieve what is outlined
by the EBM.
Improving Performance
Once resources have been allocated at the school level, the next logical step
would be to implement the strategies that have been proven to be effective in
improving student performance. The framework guiding this section is Odden’s
(2009) Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance; although the intent of this study
isn’t necessarily to double performance, the recommendations offered are appropriate
to follow for any school wishing to improve the performance of their students. Within
the Ten Steps, other relevant strategies will also be addressed.
Odden’s (2009) Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance are summarized
in Table 2.4.

53
Table 2.4: Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance
Step Features
Understand performance
problem
• Recognizing low student performance
• Accepting that change is necessary
• Meeting NCLB accountability mandates and
AYP
Set and maintain higher goals
• Regardless of student population, standards
must be high
• Maintain high standards to help create a culture
of success
• Student motivation
Adopt new curriculum and
improve instructional practices
• Curriculum must be aligned to new high
standards
• Most influential component on student
performance
Using data to drive
instructional decisions
• Use student data to identify needs and drive
decisions
• Use of appropriate assessment strategies in the
classroom to provide appropriate instruction
Ongoing professional
development for teachers
• Training for teachers to become proficient in
analyzing data to drive their instructional
practices
• Increasing effectiveness of teachers
Use time more efficiently
• Make use of every instructional minute
comprising the 180-day school year
• Increase allocation of time to core content areas
Support for struggling students
• Small class sizes
• Tutoring with credentialed teacher
• Rigorous curriculum
• High-quality teachers
Create professional learning
communities (PLCs)
• Role of teachers as instructional leaders
• Collaborative school culture
• Intense focus on student learning
Professional behavior and
promising practices
• Seeking promising practices in all aspects of
schooling
• Professional behavior by teachers and staff
members
• Seeking outside expertise
Human capital
• Finding the right people to carry out the new
demands of improving student performance
• Principal and teacher talent
Source: Odden (2009)

54

Much like Odden and Archibald (2001) have identified that the first step in
large-scale school reform is recognizing the need for change, the first step to improve
student performance is the same. For many schools the main catalyst for implementing
change is the increased accountability, mandates, and pressures of NCLB (Linn,
2005). For others the reasons might be different. Regardless of the reasons, many
schools are realizing that business as usual is no longer appropriate. Therefore, to
meet AYP and/or improve student performance, many schools recognize the need for
change and the sense of urgency that should accompany any large-scale organizational
change (Kotter, 1996). Part of the first step is focusing on the performance needs of
the students, and not on the students themselves. The demographics of a school are out
of the control of the school leaders, therefore, the only control that they do have, is the
performance of the students while present at school. This would require a school to
identify the academic needs of its student population.
The second step in this process is to set and maintain high standards and goals,
regardless of how ambitious they may seem. This is especially true for students who
traditionally under-perform in school. Setting and communicating high academic goals
for students is a major force in their motivation and self-efficacy (Wentzel &
Wigfield, 1998; Ormrod, 2008). This would require the efforts of school leaders and to
a greater degree, teachers. The communication of setting and maintaining high
academic standards must be continuous. Additionally, those standards must also
include clearly defined student expectations if student achievement is to be improved
(Resnick & Hall, 2005).

55
Marzano (2003) states that in addition to setting and maintaining high
standards, teachers must provide timely and effective feedback to students as a means
for students to achieve those standards. Doing so provides students with guidance on
their own performance and allows them to self-regulate their own progress.
The third step in improving student performance is adopting a new curriculum
and improving instructional practices. A viable curriculum is also one of the
components of a successful school as identified by Marzano (2003). When
Community District 2 in New York shifted its focus to improving instruction with a
new curriculum, it produced among the highest test scores in New York (Elmore &
Burney, 1996). Additionally, Newman (1996) found that the most successful schools
were the ones that focused on authentic instruction—the single most influential
component on student performance. This step is especially effective after identifying
the needs or areas for growth of a school’s students. Only after identifying these areas
can a school choose the most appropriate curriculum to meet those needs. In addition
to authentic instruction, direct instruction (DI) has been proven to be effective in
positively impacting student performance (Engelmann & Carnine, 1991). This third
step will also address nine instructional categories that have been proven to improve
student performance ((Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001).
It is appropriate to describe Newman’s (1996) view of authentic instruction.
There are five components of this type of instruction that are identified. They are as
follows:
• Higher-order thinking – requires students to synthesize information, not
simply recall facts. The element of uncertainty and unpredictability that

56
accompanies this facet is due to a student’s own creativity in
constructing his or her own knowledge.
• Depth of knowledge – refers to the extent students can make personal
connections to fully understand new material presented. A more in-
depth degree of knowledge allows students to retain information for a
longer period of time.
• Connectedness to the world beyond the classroom – includes a real
world aspect to instruction whereby students can transcend new
knowledge beyond the classroom on a more relatable personal level.
• Substantive conversation – this feature involves a component of
conversation whereby students (either with each other or with other
participants such as the teacher) engage in an exchange of ideas in an
attempt to gain a shared understanding of a theme or concept.
• Social support for student achievement – involves the inclusion of all
students in the learning process and is more than simple recognition on
the teacher’s behalf. It occurs when teachers convey a high level of
expectations to students and holds each accountable for those
expectations.
Just as authentic instruction has five components, direct instruction (DI) has
five distinct stages. It is important for each step to be implemented as intended in
order for the model to yield the highest possible results.
• Orientation – establish the content and objectives of the lesson, review
previous learning, establish procedures

57
• Presentation – explain/demonstrate new concept/skill, provide a visual
representation of the task (VRT), continuously check for student
understanding
• Structured practice – provide lock step examples, refer to VRT, solicit
responses from students, provide immediate feedback (correct errors or
reinforce correct practice)
• Guided practice – semi-independent practice, monitor and provide
appropriate feedback, refer students to VRT as a resource
• Independent practice – students practice on their own (in class or at
home), feedback is delayed, this can occur several times and/or over
several days
There are nine instructional categories that have been identified to yield
promising results as a means to improve student achievement (Marzano, Pickering, &
Pollock, 2001). Table 2.5 provides an overview along with specific behaviors for each.
• Identifying similarities and differences
• Summarizing and note-taking
• Reinforcing effort and providing recognition
• Homework and practice
• Nonlinguistic representations
• Cooperative learning
• Setting objectives and providing feedback
• Generating and testing hypotheses
• Questions, cues, and advance organizers

58
Table 2.5: Instructional Categories and Specific Behaviors
Instructional Category Specific Behaviors
Identifying similarities and differences
• In-class assignments and homework
involving comparison and
classification, and metaphors and
analogies
Summarizing and note-taking
• Asking students to do the following:
o Generate verbal and written
summaries
o Take effective and useful notes
o Revise their notes, correcting
errors, and adding information
Reinforcing effort and providing
recognition
• Recognize and celebrate learning
progress throughout a unit
• Recognize and reinforce the
significance of effort
• Recognize and celebrate learning at the
end of a unit
Homework and practice
• Provide specific feedback
• Assign homework for the purpose of
reinforcing the skills focused on during
instruction
Nonlinguistic representations
• Asking students to do the following:
o Generate mental images
representing content
o Draw pictures or pictograms
representing content
o Construct graphic organizers
o Make physical models of
content
o Revise their aforementioned
representations of content
Cooperative learning
• Organizing students into groups (either
mixed-ability or same-ability)
Setting objectives and providing
feedback
• Setting specific learning goals and the
beginning of each unit
• Asking students to set their own
learning goals at the beginning of each
unit
• Asking students to monitor their own
progress throughout a unit
• Proving summative feedback at the end
of a unit

59
Table 2.5: Continued
Generating and testing hypotheses
• Engaging students in generating and
testing hypotheses through the
following ways:
o Problem-solving tasks
o Decision-making tasks
o Investigation tasks
o Experimental inquiry tasks
o Systems analysis tasks
o Inventions tasks
Questions, cues, and advance organizers
• Activate prior knowledge before
presenting new content
• Provide ways for students to organize
new learning
Source: Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock (2001, pp. 82-83)

With a new curriculum in place, the next step in this large-scale process is
using data to drive decisions and to use assessments effectively to inform those
decisions. Johnson (2002) emphasizes the importance of using relevant data as the
basis for making the appropriate decisions to improve student achievement.
Additionally, SAS (2008) states that allowing data to drive decisions is the key to
overcoming many of the challenges faced by schools in educating students to high
standards. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006) claim that teachers at successful
schools use assessments and data more frequently, and analyze that data
collaboratively to act upon it in an effort to improve student learning. Teachers share
in this responsibility by appropriately assessing their students for the purpose of
improving their performance, not simply knowing what they haven’t learned. This
increases the importance of not only summative assessments, but to a greater degree
the proper use of formative assessments in the classroom (Black & Wiliam, 1998).

60
School leaders’ responsibilities are to find school-wide patterns to address these needs
with teachers (Johnson, 2002).
Johnson (2002) also offers six key roles (summarized in Figure 2.8) that data
play in the education process.
The first role is to improve the quality of criteria used in problem solving and
decision-making. Through a thorough analysis of relevant data, school leaders can
gain insight as to effective strategies that are being implemented at their school site.
When it is found that some strategies are not working, leaders can then use the data to
find viable solutions to existing problems. To do so would require them to determine
the best way to use resources to solve those problems. All this can be accomplished
with an analysis of school data.
The second role data plays in schools is to describe the processes, practices,
and progress of the school as a whole. Considering that standardized tests offer only a
glimpse of student learning, it is up to each school to design a system that gauges
student learning throughout the academic year. This requires a steady compilation of
data on student achievement measured by school-wide assessment practices. It is
important to consider that data must be collected and aggregated for all students to
gain an accurate understanding of the school’s success and progress.
Examining beliefs systems, underlying assumptions, and behaviors is the third
role. Johnson (2002) states that often students of color are misplaced in classes based
on perceived abilities of those students despite schools claiming that academic merit
drives these placements. However, an analysis of data can reveal that those students
are in fact misplaced and belong in more challenging courses.

61
The fourth role is to mobilize the school and district community for action.
Much like Odden and Archibald (2003) state that involvement of all stakeholders in
the self-assessment stage of the change process is critical to the school improvement
movement, so is their involvement in the data collection process as well as the sharing
of the findings. Doing so will provide a sense of ownership for each individual to
assume and effectively meet the requirements of his or her role.
The fifth role of data is to monitor the implementation of reforms (see Table
2.6). Recall that Odden and Archibald’s (2003) final stage of the change process is
monitoring for the purpose of improving continuously. Data allow school leaders to
determine if a program or initiative is effective in meeting the needs of the school and
its students. This knowledge makes it possible to make any necessary adjustments in
the use of resources to increase their effectiveness.
Table 2.6: Summary of Major Roles Data Plays in the Education Process
Role Summary
Improving the quality of criteria used in
problem solving and decision-making.
• Identify strategies that are working
• Solve problems
• Determine the best way to use
resources
Describing institutional processes,
practices, and progress
• School-wide system of assessing
student learning
• Continual collection of student data to
determine their progress towards
learning objectives
Examining belief systems, underlying
assumptions, and behaviors
• Reveals hidden prejudices of student
abilities
• Prevents misplacement of student in
classes due to perceived ability, and
not actual ability as evidenced by data
Mobilizing the school and district
community for action
• Involve all stakeholders in the data-
collection process
• Share results with all stakeholders

62
Table 2.6: Continued
Monitoring implementation of reforms
• Determine effectiveness of programs
or initiatives
• Allows for appropriate adjustments to
school policies and behaviors
Accountability
• Holds teachers accountable for
teaching and students accountable for
learning
• Allows for celebration of success
• Allows for necessary action to correct
any discrepancies in the education
process
Source: Johnson (2002)

Accountability is the final role data plays in schools. Considering the increased
accountability resulting from NCLB (Linn, 2005) it is more important than ever to use
data effectively as a means to hold others accountable. It allows for celebrating
success by rewarding students and staff, as well as taking necessary action in
correcting any faults or areas of concern that may exist in the school’s processes.
With a new curriculum in place and using data to guide school-wide decisions,
the next logical step—which happens to be the fifth step—in improving student
performance is to provide professional development (PD) for teachers. Bradley, Hoff,
& Manzo (1999) express the importance of providing ongoing PD to maintain or
increase any level of success for any school. PD will not only allow teacher to make
better decisions regarding data, but also to improve their effectiveness in the
classroom. Too often the use of PD is ineffective in yielding positive results.
However, this is due to improper implementation of the strategy by schools and not
necessarily by the PD activities themselves. PD is addressed in greater detail as the
final section of this chapter.

63
The sixth step is to use time more effectively. Given that time is a fixed
constant—180 school days per academic year—it is crucial for schools to use that time
wisely. Adding to this urgency is the fact that California schools administer the CSTs
in the spring with several weeks remaining in the school year. Effective use of time
will impact student achievement by allowing more content standards to be taught prior
to administering the CSTs, or other standardized tests such as Advanced Placement or
college entrance exams.
Even the most successful schools will have students struggling to meet
standards and high expectations, therefore, creating a strategy for providing additional
support for struggling students (see Table 2.7) is the seventh step. Odden and
Archibald (2001) and Odden and Picus (2008) have identified three necessary aspects
for assisting this population: providing a rigorous curriculum, better trained teachers,
and small class instruction. This is especially true for minority students and those in
poverty.
Table 2.7: Strategies to Support Struggling Students
Component Summary
Rigorous curriculum
• Must meet the state’s content
standards
• Assure that all students meet the new
expectations
Better trained teachers
• Through professional development
• Collaborative sessions with goals and
objectives
Small class instruction
• Timely feedback for students
• More relevant learning objectives and
goals
Source: Odden & Archibald (2003); Odden & Picus (2008)

64
The reasons for a rigorous curriculum have been addressed in the third step of
this overall process. In short, Marzano (2003) and others have identified a viable
curriculum as an effective measure to improve student performance. It is important to
take the necessary steps to assure that all students meet the expectations of the
curriculum if its full impact is to be realized by student achievement.
Providing students with better-trained teachers is essential in assuring all
students succeed. This is accomplished in part via PD. Offering teachers the necessary
training to improve their effectiveness is only one of the many components to increase
the achievement level of all students. Part of training teachers requires school leaders
to hold teachers accountable for collaboration session by setting goals and objectives
for each of those sessions. This is described in greater detain in the PD section of this
chapter.
Providing struggling students with small class instruction has been an effective
strategy in providing the necessary support for meeting high expectations and content
standards. Smaller class sizes allow teachers to provide more timely feedback and
more relevant learning objectives and goals for each student, which has been identified
as an effective strategy for improving student achievement (Marzano, 2003).
The eighth step in improving student performance is to create a professional
learning community (PLC). PLCs are identified as having six components (DuFour,
DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006) that are summarized in Table 2.8. In short, a PLC
addresses the following three questions:
• What do students need to learn?
• How will schools know that students have learned it?

65
• How do schools respond when students don’t learn it?
Table 2.8: Aspects of a Professional Learning Community
Aspect Description
A focus on learning
• Understand that a school’s purpose is
to educate its students
• Requires continuous learning by
teachers not only students
• PD plays an essential role
A collaborative culture with a focus on
learning for all
• Collaborative teams work
interdependently to ensure all students
learn
• Common goals for learning drive team
efforts
• Individuals understand they play an
important role in the schools vision
and purpose
Collective inquiry into best practice and
current reality
• Teams identify best practices found at
their school with respect to teaching
and student learning
Action orientation: learning by doing
• Work swiftly to implement changes
• Understand that action translates into
results
• Turn vision into reality
Commitment to continuous improvement
• Gathering evidence of current levels
of student learning
• Developing strategies and ideas to
build on strengths and address
weaknesses in that learning
• Implement those strategies and ideas
• Analyzing the impact of the changes
to discover what was effective and
what was not
• Applying new knowledge in the next
cycle of continuous improvement
Results orientated
• Creation of common formative
assessments
• Analyzing data to inform decisions
Source: DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many (2006)

66
Having a focus on learning is the first aspect of a PLC. This involves schools
understanding their main purpose is to educate their students to high standards.
Therefore, the focus of a school must be on learning for both students and teachers.
Professional development for teachers in this regard plays an essential role.
The second aspect of a PLC is a collaborative culture with a focus on learning
for all. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006) define collaboration as “a
systematic process in which teachers work together interdependently in order to
impact their classroom practice in ways that will lead to better results for their
students, for their team, and for their school” (p. 3). Part of this aspect is having
common goals drive the efforts of the schools various stakeholders. Furthermore, each
individual at the school understands that they play a significant role in the carrying out
the school’s vision and purpose.
Collective inquiry into best practice and current reality is the third aspect of a
PLC. Teams identifying the best practices found at their school with respect to
teaching and student learning characterize this aspect. Odden (2009) identifies this
stage as the ninth step in improving student performance.
The fourth aspect of a PLC is being action oriented. Members of a PLC
understand that action leads to results—specifically, swift action. They also understand
that actions turn a school’s vision into reality.
Having a commitment to continuous improvement is the fifth component of a
PLC, just as Odden and Archibald (2003) cite continuous improvement as the final
step of large-scale school reform. This aspect is characterized by five stages (DuFour,
DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006, pp.4-5):

67
• “Gathering evidence of current levels of student learning
• Developing strategies and ideas to build on strengths and address
weaknesses in that learning
• Implement those strategies and ideas
• Analyzing the impact of the changes to discover what was effective and
what was not
• Applying new knowledge in the next cycle of continuous
improvement”
The final aspect of a PLC is characterized by having a results oriented culture.
This involves creating common formative assessments administered to students
throughout the year as evidence of student learning and progress. Furthermore, this
allows PLC members to realize the results of their efforts. Having a results oriented
drive also implies that data will be analyzed and used to inform school-wide decisions.
The ninth, and least common aspect found in schools working to dramatically
improve student performance as identified by Odden (2009) is creating a professional
environment where promising practices are shared and sought. Despite the tremendous
wealth of research on what works in schools, implementing practices in reality can
pose quite a challenge. For this reason it is important to find schools that have been
successful in implementing any relevant aspects of school improvement that school
leaders might be hoping to replicate. Taking advantage of outside expertise is crucial
(Odden & Picus, 2008). One cannot expect the same staff members who have been
unsuccessful in creating a high level of student success to suddenly and automatically

68
possess the knowledge necessary to do so. Seeking the advice of experts is an effective
measure in improving student performance.
The final step in this process involves the human capital side of school reform.
Specifically, acquiring the talent necessary to effectively educate students. This
requires having highly qualified teachers and leaders at the top who can manage those
teachers. Considering the efforts necessary to carry out the high demands of the
teaching profession, this is a crucial aspect for any school expecting to improve the
performance level of its students.
Odden provides school leaders with a framework for improving student
performance. The following text provides a summary (referred to as the Kennewick
Approach) of this framework as viewed by one school leader in the Kennewick School
District. He wrote (Odden, 2009, pp. 206-208):
We like to think there are three key elements to school improvement. They are
assessment, curriculum, and instruction. The list of items below is one we
have used to describe the key elements of our overall approach. It expands on
the three key elements just mentioned.

1. Leadership. Leadership means that everyone in the district from the school
board through the district office, through the school buildings is focused on
the same goal, in this case reading, and that focus does not change.

2. A Clear Focus. Schools are asked to fill many gaps in our society.
Successful schools have clearly defined their focus. They do not react to
every change in the tide. In the case of the Kennewick School District we
have determined our primary focus is on developing reading skills.
Because that focus is pervasive through every level of the organization we
are able to stay the course and resist pressure to move in another direction.

3. Assessment. In the book Good to Great the authors argue that before an
organization can begin to improve they must confront the brutal reality of
their current performance. Good, objective assessments, used system wide
have really helped our schools to define their reality.

69
The second part of the assessment issue is to make the results public.
Everyone needs to know how all elements of the organization are doing. In
that way we can define the successful parts of that organization work to
determine what makes them successful

The final key to assessment component is to have clear standards for the
assessments that schools are held accountable to. The standards provide a
direction and specific performance goals for schools.

Our district assessment plan has been a crucial part of our success.

4. Quality Materials. Curriculum materials do make a difference. The school
district is responsible to help school find, use and to get trained in the very
best curriculum materials available. The teachers should not have to be the
composer and conductor of the curriculum. Once the teacher has the very
best curriculum their job is simply to conduct it elegantly, so it best meets
the needs of the students.

5. Time. One of the expectations we set out is the amount of time spent on
reading instruction. Our expectations are modeled after the best reading
research. Once we established the concept of two hours of reading
instruction in the primary grades we made sure that teachers had the skills
and materials to use the well. Time is key commodity in our schools we
must use it strategically. Once we determine our focus the use of time
during the school day must reflect that focus.

6. A Systemic Approach to Instruction. In our most successful schools
teachers do not work in isolation, they are a part of a team. The skills
taught build from grade to grade and are tightly woven throughout the
adopted program that is fully implemented. The curriculum is also fully
used at each grade level allowing the teachers to work together in the
planning of instruction and sharing students in specific instructional skill
groups.

7. Early Effective Intervention. Before our reading initiative, interventions
for struggling students were primarily a “second dose” of the same
instructions students received in their classrooms. We have worked hard to
use diagnostic assessments and find programs that will teach specifically to
the skills deficit identified through the testing. One of the “dirty little
secrets” was that we had to learn about effective interventions.

Ideally we can almost write prescriptions for our struggling students that
identify specific weaknesses and the treatment to remediate the
weaknesses.

70
8. A Sense of Team. It may almost be so obvious that we miss it, but schools
that are effective see themselves as a team. They make decisions as a team
they, support each other as team, they operate as a tight unit. It is more than
the social events; the sense of team is pervasive in the instruction,
organization and everything that happens in the school. There is a strong
sense of professional respect and support among and between all staff
members.

9. It’s All About Instruction. The key factor in student achievement is
instruction. All of the elements above contribute to great instruction. In
addition we have set out some every specific expectations for instruction.
For Kennewick teachers, that means that each lesson has a clear purpose,
specific engagement strategies, appropriate rigor, and the results of the
lesson can be measured.

The ten steps identified by Odden (2009) to dramatically improve student
performance have been proven to work. Although it is a challenge for any school to
incorporate all ten aspects effectively, Odden does provide—at the very least—a
framework for school leaders to follow.
Professional Development
The final section of this chapter addresses the issue of professional
development (PD) as a necessary aspect of student achievement often cited throughout
studies conducted around the area of student performance and successful schools.
The purpose of this study is to identify how successful schools allocate their
resources with a focus on improving student performance. As mentioned throughout
this paper, PD is one of those resources that requires great attention, but must be
addressed appropriately if its true effectiveness is to be realized. Odden (2009) defines
effective PD “as professional development that produces change in teachers’
classroom-based instructional practice, which can be linked to improvements in
student learning” (p. 91). One-day workshops that are commonly referred to as PD are

71
proven ineffective and have very little, if any, transfer effects into the classroom. PD
should be required, and not voluntary since it is designed to help teachers implement
and carry out the instructional plan or vision of the school.
There are six key features of effective PD that have been identified (e.g.,
Elmore, 2002; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Odden & Archibald, 2009; Odden, Archibald,
Fermanich & Gallagher, 2002; Odden & Picus, 2008). The focus of PD should be:
• The form of the activity
• The duration of the activity
• Collective participation of teachers
• Intense focus on content
• Multiple opportunities for active learning
• Coherence
The form of the activity refers to the extent that the activity is relevant to a
teacher’s job description. The focus should be on improving the teacher’s
effectiveness as an instructor. This may entail a number of aspects, including (but not
limited to) curriculum, data-analysis, and instructional practices.
Duration of the activity refers to the amount of time teachers spend engaged in the
PD activity, including the span of time necessary beyond the days spent during the
actual activity. The number of hours required for this is between 100-200 hours.
California required only 250 hours of continuing teacher education for every 5-year
period in order to renew a teaching credential. As of 2008 that requirement has been
abolished.

72
Involving a collective participation of teachers from the same school increases the
effectiveness of any PD activity. Additionally, this feeds into the notion of creating a
collaborative culture or the purpose of establishing a PLC. One single teacher
attending a PD workshop will have almost no effect on school-wide outcomes.
The next aspect of effective PD is the extent that the activity focuses on the
participant’s content area. There should be a great focus in this area to improve the
teacher’s knowledge as well as his or her instructional practices.
Active learning refers to the extent that teachers are highly engaged in the activity.
This may include time spent analyzing student work and/or data for the purpose of
improving the effectiveness of a strategy or assessment. It may also include time spent
with an instructional coach during lesson demonstrations, observations of instructional
strategies, or other relevant activities.
The alignment of “professional development to other key parts of the education
system such as student content and performance standards, teacher evaluation, school
and district goals, and the development of a professional community” (Odden, 2009,
p. 93) is what is referred to as coherence in PD.
Miles, Odden, Fermanich, and Archibald (2004) found that successful districts
and schools allocated a significant portion of their budget to PD related activities,
including allowing time for teacher collaboration. If schools are serious about
improving the performance of students, PD is a crucial aspect that must be included in
the overall plan for achieving a new level of success.

73
Conclusion
This chapter discussed four relevant sections in informing this study:
California school funding, the national shift from equity to adequacy, the use of
school-level resources, and the reallocation of resources for the purpose of improving
student performance.
The history of school funding in California is one of litigation and ineffective
bureaucracy that has led to many categorical funds posing challenges for school
leaders trying to meet the unique needs of their own student populations. This will
inform the study by providing a level of understanding of the challenges faced by
school leaders; although some ineffective practices and decisions can be linked to a
lack of knowledge, and not simply bureaucratic obstacles.
The national shift from equity to adequacy in the 1990s saw the
implementation of four costing-out models—professional judgment, successful
schools/districts approach, cost function analysis, and the Evidence-Based Model
(EBM) developed by Odden and Picus (2008)—each having its own strengths and
weaknesses. Understanding the challenges and areas of concerns of each model
provides the foundation for accepting the EBM as the approach accepted for the
purpose of making determinations about the effectiveness of a school’s resource
allocation decisions for the purpose of this study.
Odden and Picus (2008) have identified the following as school-level
resources:
• Staffing and expenditures by…

74
o “…program—the regular instruction program; programs for
special-need students such as compensatory, bilingual, and special
education; administration; staff development; and instructional
materials” (p. 13)
o …educational strategy—CSR, PD, and support for struggling
students
o …content area
o “…interrelationships among these staffing and expenditure
patterns” (p.13)
o “…relationships of these staffing and expenditure patterns to
student performance” (p.13)
This knowledge allows a level of understanding necessary when visiting
schools and making allocation decisions to improve that school’s level of student
achievement.
The final section of this chapter included four subsections: the change process,
resource reallocation to meet the new demands resulting from the change process,
school-wide strategies for improving student performance, and professional
development as a necessary aspect for any school expecting to improve and sustain
student achievement. This section is the most significant in informing this study. The
purpose of the study is to determine via a case studies approach, how successful
schools allocate their resources; therefore, understanding the literature behind the
practice allows the researcher to make relevant determinations of a school’s decision-
making process.

75
The remaining chapters of this study will discuss the methodology chosen by
the researcher, the findings resulting from visiting schools, and the implications of the
study.

76
Chapter 3
Methodology
This chapter provides an explanation of the methodology utilized to conduct
the study. The sections addressed include a review of the research questions guiding
the study, the purposeful sampling and population of the study, a description of the
instruments used to gather and collect data, an explanation of how the data was
gathered, and how the data was analyzed.
The purpose of this study is to analyze how successful schools allocate their
resources to educate their students to high standards. For the purpose of this study
successful schools are defined as those schools that have met their AYP requirement
each of the previous three academic years (2005-06 through 2007-08) and maintain a
similar schools rank (SSR) of 7, 8, 9, or 10 throughout the same time span. An
analysis of how six successful high schools allocate their resources and how those
allocations compare to the recommendations outlined in the Evidence-Based Model
(EBM) developed by Odden and Picus (2008) provide evidence that there exists a
possible link between these decisions and student achievement. Although the intent of
the study is not to suggest that there exists a definite link, resource allocation patterns
among successful schools are the focus. Additionally, evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps
to Doubling Student Performance was sought at each of the six schools.
The following research questions guided the study:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level?

77
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use 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?
To answer the preceding questions, a qualitative approach was taken for this
study. Patton (2002) describes a triangulation approach associated with qualitative
studies in an effort to increase the validity of a study: interviews, observations, and
document analysis. Although observations were not conducted as part of this study, it
still constitutes a qualitative study due to the nature of the case studies for each
respective school. Further evidence is found in Patton’s (2002) typology of research.
Due to this study’s intended purpose and audience, it also qualifies it as a qualitative
study. The intent is to provide school leaders who are charged with making resource
allocation decisions a framework for improving their decision-making process
regarding the allocation of resources. Furthermore, because the aim of the study is to
identify the effectiveness of resource allocation decisions, it constitutes a summative
evaluation (a characteristic of qualitative studies).
Sample and Population
A purposeful sampling strategy (specifically, criterion sampling) was
implemented for the purpose of this study due to the delimitations and personal
preferences of the researcher. A preliminary set of criteria was established. Upon

78
completion of the final list of participants, the following criteria needed to be adjusted
due to the limited number of schools having met the criteria, and furthermore, not all
principals at qualifying schools agreed to take part in this study. Participating schools
were expected to meet the following:
• High schools located in the Los Angeles County or Orange County
• School must have met AYP each of the previous three academic years
(2005-06 through 2007-08)
• School must maintain a similar schools rank of 7 or higher (out of 10)
as of 2008
• At least 75% of the student population must be of ethnic minority
• At least 50% of the student population must qualify for Free and
Reduced Price Lunch
• Approximately 25% of the population must be designated as English
Learners (EL)
The rationale for these criteria was based on several factors. Due to the travel
constraints of the researcher, only schools in the greater Los Angeles were considered
for inclusion. Because NCLB has increased accountability of schools receiving federal
funding, significant growth is essential for California schools expecting to satisfy the
requirement of having 100% of students demonstrate proficiency in ELA and
mathematics by 2014. To demonstrate sufficient growth under the mandates of the
Act, schools must consistently meet AYP. Having at least three consecutive years of
doing so is a positive indicator that a school is progressing, although still not a
guarantee that its students would be 100% proficient by the timeline. Three

79
consecutive years of growth were chosen based on professional judgment; one year of
increased test scores is not sufficient to determine a pattern of success. Three years of
meeting AYP can be evidence of sustained growth.
Given the diversity of California’s student population, it is the intent of the
study to focus on schools meeting the increased demands and challenges faced by
minority students. Schools serving a high percentage of minority students tend to face
greater challenges. One of those challenges arises when economic disadvantages are
present. An indicator used to determine this factor in California schools is whether or
not students participate in the state’s Free and Reduced Lunch program (FRPL). This
is why schools serving a high percentage of qualifying students were chosen.
Furthermore, approximately 50% of California’s students qualify for FRPL; it was the
intent of the researcher to keep consistent with this percentage.
Regarding English Learners (EL), 24.2% of California’s students are
designated as EL. Therefore, to remain faithful to this population, participating
schools were expected to meet this requirement.
There were six schools that ultimately were chosen to take part in this study.
Table 3.1 provides a summary of each, along with how each reflects the selected
criteria.

80
Table 3.1: Comparison of Participating High Schools’ Criteria
High School
Criteria
Santana Kaman Belvedere Genry Lakeside Southside
Location
Orange
County
Orange
County
Orange
County
L.A.
County
Orange
County
L.A.
County
AYP
(3 years)
Yes Yes
Not in
2006*
Yes Yes Yes
2008 SSR 10 8 9 7 8 7
Minority
Population
95.7% 89.3% 89.0% 89.1% 95.4% 77.0%
FRPL 77.7% 60.0% 42.3%* 30.2%* 79.5% 29.2%*
EL 40.9% 40.7% 28.0% 6.7%* 37.5% 4.6%*
* Denotes criteria not satisfied.

Due to the narrow criteria selected, a query search on Ed-Data (http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/) revealed fewer than ten schools in the Southern California that
matched the criteria. Because school participation was completely voluntary, there
were several that elected not to take part in this study. After repeated attempts to
contact principals either by phone or email proved unsuccessful, the researcher had to
compromise some of the criteria in order to satisfy an adequate number of schools to
include in this study.
Only three of the six schools satisfied all criteria: Santana, Kaman, and
Lakeside. All six schools met both the minority population and the similar schools
rank requirement. Although three schools did not meet all the criteria, the researcher
felt there was still much to be gained by including them in the study due to their other
characteristics.

81
Belvedere met all but two criteria: AYP and FRPL population. Although the
school did not meet AYP in 2006, it did so in 2007 and 2008, and its FRPL population
was about 8% shy of the state average. The two L.A. County schools, Genry and
Southside, failed to satisfy the same two criteria: FRPL and EL populations.
Although school size was not a consideration for participation, it turned out to
be a comparable characteristic among the six schools. The average number of students
enrolled across the six schools is 2,210 with the largest enrollment being 2,700 at
Kaman and the smallest enrollment being 1,970 at Belvedere. The large numbers of
students raise challenges for these schools; yet, each has demonstrated a level of
success to be addressed in greater detail in Chapter 4 and in each school’s respective
case study found in Appendices A-F.
Instrumentation
To answer the research questions (RQ) instruments developed by University of
Southern California professor Lawrence Picus were utilized. A brief description of
each will be provided in this section, as well as how they relate to the questions.
On May 16, 2009 Dr. Picus directed a training session on how to use the
instruments associated with this study. It was during this training that he provided the
research group with a manual of all pertinent materials including all forms to be
addressed in this section. On this day he also provided each with a username and
password to access the web-based database used in this study (see www.lpicus.com).
This also allowed the researcher to monitor each school’s progress throughout the
study.

82
The consent form (Appendix G) sent to each participating school’s principal
simply finalizes the agreement between the researcher and the principal that the school
will be included in this study. Although this doesn’t align to the research questions
specifically, it does allow the process of collecting data for answering the questions to
begin.
Once an agreement was reached, the next appropriate step was to send a pre-
visit form (Appendix H) to the principal of each school site. This form was intended to
expedite the one-day interview (arranged only after consent was granted) by
requesting information ahead of time. Information vital to this study included each
site’s staffing list, schedule, consultants (if applicable), funds for daily substitutes, and
professional development budget. Although this form is considered important to the
study, it alone could not answer all the questions relevant to this study. However, it
did provide evidence of resource allocation decisions in relation to staffing and
funding. This is information was needed to answer both the second and fourth research
questions.
For the scheduled interview, a data-collection protocol form (Appendix I) was
utilized. This form allowed for more detailed information requested on the pre-visit
form. The interview questions are provided in Appendix J. In addition, data on school
resource indicators (see Table 3.2) was also collected. It was through this process that
the research questions were addressed more directly. When gathering the data for the
data-collection protocol, follow up questions asked of the interviewee as to how each
component relates to the research questions was gained.

83
Table 3.2: School Resource Indicators
School Building Size School Unit Size
Percent Low Income Percent Special Education
Percent ELL/LEP Expenditures Per Pupil
Professional Development Expenditures
per Teacher
Length of Core (Math, English/LA,
Science and Social Science) Class Periods
Special Academic Focus of School/Unit Core Class Size
Length of Class Periods Non-Core class Size
Length of Instructional Day Percent Core Teachers
Source: Odden, Archibald, Fermanich & Gross (2003)

The Evidence-Based Model was used as the framework for the study. Staffing
recommendations for a prototypical high school of 600 students are given below. It is
these recommendations to which data collected at each participating school was
compared. The aspects of the EBM were used to address RQ 4.
• Core content teachers (25:1 ratio at the high school level)
• Specialist teachers (33% of teaching staff)
• Extended support (summer school, extended day, EL, tutors)
• Specialized education (special education, GATE, career and vocational
education)
• Professional development (teacher training, instructional coaches)
• Additional support (teacher compensation, pupil support services,
instructional materials, technology)

84
All instruments used in this study were assumed to be reliable based on the
previous work of Lawrence Picus in other states (see for example, Odden, Picus,
Archibald, Goetz, Mangan, & Aportela, 2007; Odden, Picus, Goetz, Mangan, &
Fermanich, 2006; Picus, Odden, Aportela, Mangan, & Goetz, 2008a; Picus, Odden,
Aportela, Mangan, & Goetz, 2008b). Furthermore, all instruments have been
effectively utilized in previous studies directed by Dr. Picus. The EBM draws upon a
wide body of empirical evidence and therefore, reliable.
Data Collection
For the data-collection process, the researcher conducted on-site interviews
with the principals and examined documents received during the school visits (and in
some cases, these documents were sent electronically via email). The documents
previously mentioned (consent form, pre-visit form, and data-collection protocol form)
were delivered to each site principal via email. Although each principal, prior to the
interview, completed the pre-visit form, the data-collection protocol was completed
during the actual interview.
Upon being granted consent by each of the six site principals, the interviews
were scheduled and conducted between October 2 and December 14, 2009.
To minimize any impositions on the principals, the researcher gathered most of
each school’s student performance data from the California Department of
Education’s website (http://www.cde.ca.gov/) and also analyzed their student
accountability report cards (SARC) found on their respective district’s website.

85
Data Analysis
To answer the research questions driving this study, an analysis of data
collected through interviews and documents was conducted. School data entered into
the web-based database provided by Dr. Picus was helpful in keeping it well organized
and accessible and was exported as Excel files.
Part of the analysis process included the use of resource-use tables to make
comparisons between the schools in the study to the recommendations of the EBM.
Although it was initially unclear how the comparisons between schools and the EBM
would align, it was expected that these resource-use patterns among the six schools
would be rather similar. This was due to the fact that they all shared common
characteristics and were all considered successful as defined by the study.
After resource comparisons were drawn, evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to
Doubling Student Performance. As expected not all the steps were evidenced at all six
schools, however, at least eight of the ten were found. Considering that the schools
have been identified as successful under the guidelines of this study, it was expected
that several steps would be present.
The final step in the data analysis process was to compare the findings to
earlier studies conducted by Picus, Odden, et al referred to in this proposal. Although
these studies were conducted in other states, relevant comparisons can still be drawn
due to the fact that the EBM was used.
Possible challenges to drawing conclusions were expected. First, inconsistent
data among schools posed a problem in finding resource allocation patterns. A
challenge referred to in Chapter 2 is that not all schools are effective in collecting data

86
on resources used. This has been true in larger studies conducted and it was true here
as well.
Although the populations of participating schools were expected to be similar,
strategies differed among the six schools in their approach to educating their
respective students. Even with these differences, each yielded similar results as
evidenced by their API scores and AYP.
Another possible challenge that was expected was the truthfulness of each site
principals’ responses. Although there were no glaring discrepancies noted between
responses given and the data collected, any dishonesty would go undetected.
Ethical Considerations
When conducting a study ethical considerations must be acknowledged.
Having completed the online ethics training in May of 2009 and the University of
Southern California’s Inquiry II course in the spring of 2009, guidelines for engaging
in ethical practices were fully understood and followed. Responses given by the
respondents were reported truthfully and were not distorted. Furthermore, all schools
and personnel interviewed were identified by pseudonym.
These practices were implemented in an effort to maintain the credibility of the
study and the university. In addition, the personal integrity of the researcher was
upheld throughout this process.

87
Chapter 4
Findings
This chapter presents the findings and results of the six schools that
participated in this study. Although there are several elements that comprise the study,
there are two main components. The first are the comparisons of resource allocations
to the Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008). The second
addresses evidence of Odden’s (2009) Ten Steps to Doubling Performance found at
each school site.
The study is driven by the following research questions (RQs):
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use 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 is divided into three main sections. The first section discusses the
findings for RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3. The second section addresses RQ4: comparisons of
resource-use patterns at each of the six schools to the recommendations outlined by
the EBM. The third section explores the evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling

88
Student Performance found at each school. The chapter concludes with a summary of
the findings.
All data found in this chapter is further addressed in each school’s respective
case studies found in appendices A-F. For more detailed accounts of the schools refer
to the following:
• For Santana High School’s case study see Appendix A
• For Kaman High School’s case study see Appendix B
• For Belvedere High School’s case study see Appendix C
• For Genry High School’s case study see Appendix D
• For Lakeside High School’s case study see Appendix E
• For Southside High School’s case study see Appendix F
Research Questions 1, 2, and 3
This section addresses RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3 for each of the six schools. It is
based on data collected through the California Department of Education’s website, an
analysis of documents provided by each site principal, and via responses provided by
each principal during a one-on-one interview.
An overview of the schools’ instructional vision and improvement strategies
will be provided; as well as how resources are used to implement each school’s
improvement plan. Additionally, all six schools had to make tough resource allocation
decisions as a result of the current budget reductions across California. Some of these
decisions involved the adoption of new instructional materials, funding available for
GATE and PD, and certain class sizes, and will be addressed as well.

89
Although the instructional vision at each site varied slightly, there was one
component that seemed to be the underlying foundation: student engagement. All six
principals cited this component as necessary for effective instruction, and as a result,
part of the vision. The rationale was also similar across the six schools: students
engaged in their own learning are more likely to not only learn and retain the material,
but also be able to construct their own meaning. This philosophy has led to an
instructional vision addressing the notion that all students can learn. This was a
common theme cited by all principals. Given that the population at each school
constituted an average of 89.25% minority students (the smallest being 77% at
Southside High School), it is indicative that standards are kept high regardless of
student demographics.
Each of the six principals made resource allocation decisions consistent with
the aforementioned philosophy. These decisions (addressed in the proceeding pages)
provide insight into the components of education each considers being important.
The improvement strategies implemented at each school had both similarities
and differences; however, the constant focus (as it should be) was student achievement
regardless of the school’s population. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the aspects of
each site’s improvement strategies.

90
Table 4.1: Summary of Schools’ Respective Improvement Strategies
School Main Themes of Improvement Process
Santana High School
• After school tutoring
• Teacher collaboration and PD
• Common benchmark assessments
• PLC components
• Data-driven decision-making
• AVID
• Parental and community outreach
• Supplemental student counseling services
• EL support
Kaman High School
• Essential standards identified
• Common benchmark assessments
• Focus on lesson design
• AVID
• Data-driven decision-making
• Teacher collaboration and PD
• Raising student awareness of STAR testing
Belvedere High School
• Essential standards identified
• ELA and mathematics interventions
• Data-driven- decision-making
• AVID and Advanced Academics Academy
• Student recognition
• Intense focus on teacher PD (DII)
Genry High School
• Teacher collaboration
• Instruction aligned to content standards
• ELA and mathematics interventions
• After school tutoring
• Access to technology
• Weekly assessment of basic skills
• Data-driven decision-making
• Address student motivation
• Outreach to feeder middle schools
Lakeside High School
• Teacher PD
• Targeted 9
th
grade support
• Teacher collaboration
• Parental and community outreach
• AVID
• Departmental SMART goal setting
• Data-driven decision-making
• After school tutoring
• Open communication between principal and
stakeholders

91
Table 4.1: Continued
Southside High School
• Address student motivation (HEART conferences)
• ELA and mathematics interventions
• After school tutoring
• Common benchmark assessments
• Teacher collaboration
• Data-driven decision-making

It is clear that each school implemented a variety of strategies to raise the
achievement of their respective students, however, there were three common themes
present at each site: data-driven decision-making, teacher collaboration, and tutoring
services for their students. Although none of the schools qualified to be considered a
true professional learning community, the first two are major components of any PLC.
The significance of emulating a PLC is that this has been a proven strategy of
improving schools if implemented properly (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Many, 2006).
It can be so effective that it is one of Odden’s Ten Steps To Doubling Student
Performance (2009).
The use of data to drive instructional decisions has several advantages (see
Table 2.8). In essence, it provides the opportunity to have accountability, monitors the
implementation and quality of reforms and instructional programs, and mobilizes a
school to action (Johnson, 2002). Accountability provides a measure to ensure that
school personnel carry out their expected duties. Monitoring the implementation and
quality of school reforms and instructional programs provides a measure to ensure that
resources are being utilized efficiently. Having the appropriate data allows school
leaders to move to action by making appropriate instructional decisions.

92
The data used did vary slightly across the schools, but the rationale appeared to
be the same. Whether it was the CSTs, the CAHSEE, common benchmark
assessments, or student grades, the data allowed the schools to provide appropriate
support for their respective students. Table 4.2 summarizes the type of data used at
each site as well as some of the outcomes.
Table 4.2: Summary of Data-Driven Decisions
School Data Set Used Data-Based Outcomes
Santana High School
• CST scores
• CAHSEE results
• Student grades/credits
earned
• Benchmark assessments
• Classroom assessments
• Intervention and support
classes
• Additional counseling
services
Kaman High School
• CST scores
• Benchmark assessments
• Formative assessments
• Sharing CST scores with
students
• Intervention and support
classes
• Identified areas for re-
teaching opportunities
• After school tutoring
Belvedere High School
• CST scores
• CAHSEE results
• Benchmark assessments
• Intervention and support
classes
• Student success
conferences
Genry High School
• CST scores
• CAHSEE scores
• Benchmark assessments
• Intervention and support
classes
• Monitor student
progress
• Test Chat with students
Lakeside High School
• CST scores
• Benchmark assessments
• Intervention and support
classes
• Appropriate student
placement
Southside High School
• CST scores
• Benchmark assessments
• Student grades
• Intervention and support
classes
• Appropriate student
placement

93
All six of the schools analyzed CST data for their students and used the data in
similar ways. Low CST scores allowed each school to place their respective students
into intervention courses to address the areas of deficiency. Additionally, Kaman,
Belvedere, and Genry, shared the previous year’s scores with their students and held
individual conferences with each. The intentions of the conferences were to raise
student awareness of their own performance, as well as to serve as motivators to
improve those scores on the following round of tests.
In addition to CST scores, all schools used common benchmark assessment
data to monitor and gauge student progress. The results of these assessments allowed
teachers to provide the appropriate interventions in the classroom to address the areas
of growth. Although there was no accountability to ensure that teachers actually re-
taught, all six principals felt confident that this was indeed occurring. Evidence to
suggest this was true can be found in the API scores for each school.
The second common improvement strategy was teacher collaboration. This
strategy offers advantages just like data-driven decision making. It provides
opportunities for peer coaching and staff development (Joyce & Showers, 2002) and
allows teachers to engage in “shared decision making as they work toward a common
goal” (Friend & Cook, 1992, p. 5). Given the budget reductions, this strategy seemed
to offer a no-cost approach to addressing teacher effectiveness.
Although each school made teacher collaboration one of their focuses for
improving student achievement, there were some differences in their respective
approaches to implementing the strategy, as well as some similarities. Five of the six
schools built into their school day at least one monthly late-start day that allowed

94
teachers to collaborate before they taught their first class. The only school that did not
have a late-start day was Belvedere High School. When asked about why this was the
case, the principal Dr. West stated that the district did not have the resources to
implement such a schedule. Kaman and Genry each provided their teachers with
weekly collaboration sessions. Being part of the same district teachers at Santana and
Lakeside each had ten days of collaboration per academic year, which averaged to be
about one day per month. At Southside, there were two available days per month for
teacher collaboration.
Regardless of the schedule, each department at each site determined the
manner by which this allotted time was to be utilized. Unless there were special
circumstances, such as an accreditation year, each principal felt confident that teachers
were productive within these sessions. The topics usually varied from one session to
the next at all schools, but they can be summarized to three main ones: sharing of
promising practices, analyzing student data, and following up on previous PD
sessions.
The third common strategy is tutoring for struggling students. If implemented
properly with a certified teacher-tutor as suggested by the Evidence-Based Model,
tutoring provides benefits for students that can have a direct impact on their overall
performance in the classroom (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Five of the six schools offered tutoring after school; only Belvedere did not.
Furthermore, only Lakeside mandated its students to attend, whereas the other schools
offered it as an option. Belvedere’s tutoring was offered at lunch. The EBM suggests
tutors should be certificated teachers, however, this strategy was more of a peer

95
tutoring program facilitated by on or two teachers (except at two of the schools, where
the tutors were actual teachers); students did the actual tutoring. The main reason for
using peer tutors was that funding has been extremely limited since California greatly
reduced the budget for K-12 schools. Lakeside implemented Targeted Tutoring, which
identifies students that need immediate support in the core content areas. Teachers do
the actual identifying of students and much like traditional detention, students are
required to attend or face consequences.
Professional development is another effective way of improving student
achievement (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Odden and Picus, 2008; Odden, 2009). If
properly managed, it can have a direct impact on teacher effectiveness, which
consequently effects how students perform in the classroom. Although the EBM
recommends ten days of intensive PD (some utilized prior to the start of the school
year and the remaining days are to be reserved for continued training and support
throughout the year), only Santana and Lakeside’s closely resembled this approach.
Five of the six schools actively followed up on teacher professional
development; the one that did not cited lack of funds as the reason for not pursuing
this strategy. The five schools (Santana, Kaman, Belvedere, Lakeside, and Southside)
each focused on a different component to raise the effectiveness of their teachers.
Both Santana High School and Lakeside High School focused on the same
topics: strengthening their PLC components across all departments (Southside also
made this its focus) and the gradual release of responsibility instructional model
(GRR). This was a result of them belonging to the same district. Their district is very
centralized in that it makes many of the decisions for their schools. Through Super

96
Week (five days of intensive PD prior to the start of each school year) teachers at both
sites were provided training on the two aforementioned topics. Regarding the PLC
components, training was provided on how to analyze student data and use those
results for appropriate action. The GRR is an instructional model that is much like
direct instruction in that the beginning stages of a lesson are heavily driven by the
teacher, but as the lesson continues students assume more of an active role rather than
a passive one.
Kaman High School focused its PD opportunities on lesson design, remaining
consistent with the school’s view of effective instruction. Across all departments, with
an emphasis in the core content areas, teachers received training on designing daily
lessons to keep students actively engaged in their own learning. District personnel
provided training and a lesson design coach was assigned to the school to follow up
and lend continued support for the teachers.
Al Belvedere High School the focus was on direct interactive instruction (DII).
The principal at the school, Dr. West, credits this strategy with moving his previous
school out of program improvement (PI) status. Belvedere was in danger of entering
PI at the time Dr. West was appointed principal. He successfully led the school to
avoid PI and credits DII once again. DII focuses on three main components of
instruction: teacher-questioning techniques, student engagement, and frequent
formative assessments. He hired an outside consulting firm, ALS, to work closely with
teachers in each core content area over an entire year to effectively implement the
strategy. The 2009-10 school year marked the third year the consultants have worked
at the school. Each year they have worked with two or three departments. Throughout

97
the year, ALS visited each teacher about ten times to provide ongoing support. The
teachers first observe ALS consultants teach a lesson with the components of DII, and
then are given subsequent opportunities to teach other lessons while the ALS
consultants observe. At the conclusion of each lesson ALS consultants provide
immediate feedback and discuss ways that teachers can increase their respective
effectiveness.
Funding for professional development has also been affected as a result of the
recent budget reductions. At Southside, the school completely eliminated all funding
for PD. At Belvedere, Dr. West was spending approximately $50,000 annually to hire
ALS, an outside consulting firm. He stated this 2009-10 would be the final year
because the funds simply would not be available in the future. Although the other four
schools did reserve some money for PD, it is significantly less than in previous years
and all fall short of the EBM recommendations. This deficiency is later addressed in
the EBM comparisons section (RQ4).
AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) is a program implemented
at four (Santana, Kaman, Belvedere, and Lakeside) of the six schools. According to
the AVID organization’s website, “AVID is a fourth- through twelfth-grade system to
prepare students in the academic middle for four-year college eligibility. It has a
proven track record in bringing out the best in students, and in closing the achievement
gap” (see http://www.avidonline.org/info/?tabid=1&ID=549). Students take AVID as
one of their classes during the school day. Essentially, they are taught study skills,
provided with additional support for their core academic classes, and highly
encouraged to attend some type of post-secondary educational institution. Table 2.7

98
summarizes several effective components of instruction (Marzano, Pickering, &
Pollock, 2001), some of which are addressed by AVID. This includes note taking,
reinforcing effort, providing recognition, setting goals and objectives, and providing
feedback.
At the four schools where AVID is present, each site principal credits the
program for reaching a significant portion of their population and getting them to
achieve at levels that may otherwise not have been possible. Each school has
approximately 150-200 students who participate in AVID, which is anywhere between
6% and 11% of each school’s population.
Resulting from the recent budget reductions in California, all six schools had to
postpone adopting new curriculum materials for all departments, even the core content
areas. Each site has continued using textbooks that have gone beyond the state’s 8-
year term limit. California requires schools and districts to adopt new instructional
materials every eight years, but the state has also eased off on this restriction as a
result of the current financial situation. Although adopting a new curriculum was not
an option, two schools (Kaman and Belvedere) engaged in identifying essential
standards as one of their improvement strategies. Although this is not an adoption of a
new curriculum, it is indicative of increasing the effectiveness of the current
curriculum by focusing on only that which is considered to be essential for student to
master. Both schools approached this in a similar fashion. First, through their
respective district’s guidance teachers representing each core department met at the
district office to give their input on what these standards should be. The state’s CST
release questions served as an initial guide in identifying the standards. The second

99
step was conducted at each site where each teacher (through collaboration time with
respective departments) gave his or her own input as well. Once finalized, the essential
standards served as the guide for creating the common benchmark assessments.
Santana and Lakeside were the only two schools to cite parental and community
outreach as one of their improvement strategies. This is quite possibly a direct result
once again of them belonging to the same district. Both schools have SCLs (School
Community Liaisons), which in essence serve as mediators between the school and the
parents and/or community. The district has the Ten Commandments of Education that
basically address CSTs, CAHSEE, effective study skills, college entrance
requirements and financial aid (including scholarships), SAT/ACT testing, and general
ways parents can support students at home or even become involved at the school site.
It is the SCLs that teach these to the parents as a way of keeping them both informed
and involved in the educations of their respective student or students. SCLs also serve
as translators for parents and the school during meetings involving students such as
IEPs or 504 plans.
All schools offered their students the opportunity to take GATE classes as a
means to better prepare them for the rigors of a post-secondary education. Prior to the
recent budget crisis all schools had some funds available for their GATE program;
currently, only Southside has funding, though it is extremely limited at only $3,000 for
the entire 2009-10 school year. This money is essentially used provide classroom
supplies and not much else. The other five sites had to eliminate funding for GATE
altogether.

100
The final strategy to be addressed is 9
th
grade class sizes in ELA. Five of the
schools had a 9
th
grade student-to-teacher ratio of 20:1 in ELA classes. Southside was
the only school to not have CSR; however, they do keep small class sizes in their
intervention courses that are not limited to 9
th
graders. Resulting from the recent
budget reductions over the previous two years all five schools had to make the
decision to eliminate CSR in an effort to reduce their expenses.
Evidence-Based Model
Much of the data collection process focused on each school’s resources due to
the fact that the EBM is the main component of the study. Consequently, this section
is devoted entirely to those findings, which comprise RQ4.
It should be considered that the Evidence-Based Model determines its
recommendations based on the student population of each school. EL students require
more resources than non-EL students, as do minorities and those who qualify for free
and reduced priced lunch (FRPL). Therefore, two schools with the same number of
students can have different recommendations if one has more high-needs students than
the other. Depending on the schools, these differences in EBM recommendations can
be quite significant. What is similar across the six schools is that none of the schools
matched all the EBM recommendations very well. There are some categories that
matched better than others (and in rare cases, exceed), and these are all addressed I
this section. The deficiencies are important to consider when determining the
effectiveness of each school given their limited resources.
RQ4: 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?

101
This section addresses some of the main categories of the EBM including
staffing (core academic teachers – including GATE – and specialist & elective
teachers), extra help (certified tutors and special education), professional development
(days per year, funds, and use of instructional facilitators), student support
(counselors, nurses, social workers, school psychologists, speech therapists, and health
assistants), and administration (principals, assistant principals, secretaries, and clerical
workers).
Staffing Category
The EBM’s staffing category includes both core academic teachers (which also
includes values for GATE teachers) and specialist & elective teachers. The model
recommends 24 core academic teachers and 8 specialist & elective teachers for every
600 students. All six schools fell significantly shy of the model’s recommendations
based on their respective student populations. These comparisons for core academic
teachers are summarized in Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 summarizes comparisons for
specialist & elective teachers.
Table 4.3: EBM Comparisons for Core Academic Teachers (in FTEs)
School EBM Actual Difference
Santana 88 53.2 -34.8
Kaman 108 64 -44
Belvedere 78.8 49.6 -29.6
Genry 82 50.2 -31.8
Lakeside 90.8 54.8 -40.6

102
Table 4.3: Continued
Southside 82.8 65.6 -17.2

Kaman experienced the most significant deficit for core academic teachers by a
margin of 44 FTEs; the smallest deficit belonged to Southside with a margin of 29.6
FTEs. The average deficit among the six schools was 33 FTEs.
Table 4.4: EBM Comparisons for Specialist and Elective Teachers (in FTEs)
School EBM Actual Difference
Santana 29.3 25.6 -3.7
Kaman 36 25.9 -10.1
Belvedere 26.3 23.8 -2.5
Genry 27.3 24.8 -2.5
Lakeside 30.3 19.6 -10.7
Southside 27.6 18.4 -9.2

The average deficit for specialist & elective teachers was much smaller than
that for core academic teachers with a margin of 6.45 FTEs. Genry was the closest to
the EBM recommendations falling shy by only 2.5 FTEs. The largest deficit in this
category (Lakeside with 10.7) was still significantly smaller than the smallest deficit
for the core academic teachers (Belvedere with 19.8).
Furthermore, a comparison of specialist & elective teachers as a percentage of
core academic teachers reveals once again that the schools fail to match the EBM
recommendations. The model suggests that specialist teachers constitute 20% of the

103
number of core academic teachers; Table 4.5 provides this comparison for each of the
six sites.
Table 4.5: Specialist Teachers as a Percentage of Core Academic Teachers
School
Specialist &
Elective
Core
Academic
Percentage
% Above
EBM
Santana 25.6 53.2 48.1% +28.1%
Kaman 25.9 64 40.5% +20.5%
Belvedere 23.8 49.6 48.0% +28.0%
Genry 24.8 50.2 49.4% +29.4%
Lakeside 19.6 54.8 35.8% +15.8%
Southside 18.4 65.6 28.0% +8.0%

According to Table 4.5 Southside exceeds the EBM recommendations by only
8.0%, compared to the largest surplus of 29.4% at Genry. This suggests that each
school can benefit from reducing the number of specialist & elective teachers and
increasing the number of core academic teachers to be more aligned to the model.
The logic followed here is that the state uses student performance in the core
academic areas as a measure of a school’s success (it is only these areas that are tested
on the CSTs – not elective courses); therefore it makes sense that the focus of a school
should fall in these areas, not so much on the electives. This is indicative that although
the six participating schools qualify as successful as defines by this study, their
resources are not necessarily being utilized to full efficiency. Ultimately, a school’s
efficiency in its use of its limited resources yields the highest possible level of student
achievement (Picus, 2000).

104
Extra Help
The extra help category includes certified tutors, special education, and GATE
resources.
The model recommends one certified teacher tutor for every 100 EL students
and another one for every 100 FRPL (poverty or at-risk) students; it does not account
for non-certified tutors such as student-peer tutors or non-teacher tutors. All six
schools had EL students in their population and five of them were significant; only
Southside’s EL population did not qualify as being numerically significant because
there were only 95 them in the entire school. None of the schools offered tutoring
exclusively for their EL students.
Only three schools offered tutoring services specifically for their at-risk
students: Santana had 0.5, had Genry had 3.2, and Lakeside had 4 tutors for their
respective populations. These numbers all fall significantly shy of the model’s
recommendations of 16.9, 6.2, and 18.5, respectively for each school. The high
numbers for Santana and Lakeside are a result of each school’s large proportion of EL
students. Of these three schools Genry had the smallest EL population and lowest
recommendations, yet the largest proportion of certified tutors available.
Lakeside is the only school to mandate some of its students to attend tutpring
sessions. Targeted Tutoring is available only to those ninth grade students identified as
needing additional intensive support. Ninth grade teachers identify students they feel
require additional academic support in order to be successful in the classroom. Those
students who do not attend their required tutoring sessions are faced with escalating
consequences.

105
At Santana, the school took advantage of the community service offered by the
local Boys and Girls Club to provide additional tutoring for their students. Although
the tutors were not certified teachers, they were all college students aspiring to become
teachers and each had extensive knowledge of the subjects in which each tutored.
Southside’s tutoring program was offered to its students who were willing to
attend; it was not mandatory nor was there an effort to target struggling students, as
was the case at Lakeside. For three hours four days a week, one credentialed teacher
facilitated a peer-tutoring program and intervened when necessary.
Kaman did not offer a school wide after school tutoring program, instead it
was expected that teachers provide the service for their students. According to the
principal, Dr. Anderson, this was certainly the case. This was also the case at
Belvedere; however, the school did provide tutoring everyday during lunch. This was
a peer-tutoring component with the services being offered by some of the school’s
highest performing students from its Advanced Academics Academy.
Because special education services are fully funded, the model makes no
recommendations for this category; still Table 4.6 summarizes the number of special
education teacher and aides available at each school.

106
Table 4.6: Special Education Teachers and Aides (in FTEs)
School Teachers Aides
Santana 9 7
Kaman 9.5 12
Belvedere 8.5 8
Genry 8.4 8
Lakeside 5.2 5
Southside 8.2 8

Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) resources include teachers, aides, and
funds ($25 for every student). Although the EBM does not make recommendations for
GATE teachers (these FTEs are included in the data for core academic teachers in
Table 4.3), all six schools had them available, and only one of the six schools even had
some funding set aside exclusively for this aspect of their operations (see Table 4.7).
Table 4.7: EBM Comparisons for GATE Funds
School EBM Actual
Santana $55,000 $0
Kaman $67,500 $0
Belvedere $49,250 $0
Genry $51,250 $0
Lakeside $56,750 $0
Southside $51,750 $3,000

107
None of the schools had GATE aides available. Santana had 6.5 GATE
teachers available, Kaman 5, Belvedere 6, Genry 6, Lakeside 6, and Southside 6.4.
Professional Development
The professional development category includes days per year available for
PD, funding, and the use of instructional facilitators.
The model recommends 10 days of intensive PD over the summer including
continued support throughout the year. None of the six schools had 10 days of PD.
The schools that did provide PD for their teachers mainly took advantage of the
district-provided training, not necessarily from outside experts—the only school to do
so was Belvedere.
Santana and Lakeside (which belong to the same district) each had five days
during the summer, with one follow up day in December; as well as opportunities
available via ten additional teacher collaboration sessions throughout the year. Both
schools focused much of their PD on the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR)
model. In the GRR teachers essentially relinquish responsibility to the students over
their own learning. Much like direct instruction allows for teacher modeling of a skill
or concept, GRR allows students to demonstrate their level of mastery initially with
the teacher’s guidance, and eventually independently.
Kaman also allowed six days for teachers, but they were disbursed throughout
the year and had a different focus. The school’s PD focus was on lesson design and the
district provided much of the training. A lesson design coach at each school site that
assisted teachers in designing a lesson that incorporates the elements of effective
instruction. Via one district professional development day per department, teachers

108
were trained by the lesson design coaches on how to incorporate the necessary
elements of effective instruction into their lessons. After receiving the relevant
training, it became the lesson design coach’s responsibility to provide further ongoing
teacher support at each site.
Although Belvedere had only three days available, Dr. West (principal), used
his entire funding to hire an outside consulting firm that spent approximately ten days
with teachers throughout the year. The school’s PD focus was on Direct Interactive
Instruction (DII). DII focuses on three main components of instruction: teacher-
questioning techniques, student engagement, and frequent formative assessments. He
hired an outside consulting firm, ALS, to work closely with teachers in each core
content area over an entire year to effectively implement the strategy. This is the third
year the consultants have been at Belvedere. Each year they have worked with two or
three departments. Throughout the year, ALS visited each teacher about ten times to
provide ongoing support. The teachers first observed ALS consultants teach a lesson
with the components of DII, and then were given subsequent opportunities to teach
other lessons while the ALS consultants observed. At the conclusion of each lesson
ALS consultants provided immediate feedback and led discussions on ways that
teachers could increase their respective effectiveness.
Genry and Southside provided the least number of days for their teachers with
only two and 1.5, respectively.
The EBM allocates $100 per student as the basis for determining the amount of
professional development funds a school should allocate. Given the large sizes of the
six participating schools, this amount is significant for each. These funds can be used

109
to pay for any expenses related to providing teachers with professional development
opportunities. This can include (but is not limited to) conference fees, transportation
costs, and fees for instructional facilitators. Table 4.8 summarizes PD funding
comparisons to the EBM recommendations.
Table 4.8: EBM Comparisons for PD Funds
School EBM Actual Difference
Santana $220,000 $22,000 -$198,000
Kaman $270,000 $64,780 -$205,220
Belvedere $197,000 $50,000 -$147,000
Genry $205,000 $26,750 -$178,250
Lakeside $227,000 $21,000 -$206,000
Southside $207,000 $0 -$207,000

Every principal cited the recent budget reductions as the main factor in having
such limited funding available. At Southside, there were no funds available at all.
Although each site was limited in funding, the principals explained that if they felt it
was beneficial to send a teacher to a conference they were able to pull from other
sources to pay for the costs.
As previously mentioned, only Belvedere took advantage of instructional
facilitators (or coaches) and outside expertise. The model recommends one coach for
every 600 students. For Santana, Kaman, Belvedere, Genry, Lakeside, and Southside,
this works out to be 11, 13.5, 9.9, 10.3, 11.4, and 10.4, respectively.

110
There is a real possibility that the funding for professional development for the
schools could be even less next year, of course in Southside’s case, a continued lack of
funding. Dr. West at Belvedere already knows that the $50,000 allocated for PD
would no longer be available next year. Consequently, the consulting firm ALS would
no longer be providing training for his teachers.
Student Support
Student support includes counselors, nurses, social workers, school
psychologists (fully funded), speech therapists (fully funded), and health assistants (no
recommendations). Table 4.9 provides a summary of EBM comparisons for this
category. The recommendations for counselors, nurses, and social workers are
determined by the number of high-needs students for each respective school and are as
follows: Santana 17.1 FTEs, Kaman 13.5 FTEs, Belvedere 13.8 FTEs, Genry 6.2
FTEs, Lakeside 18.5 FTEs, and Southside 14.5 FTEs
Table 4.9: EBM Comparisons for Student Support
School Counselors Nurses Psychologists Speech
Health
Assistants
Santana 7.3 1 0 0 1
Kaman 6 1 1 1 1
Belvedere 5 1 1 0.5 1
Genry 5.6 1 1 0 1
Lakeside 6 1 0.5 0 1
Southside 4.7 0 1 0 0.2
*Note: Since no school had social workers, the category was omitted from this table.

111
Every school fell shy of the EBM recommendations for this category.
Southside was the only school to eliminate its nurse as a result of the budget
reductions and kept only a part-time health assistant at 0.2 FTEs (the other five
schools have one full-time health assistant). Santana was the only school that did not
utilize a school psychologist; when services are needed the district provides one for
the school. Speech therapists were available at only two sites: Kaman (one FTE) and
Belvedere (0.5 FTE). For the other schools their respective districts provide speech
therapists whenever the services are required.
Because Santana and Lakeside belong to the same district, their FTEs include
the district provided position of a School Community Liaison (SCL). Their main
responsibility is to keep parents involved in the educational process. They serve as
translators during meetings involving students and keep parents informed on the
functions of the school. In recent years the focus of the SCLs has been on teaching
parents the school’s Ten Commandments of Education. These Commandments address
CSTs, CAHSEE, effective study skills, college entrance requirements and financial aid
(including scholarships), SAT/ACT testing, and general ways parents can support
students at home or even become involved at the school site.
Counselors at each site provided typical services for students such as class
scheduling, discipline, and career guidance. In addition to guidance counselors,
Santana provides its students two part-time supplemental counselors (included in the
school’s FTE counts for student support). They work individually with those students
identified as at risk. These are students in need of credit recovery services in order to
graduate on time, have not been successful in their classes, have scored in the lower

112
two performance bands on the CSTs or CAHSEE, or have been identified by staff
members as needing extra support. In addition to academic guidance, these counselors
provide support with personal problems that often times serve as barriers to student
focus and learning.
Administration
The administration category of the EBM includes principals, assistant
principals, secretaries, and clerical workers. The EBM recommends one principal and
for every 600 students one additional assistant principal, one secretary, and three
clerical workers.
Every school had exactly one principal and the numbers of assistant principals
were closely matched with the model’s recommendations. Table 4.10 summarizes
these comparisons.
Table 4.10: EBM Comparisons for Assistant Principals (in FTEs)
School EBM Actual Difference
Santana 2.7 3 +0.3
Kaman 3.5 3 -0.5
Belvedere 4 4 0
Genry 2.4 4 +1.6
Lakeside 2.8 3 +0.2
Southside 4.3 3 -1.3

113
Only two schools fell shy of the model’s recommendations: Kaman and
Southside. Belvedere actually matched the model exactly with four FTEs. Santana,
Genry, and Lakeside all exceeded the recommendations.
At Lakeside, one of the assistant principals works exclusively with 9
th
graders
and is responsible for ensuring that the school’s youngest class of students makes a
seamless transition from middle school to high school.
The FTE counts for Southside include an administrator known as Support
Services Specialist (SSS). It is the main responsibility of the SSS to ensure that
students identified as needing additional support receive that support. Along with the
principal and the counselors, the SSS develops a list of students through the use of
multiple indicators that require interventions. Some of the indicators include three
more Fs on the most recent grading period, CST scores from the previous year,
attendance and tardy records, and scores on the benchmark assessments. These
students and their families meet with the SSS (known as Higher Expectations
Academic Resource Team, or HEART conferences), a guidance counselor, or the
principal to address any issues or barriers to success.
Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance
There are a variety of strategies that have been successful in improving student
performance; Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance provides one
framework for school leaders to follow. Along with the Evidence-Based Model, these
steps were used to guide this study. During the qualitative data collection process,
principals were asked if there was any evidence of the Ten Steps at their respective

114
schools. The responses given were consistent with the data that was collected and
analyzed.
Step 1: Understanding Performance Problem
This study defined successful schools as those with a high similar schools
ranking and having met AYP for at least three consecutive years as evidence of
sustained student achievement. Even with these criteria, however, each school had its
own set of performance problems to address. Without this admission from each site
principal, implementing school wide change or reform would not have been possible
or at least, not as effective (Odden & Archibald, 2001). Table 4.11 summarizes the
performance problems present at each of the six participating schools.
Table 4.11: Summary of Performance Problems
School Performance Problems
Santana High School
• School did not meet AYP in 2009
• API dropped 8 points from 2008 (720) to 2009
(712)
• EL populations did not meet proficiency targets in
ELA or mathematics
• Statewide rank has not gone above a 4
Kaman High School
• In 2002 only about one-quarter of students
demonstrated proficiency on the CSTs
• 9-point decrease in API from 2005 to 2006
• Did not meet AYP in 2009
• EL subgroup did not meet AMOs in ELA or
mathematics
Belvedere High School
• School in danger of entering PI status in 2007
• Low rates of proficiency demonstrated on the
CAHSEE
Genry High School
• School did not meet AYP in 2009
• EL populations did not meet proficiency targets in
ELA
Lakeside High School
• School did not meet AYP in 2009
• API dropped 4 points from 2008 (715) to 2009
(711)

115
Table 4.11: Continued
Lakeside High School
• EL populations did not meet proficiency targets in
ELA or mathematics
• Two other subgroups failed to meet proficiency
targets in ELA
Southside High School
• EL populations did not meet proficiency targets in
ELA or mathematics
• Increasing number of students scoring in FBB and
BB performance bands on the CSTs

Four of the six schools failed to meet AYP in 2009: Santana, Kaman, Genry,
and Lakeside. One of the major reasons why this was so was due to the fact that each
of these four schools’ EL populations failed to satisfy proficiency targets in ELA, and
in mathematics only Genry’s students met the target. Although other groups also failed
to meet targets, EL was common across these four schools.
California sets proficiency targets for each school and in 2009 they were at
44.5% in ELA and 43.5% in mathematics. Each year the proficiency rates increase as
the 2014 NCLB deadline approaches.
The 2008-09 school year is the first time Santana has not met AYP since 2003.
In addition to its EL students not satisfying its AMOs, Hispanics and those designated
as socio-economically disadvantaged also failed to meet one of the two targets.
Hispanics met the mathematics proficiency target, but missed the ELA target by 5.8%.
The school’s socio-economically disadvantaged population failed to satisfy its ELA
target as well, falling 4.6% short of the percent goal. Santana’s EL students are the
only subgroup that failed to satisfy both ELA and mathematics targets. Only 20.6%
demonstrated proficiency on the ELA CSTs, and 34.7% did so on the mathematics
CSTs.

116
The 2008-09 school year was also the first time since 2003 that the Kaman has
not met AYP. School wide, Kaman missed its ELA proficiency target of by almost
5%, and only 29.9% of EL students demonstrated proficiency in this area. In
mathematics, Kaman exceeded its school-wide target, however, only 29.7% of EL
students reached proficiency—the only group that failed to satisfy its target.
Genry failed to meet AYP for the first time since the measure has been
implemented. The school met 23 of its 24 AMOs; the only target it did not meet is EL
proficiency in ELA. In ELA, the school-wide target was surpassed by a margin of
nearly 20%, reaching a proficiency rate of 64.2%. However, less than one-third of EL
students (30.5%) demonstrated proficiency in this area.
Lakeside also failed to meet AYP for the first time in 2009. The school failed
to satisfy four of its 22 AMOs. The AMOs not met includes percent proficient on the
CSTs by the Hispanic, socio-economically disadvantaged, and EL subgroups.
Hispanics met the mathematics proficiency target, but failed to meet the ELA target
falling short with only 34.2% proficiency. The socio-economically disadvantaged also
met the proficiency target in mathematics, but not in ELA demonstrating only 38.7%
proficiency. Lakeside’s EL students are the only subgroup to not meet either target. In
ELA the group’s proficiency rate was the lowest in the school at 23.9%, and in
mathematics (also the lowest in the school) it was 41.2%.
Santana, Belvedere, and Lakeside all experienced a slight decline in API from
2008 to 2009. Santana went from 720 in 2008 down to 712 in 2009. Belvedere’s
decline was slightly smaller from 729 down to 725. Lakeside also experienced a four-
point drop down to 711.

117
Step 2: Set and Maintain Higher Goals
Evidence of setting and maintaining higher standards was found at each school
site, however, the extent or impact remains unclear. Table 4.12 summarizes evidence
of Odden’s second step across the sites.
Table 4.12: Summary of High Standards
School Evidence
Santana High School
• PD focused on improving achievement of EL
students
• Ten Commandments of Education
• AVID
Kaman High School
• PD focused on improving achievement of EL
students
• Increasing student awareness of California’s STAR
testing
• AVID
Belvedere High School
• School-wide goal that all students will improve CST
scores by 5%
• AAA and AVID
Genry High School
• Why Try? motivation seminars
• No F policy
• Test Chat
Lakeside High School
• SMART goals
• Ten Commandments of Education
• AVID
• Focus on EL achievement
Southside High School • HEART conferences

As previously addressed, Santana, Kaman Belvedere, and Lakeside all offer
AVID to their students. This is an indication that the success of all students is an
important belief at these schools because they are reaching out to the middle of the
pack.
Three of the schools (Belvedere, Genry, and Southside) did not distinguish
between their student populations and made it a school-wide goal that all students will

118
improve their performance level. Belvedere’s goal for all students was to improve
their CST scores by 5% from the previous year. Kaman and Southside each set their
goals to move every student up one performance band on the CSTs.
At the other three schools (Santana, Kaman, and Lakeside), there was a special
focus on their EL students; which seems appropriate considering that these students
were the lowest performing subgroup at these schools. Rather than simply allowing
this situation to continue, these three schools were active in addressing the problem;
an indication that high standards are present.
Step 3: Adopt New Curriculum and Improve Instructional Practices
As previously mentioned, none of the schools were able to adopt a new
curriculum due to the recent budget reductions, however, each still made it a focus to
improve instructional practices across all departments. This was done one of two
ways: through PD opportunities and/or teacher collaboration sessions.
Despite limited funding four of the schools (Santana, Belvedere, Genry, and
Lakeside) were active in offering PD to their teachers as a means of improving
instructional practices. Furthermore, each school—with the exception of Belvedere—
used their scheduled teacher collaboration time to follow up on PD as well as other
areas.
Santana and Lakeside focused their PD on the same topics: strengthening their
PLC components and the Gradual Release of Responsibility instructional model
(GRR). Kaman’s PD focus was on effective lesson design, and Belvedere’s focus was
on direct interactive instruction (DII). Santana and Lakeside used their scheduled
teacher collaboration time (late-start days) to follow up on these sessions and to focus

119
on other areas as well. One of these areas was sharing of promising practices. Via
department meetings (especially in the core content areas) teachers were expected to
share (sometimes by modeling) effective practices with their peers. Although there
was no accountability to follow through on the implementation of those practices, each
site principal felt confident that collaboration did impact instructional practices across
their respective schools.
The other two schools—Genry and Southside—used collaboration sessions for
similar purposes, although there was no PD to follow up. Sharing of promising
practices was a constant focus at these two sites.
Step 4: Using Data to Drive Instructional Decisions
Data-driven decision-making is one of Odden’s Ten Steps and provides schools
that engage in the practice opportunities to determine a program’s effectiveness, hold
personnel accountable, and ultimately to improve the performance level of their
students (see Table 2.8). There was evidence at each school of using data to drive
decisions, but some schools seemed to be more proficient than others in implementing
the practice. For a summary of the data set used by each school as well as the
outcomes based on the data, see Table 4.2.
All six schools used CST data to provide students with the appropriate
interventions or support in an effort to improve their scores on the subsequent tests.
Three schools (Kaman, Belvedere, and Genry) shared the data with each respective
student and consistent with motivational strategies (Bandura, 1993), helped them set
goals and develop a plan to meet those goals on the next CSTs.

120
In addition to CST scores, all schools used common benchmark assessment
data to monitor and gauge student progress. The results of these assessments allowed
teachers to provide the appropriate interventions in the classroom to address the areas
of growth. Although there was no accountability to ensure that teachers actually re-
taught, all six principals felt confident that this was indeed occurring. Evidence to
suggest this was true can be found in the API scores for each school.
Step 5: Ongoing Professional Development for Teachers
Providing ongoing professional development for teachers is one of the most
effective strategies for boosting student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008). As
previously addressed, all six schools made this one of their focuses.
Santana and Lakeside focused their PD on the same topics: strengthening their
PLC components and the Gradual Release of Responsibility instructional model
(GRR). Kaman’s PD focus was on effective lesson design, and Belvedere’s focus was
on direct interactive instruction (DII). Genry focused its recent PD (via weekly
collaboration sessions) on the use of DataDirector. Southside focused on strengthening
its PLC components. Santana and Lakeside used their scheduled teacher collaboration
time (late-start days) to follow up on these sessions and to focus on other areas as well.
One of these areas was sharing of promising practices. Via department meetings
(especially in the core content areas) teachers were expected to share (sometimes by
modeling) effective practices with their peers. Although there was no accountability to
follow through on the implementation of those practices, each site principal felt
confident that collaboration did impact instructional practices across their respective
schools.

121
Step 6: Using Time More Efficiently
Although Genry High School was the only school that offered block classes for
their students, all schools provided some evidence of this sixth step. Along with
Genry, four other schools (Santana, Kaman, Lakeside, and Southside), scheduled late
start days throughout the year to allow for teacher collaboration. Kaman and Genry
both provided weekly collaboration sessions; Santana and Lakeside provided ten
sessions per year; and Southside provided two sessions per month. Doing so avoided
having teachers stay longer than their contract hours specified.
Only Belvedere did not have late-start days scheduled to allow for teacher
collaboration. Instead, collaboration sessions were provided as release time whenever
a department was scheduled to work with the educational consultants hired to provide
professional development training.
Step 7: Support for Struggling Students
There were a variety of support mechanisms implemented throughout the six
schools. These are summarized in Table 4.13.
Table 4.13: Summary of Support Provided for Struggling Students
School Support
Santana High School
• After school tutoring
• Supplemental counseling services
Kaman High School
• Standards-based curriculum
• All teachers are highly qualified as mandated by NCLB
• After school tutoring
Belvedere High School
• All teachers are highly qualified as mandated by NCLB
• ELA and mathematics intervention
• Counselors and dean meet continually with struggling
students
• Lunch-time tutoring

122
Table 4.13: Continued
Genry High School
• Small class sizes for intervention classes
• After school tutoring in library
• After school CAHSEE prep courses
Lakeside High School
• Homework Club
• Targeted Tutoring
• 9
th
grade learning center
• 9
th
grade assistant principal
Southside High School
• HEART conferences
• After school tutoring
• Grade-level mathematics classes
• CAHSEE prep courses
• Support Services Specialist (SSS)
• Independent study class

Tutoring was a common strategy implemented at the six schools. At each site,
this was offered as an option for those students willing and able to attend the after
school sessions that were facilitated by at least one of the schools’ teachers. Belvedere
was the only school to not offer after school tutoring; instead, it was offered daily
during lunchtime. At Lakeside, Targeted Tutoring was implemented whereby teachers
identify students needing immediate interventions. Much like traditional detention,
these students were required to attend tutoring or face consequences.
Santana also offered students supplemental counseling services. In addition to
the typical services provided by a high school guidance counselor, the school utilizes
two part-time counselors that work individually with those students identified as at
risk. These are students in need of credit recovery services in order to graduate on
time, have not been successful in their classes, have scored in the lower two
performance bands (FBB or BB) on the CSTs or CAHSEE, or have been identified by
staff members as needing extra support. In addition to academic guidance, these

123
counselors provide support with personal problems that often times serve as barriers to
student focus and learning.
Consistent with Odden and Archibald’s (2001) recommendation that only a
highly qualified teacher teach struggling students, Kaman High School’s teachers are
all considered highly qualified under NCLB. This is a significant indicator of ensuring
that struggling students receive highly effective instruction.
All teachers at Belvedere High School also qualify as highly qualified teachers
under NCLB. In addition to this and tutoring, the school offers its students
intervention courses in ELA and mathematics and provides individual conferences
with low performing students. The school’s dean and guidance counselors hold
individual conferences with students to provide both personal and academic support.
At Genry High School, students in intervention classes enjoy small class sizes.
The school offers block classes in ELA and mathematics. Rather than taking just one
period of English and/or math, students identified as needing extra support are placed
into two-hour blocks where the content covered is the same as in non-intervention
classes, but at a much slower pace and with more exploratory approaches. Because
only ninth, tenth, and eleventh graders are required to take the CSTs, only students in
these grade levels are eligible for intervention classes.
Additionally, Genry’s students who have yet to pass the CAHSEE are provided
with an after school prep class in either ELA or mathematics, whichever portion of the
test they haven’t passed. Each class is offered twice a week on alternating days to
allow students to attend both sections if necessary.

124
Lakeside offers its students a 9
th
grade learning center and an assistant
principal exclusively for 9
th
graders as well. Both mechanisms are designed to keep
first year high school students on track.
Students at Southside are provided with HEART conferences, grade-level
mathematics classes, a Support Services Specialist (SSS), and an independent study
class. It is the main responsibility of the SSS to ensure that students identified as
needing additional support receive the appropriate support. Along with the principal
and the counselors, the SSS develops a list of students through the use of multiple
indicators that require interventions. Some of the indicators include three more Fs on
the most recent grading period, CST scores from the previous year, attendance and
tardy records, and scores on the benchmark assessments. These students and their
families meet with the SSS (known as Higher Expectations Academic Resource Team,
or HEART conferences), a guidance counselor, or the principal to address any issues
or barriers to success. Ultimately, it is the counselors’ responsibility to develop a 6-
week plan for success for each of these students. As of December 2009, there were 38
9
th
graders, 25 20
th
graders, 11 11
th
graders, and 4 12
th
graders on such a 6-week plan.
In addition to the HEART conferences, Southside offers its struggling students
interventions during the school day. Having a SSS on campus gives them a direct
resource at any time. In math, the school recently implemented grade-level courses.
For example, rather than having simply an Algebra I class with 9
th
and 10
th
graders,
there is a 9
th
grade Algebra I class and a seperate10
th
grade Algebra I class. Another
strategy recently implemented at the school is offering students with an independent
study class. This is essentially a tutoring class built into the student’s daily schedule.

125
For those students identified as needing assistance in preparing for the
CAHSEE, the school offers them a semester-long CAHSEE prep class in either ELA
or mathematics. CST scores and previous math grades are used to identify these
students. Additionally, the district provides each of its three high schools with a
CAHSEE predictor test. Those who do not pass also become eligible for these prep
courses.
Step 8: Creating Professional Learning Communities
None of the six schools qualify as being true professional learning
communities; all the components of a true PLC are not present. However, there are
some key elements of PLCs found at each site. Table 4.14 summarizes these
components.
Table 4.14: Summary of PLC Elements
School Evidence
Santana High School
• Sharing of promising practices and use of
assessments and data to drive instruction still have
areas of improvement
• Teacher collaboration
Kaman High School
• Monthly collaboration time for all teachers
• Data-driven decision making
Belvedere High School
• Data-driven decision-making
• Ongoing PD in DII
• Teacher collaboration (release time with
consultants)
Genry High School
• Use of data to drive instructional decisions
• Collaboration Wednesdays
Lakeside High School
• Teacher collaboration
• Data-driven decision-making
Southside High School
• Data-driven decision-making
• Monthly teacher collaboration
• District-wide training by Rick and Rebecca Dufour

126
The table shows that all six schools shard the same components: data-driven
decision-making and teacher collaboration. Additionally, Belvedere was the only
school to have a continued intense focus on professional development.
Step 9: Professional Behavior and Promising Practices
This step, like the previous one, was relatively the same across five of the six
schools; only Belvedere, once again, differed from the rest. Santana, Kaman, Genry,
Lakeside, and Southside all used their scheduled teacher collaboration time to share
promising practices across each department. Belvedere, however, does not have late-
start days like the other schools. Instead, it is the only school in the study to actively
seek outside expertise to provide continued PD support.
Step 10: Human Capital
This final step was evidenced at four (Kaman, Belvedere, Lakeside, and
Southside) of the six schools. Only Santana and Genry lacked some type of evidence;
although each principal at these two sites felt strongly that they had the appropriate
teachers and support personnel to continue improving the achievement level of their
students.
Kaman’s principal, Dr. Anderson, spent five years at the school as an assistant
principal and left for two years. In that departure from Kaman he earned his Ed.D.
Upon earning his doctorate he was rehired by the school as principal.
Dr. West at Belvedere was hired based on the fact that he was successful in
exiting one high school from PI status. When he was hired as principal by Belvedere
the school had failed to meet AYP for two consecutive years and was in danger of

127
entering PI-1 status. In the first year under his leadership Belvedere met AYP and
avoided entering PI.
Lakeside’s previous principal spent over ten years in the same role. Ms. Peters
was hired as an assistant principal for the 2008-09 school year with the expectation
that she’d take over the leadership role, which she did in 2009-10. Although she is in
her first principal post, she was highly sought out by Lakeside’s district as the best
candidate to take over for the previous principal.
Conversely, in terms of tenure, 2009-10 marks Ms. Norwood’s 22
nd
year as
principal of Southside High School. Considering that the school has met AYP every
single year, has an API that’s outperformed the state high school average and
statewide average since at least 2005 (see Table F2 in Appendix F), and that it has
earned California’s Distinguished School award, the school appears to have made the
right decision in keeping Ms. Norwood as its principal.
Conclusion
This study is comprised of two main components: how a school’s resources are
used to improve student improvement and how these compare to the recommendations
provided by the Evidence-Based Model, and if there exists evidence of Odden’s
(2010) Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at each of the six schools. It is
driven by the following research questions:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?

128
3. How did the allocation and use 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 first section of this chapter discussed the findings for RQ1, RQ2, and
RQ3. In RQ1 three common themes were found across the six schools: data-driven
decision-making, teacher collaboration, and tutoring services for their students. RQ2
saw schools using their resources to support students both in and out of the classroom.
There were common findings across the six schools resulting from the recent budget
reductions (RQ3): postponing the adoption of new instructional materials, drastic
reductions in funds available for GATE and PD, and the elimination CSR in 9
th
grade
ELA classes.
The second section addressed RQ4: comparisons of resource-use patterns at
each of the six schools to the recommendations outlined by the EBM. The main
categories addressed included staffing (core academic teachers and specialist &
elective teachers), extra help (certified tutors, special education, and GATE),
professional development (days per year, funds, and use of instructional facilitators),
student support (counselors, nurses, social workers, school psychologists, speech
therapists, and health assistants), and administration (principals, assistant principals,
secretaries, and clerical workers). Within the first three categories all six schools fell
significantly shy of the model’s recommendations; most notably with the core
academic teachers and funding available for GATE and professional development.

129
Regarding administration, only two schools fell shy of the model’s recommendations:
Kaman and Southside. Belvedere actually matched the model exactly. Santana, Genry,
and Lakeside all exceeded the recommendations.
The third section explored the evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling
Student Performance found at each school. Table 4.15 provides a summary of the
steps evidenced at each site.
Table 4.15: Summary of Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance
Step
School’s With
Evidence
School’s Lacking
Evidence
Understand performance
problem
• Santana, Kaman,
Belvedere, Genry,
Lakeside, and
Southside
• None
Set and maintain higher
goals
• Santana, Kaman,
Belvedere, Genry,
Lakeside, and
Southside
• None
Adopt new curriculum and
improve instructional
practices
• Santana, Kaman,
Belvedere, Genry,
Lakeside, and
Southside
• None
Using data to drive
instructional decisions
• Santana, Kaman,
Belvedere, Genry,
Lakeside, and
Southside
• None
Ongoing professional
development for teachers
• Santana, Kaman,
Belvedere, Genry,
Lakeside, and
Southside
• None
Use time more efficiently
• Santana, Kaman,
Genry, Lakeside, and
Southside
• Belvedere
Support for struggling
students
• Santana, Kaman,
Belvedere, Genry,
Lakeside, and
Southside
• None

130
Table 4.15: Continued
Create professional
learning communities
(PLCs)
• Santana, Kaman,
Belvedere, Genry,
Lakeside, and
Southside
• None
Professional behavior and
promising practices
• Santana, Kaman,
Belvedere, Genry,
Lakeside, and
Southside
• None
Human capital
• Kaman, Belvedere,
Lakeside, and
Southside
• Santana
• Genry

It should be noted that although this study addressed various improvement
strategies, resource allocation patterns, and evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student
Performance across six high schools with having met similar criteria, none of these
elements have been directly linked to the achievement level of each school’s
respective students. Although there may very well exist effect sizes for each, this study
did not explore this element. Rather, it simply reported on the strategies and resources
implemented by the schools and each one’s level of student achievement as measured
by California’s STAR testing program.
The final chapter of this study addresses the conclusions, recommendations,
and implications of the entire study.

131
Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
This chapter is comprised of four sections: a summary of the study including
its findings, conclusions, implications of the study, and the researcher’s final thoughts.
The summary condenses chapters three and four and provides only the highlights. The
conclusions address only the six schools that participated in this study. Implications
are designed as recommendations for principals in general based on this study. Final
thoughts are based solely on the researcher’s knowledge resulting from the
undertaking of this study.
Summary
The intent of this study was to provide additional insight into how successful
urban schools allocate their limited resources to serve the needs of their respective
students. The Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008) was used
as a framework to determine resource allocation patterns. Within this context,
evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance was also sought.
Because the term successful can be interpreted in various manners, the study
first had to define what successful schools meant within its context. For the purpose of
this study successful schools were defined as those schools that have met their AYP
requirement each of the previous three academic years (2005-06 through 2007-08) and
maintained a similar schools rank (SSR) of 7, 8, 9, or 10.
The final selection of schools included six comprehensive high schools
(Santana, Kaman, Belvedere, Genry, Lakeside, and Southside) located in Orange and

132
Los Angles counties. Case studies for each respective school are found in Appendices
A-F and each provides a more detailed account of each school.
The selection of participating schools was further based on the following
established criteria:
• High schools located in the Los Angeles County or Orange County
• At least 75% of the student population must be of ethnic minority
• At least 50% of the student population must qualify for Free and
Reduced Price Lunch
• Approximately 25% of the population must be designated as English
Learners (EL)
Through an analysis of school documentation provided by each site principal
and an interview with these principals, data were collected to determine resource use
patterns as well as evidence of the Ten Steps. Additionally, the study was guided by
the following four research questions:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the
school level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use 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?

133
In regards to the research questions, there were some similarities across the
schools. Resources at each school were used to implement several strategies designed
to support student achievement (see Table 4.1). Although the improvement strategies
varied among the six schools, the research yielded three common themes: data-driven
decision-making, teacher collaboration, and tutoring services for students. Although
the themes looked slightly different at each site, each one’s resources were allocated to
ensure that these components remained in tact, even in light of the current budget
reductions.
All six of the schools analyzed CST data for their students and used the data in
similar ways. Low CST scores allowed each school to place their respective students
into intervention courses to address the areas of deficiency. Additionally, Kaman,
Belvedere, and Genry, shared the previous year’s scores with their students and held
individual conferences with each. The intentions of the conferences were to raise
student awareness of their own performance, as well as to serve as motivators to
improve those scores on the following round of tests.
In addition to CST scores, all schools used common benchmark assessment
data to monitor and gauge student progress. The results of these assessments allowed
teachers to provide the appropriate interventions in the classroom to address the areas
of growth. Although there was no accountability to ensure that teachers actually re-
taught, all six principals felt confident that this was indeed occurring. Evidence to
suggest this was true can be found in the API scores for each school.
Five of the six schools built into their school day at least one monthly late-start
day that allowed teachers to collaborate before they taught their first class. The only

134
school that did not have a late-start day was Belvedere High School. When asked
about why this was the case, the principal Dr. West stated that the district did not have
the resources to implement such a schedule. Kaman and Genry each provided their
teachers with weekly collaboration sessions. Being part of the same district teachers at
Santana and Lakeside each had ten days of collaboration per academic year, which
averaged to be about one day per month. At Southside, there were two available days
per month for teacher collaboration.
Resulting from the recent budget reductions, there were three similar actions
taken by each school: postponing the adoption of new curriculum materials, drastic
reductions in funds available for GATE and professional development, and the
elimination of class-size reduction (CSR) in 9
th
grade ELA classes.
Regarding the EBM, there were five main categories that were analyzed:
staffing (core academic teachers – including GATE – and specialist & elective
teachers), extra help (certified tutors and special education), professional development
(days per year, funds, and use of instructional facilitators), student support
(counselors, nurses, social workers, school psychologists, speech therapists, and health
assistants), and administration (principals, assistant principals, secretaries, and clerical
workers).
Within the first three categories all six schools fell significantly shy of the
model’s recommendations, most notably with the core academic teachers and funding
available for GATE and professional development (see Table 4.3, Table 4.7, & Table
4.8).

135
Kaman experienced the most significant deficit for core academic teachers by a
margin of 44 FTEs; the smallest deficit belonged to Southside with a margin of 29.6
FTEs. The average deficit among the six schools was 33 FTEs. Furthermore, each
school’s ratio of specialist & elective teachers to core academic teachers exceeded the
model’s recommendation of 20 percent (see Table 4.5). Southside exceeded the EBM
recommendations by only 8.0%, compared to the largest surplus of 29.4% at Genry.
This suggests that each school can benefit from reducing the number of specialist &
elective teachers and increasing the number of core academic teachers to be more
aligned to the model.
The only school to have any funding for GATE was Southside, but the amount
of $3,000 was about $48,750 shy of what the Evidence-Based Model recommended
given its student population. Regarding professional development funds (see Table
4.8), only Southside eliminated all funding for this purpose. Although the other five
sites did reserve some funding here, none of the schools were close to the
recommendations of the EBM. Belvedere experienced the smallest deficit in this
category; however, its $50,000 budget for PD was still $147,000 of the $197,000
recommendation. Kaman experienced the largest deficit of $205,220, allocating only
$64,780.
Regarding administration (specifically, assistant principals), only two schools
fell shy of the model’s recommendations: Kaman (-0.5) and Southside (-1.3).
Belvedere actually matched the model exactly at 4 FTEs. Santana, Genry, and
Lakeside all slightly exceeded the recommendations by 0.3, 1.6, and 0.2, respectively.

136
There was evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student Perfromance at
each of the sites. Kaman, Belvedere, and Lakeside had evidence of all the steps;
Santana and Southside had evidence of nine steps; and Genry showed evidence of
eight steps. The extent and impact on student performance of each step at the six
schools are unknown.
The school with the lowest API of 700, Kaman, was one that evidenced all ten
steps. Its similar schools rank (SSR) was also the lowest dropping from 8 to 6 in 2009.
Additionally, Kaman did not meet AYP in 2009.
In 2009 Belvedere had an API of 725, an SSR of 9, and was one of two
schools in the study to have met AYP. The school’s principal, Dr. West, also
maintained an intense focus on providing ongoing professional development for his
teachers; much more so than the other five schools.
The third school with all ten steps was Lakeside. In 2009 the school had an
API of 711 and an SSR of 8, but failed to meet AYP for the first time since the
measure has been implemented.
The two schools that evidenced nine of the ten steps were Santana and
Southside. In 2009 Santana had an API of 712 and the highest possible SSR of 10 (no
other school in the study matched this ranking); however, Santana did not meet AYP.
Southside High School had an API of 762 (only Genry had a higher API) in 2009 and
an SSR of 7; furthermore, the school is the only one in the study to have met AYP
every year the measure has been implemented.
The school with the highest API in the study was Genry High School, and it
evidenced the least number of steps at eight. The two steps it lacked were providing

137
ongoing professional development for teachers and taking advantage of human capital.
Genry’s API in 2009 was 779 with a similar schools ranking of 8, but did not meet
AYP for the first time.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of the study addressed in the previous chapter and
summarized in this chapter, there are some recommendations and conclusions that can
be drawn. This section will address those findings and conclusions for each of the five
categories of the Evidence-Based Model that were analyzed (staffing, extra help,
professional development, student support, and administration).
Consider that none of the participating schools had the resources to match all
five categories. In four of the categories the schools fell shy of the model, and in the
administration category (specifically, assistant principals) some schools even
experienced an excess of FTEs.
Staffing Category
Staffing in the core academic content areas and specialist & elective teachers
falls greatly shy of the EBM recommendations (see Table 4.3 and Table 4.4,
respectively). Furthermore, specialist & elective teachers were found in
disproportionate numbers at each site (see Table 4.5) exceeding the model’s
recommendations (20% of core academic teachers).
Given the current economic climate in California and its schools, it is not
feasible to recommend hiring new teachers in the core content areas. However, one
realistic approach for the site principals would be to decrease the disparity between

138
their core teachers and their elective teachers. Belvedere can serve as a model for this
approach.
Dr. West, principal of Belvedere High School, was in the process of replacing
some of his ineffective and elective teachers with high quality mathematics teachers.
His rationale was that he needed to offer his students more mathematics instruction,
and fewer electives. He felt the school had an abundance of electives and not enough
mathematics courses. Upon his arrival he underwent a similar process in the English
department. Although there were certain collective bargaining procedures that he had
to follow, he felt he was rather successful in “bringing in high quality teachers.”
California’s STAR testing does not assess students’ knowledge of elective
courses, rather knowledge of the core academic areas. Since this is how the state
measures a school’s success under NCLB mandates, it would make sense for schools
to allocate a greater amount of their resources to this area.
Extra Help
The Evidence-based Model recommends one certified teacher-tutor for every
100 FRPL (poverty) students and an additional one for every 100 EL students.
Only three schools offered tutoring services specifically for their at-risk
students: Santana had 0.5, had Genry had 3.2, and Lakeside had 4 tutors for their
respective populations. These numbers all fall significantly shy of the model’s
recommendations of 16.9, 6.2, and 18.5, respectively for each school. Of these three
schools Genry had the smallest EL population and lowest recommendations, yet the
largest proportion of certified tutors available.

139
Lakeside is the only school to mandate some of its students to attend tutpring
sessions. Targeted Tutoring is available only to those ninth grade students identified as
needing additional intensive support. Ninth grade teachers identify students they feel
require additional academic support in order to be successful in the classroom. Those
students who do not attend their required tutoring sessions are faced with escalating
consequences.
At Santana, the school took advantage of the community service offered by the
local Boys and Girls Club to provide additional tutoring for their students. Although
the tutors were not certified teachers, they were all college students aspiring to become
teachers and each had extensive knowledge of the subjects in which each tutored.
Southside’s tutoring program was offered to its students who were willing to
attend; it was not mandatory nor was there an effort to target struggling students, as
was the case at Lakeside. For three hours four days a week, one credentialed teacher
facilitated a peer-tutoring program and intervened when necessary.
Kaman did not offer a school wide after school tutoring program, instead it
was expected that teachers provide the service for their students. According to the
principal, Dr. Anderson, this was certainly the case. This was also the case at
Belvedere; however, the school did provide tutoring everyday during lunch. This was
a peer-tutoring component with the services being offered by some of the school’s
highest performing students from its Advanced Academics Academy.
In light of the impending (and continued) budget reductions, some of the above
tutoring programs may be in jeopardy for the following school year. The schools can
continue to offer this support for its students by continuing a peer-tutoring program. It

140
incurs almost no cost but can still provide a value for struggling students. Although
not as effective as the EBM’s recommendation of providing a credentialed teacher for
a tutor, it is better than not offering the service at all.
Another suggestion would be to follow Santana’s example and solicit
assistance from community organizations such as the Boys and Girls Club. Southern
California has an abundant of public and private universities that can also serve as a
valuable (and free) resource for the schools.
Professional Development
Professional development has been proven to yield positive results in regard to
the performance level of students (Odden & Archibald, 2001; Joyce & Showers, 2002;
Odden & Picus, 2008), yet, each school choose to make cuts in this category as a
result of California’s overall budget reductions (see Table 4.8). Consequently, none of
the schools matched well against the EBM recommendations for funding in this
category. Additionally, the EBM calls for 10 days of intensive professional
development; again, none of the schools matched this recommendation.
The school with the smallest shortage in funding was Belvedere at $147,000.
Southside, with no funding allocated to PD understandably experienced the largest
shortage at $207,000. With the impending significant budget reductions in California,
it appears that there could be even less (if any) funding for this purpose.
Belvedere was the only school that used its funding to hire an outside
consulting firm to offer training for its teachers. Although Belvedere had only three
days available its principal, Dr. West, used his entire funding to hire an outside
consulting firm that spent approximately ten days with teachers throughout the year.

141
The focus of these PD sessions was on Direct Interactive Instruction (DII). Next year,
there will be no funding at all and as a result, the consultants would no longer be
around.
Santana and Lakeside (which belong to the same district) each had five days of
PD during the summer, with one follow up day in December. The focus for both
schools was on the Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) instructional model.
Kaman also provided six days for teachers, but they were disbursed throughout
the year. At this school the focus of PD was on lesson design.
Genry and Southside provided the least number of days for their teachers with
only two and 1.5, respectively.
These days are also in jeopardy of being reduced for the following school year
resulting form the budget reductions. Many schools in California have chosen or will
be forced to take non-paid furlough days next year. To minimize the impact on the
number of student attendance days, many of these days are being taken from teacher
training or prep days.
A possible solution to the reductions in (or even the lack of) PD funds and PD
days could be to use teacher collaboration time as the main source of improving
instructional practices at each site. Five of the six schools (Belvedere is the exception)
have at least one day monthly set aside for collaboration. Meeting once per month, or
even twice per month may not be enough to address all the necessary components of
improving the level of student performance. It may behoove these schools to follow a
common trend of offering weekly collaboration sessions for teachers.

142
The findings show that the topics addressed during collaboration time varies
from school to school and from session to sessions within each school; instead, each
site principal can make this time focus only on improving the instructional practices of
his or her teachers. Consistent with the philosophy shared by several of the principals,
a school must take advantage of its own expertise, especially in times when it is
extremely difficult to bring in outside sources due to a lack of funding. Those teachers
identified as having effective strategies and skills can become leaders and models for
the other teachers needing to improve their respective effectiveness.
Improving instructional practices can help reduce the number of struggling
students at each school. Decreasing the number of students who need additional
support outside of the classroom can free up some resources for each school to
allocate to other areas of their operations. Additional support is found in various forms
at the six schools. It may serve to benefit each school and their respective students to
reduce the number of programs and focus only on a few that have been proven to be
effective.
Student Support
Student support services include counselors, nurses, social workers, school
psychologists (fully funded), speech therapists (fully funded), and health assistants (no
EBM recommendations). The recommendations for counselors, nurses, and social
workers are determined by the number of high-needs students for each respective
school and are as follows: Santana 17.1 FTEs, Kaman 13.5 FTEs, Belvedere 13.8
FTEs, Genry 6.2 FTEs, Lakeside 18.5 FTEs, and Southside 14.5 FTEs. All six schools

143
in the study fell significantly shy of the Evidence-Based Model’s recommendation for
this category (see Table 4.9).
All schools provided typical guidance counseling services for their respective
students, but two of them included additional services. Belonging to the same district,
Santana and Lakeside utilized the district provided position of a School Community
Liaison (SCL), which are counted in each school’s FTEs for this category. The SCL’s
main responsibility is to keep parents involved in the educational process. They serve
as translators during meetings involving students and keep parents informed on the
functions of the school. In recent years the focus of the SCLs has been on teaching
parents the school’s Ten Commandments of Education. These Commandments address
CSTs, CAHSEE, effective study skills, college entrance requirements and financial aid
(including scholarships), SAT/ACT testing, and general ways parents can support
students at home or even become involved at the school site.
In addition to guidance counselors, Santana provides its students two part-time
supplemental counselors (included in the school’s FTE counts for student support).
They work individually with those students identified as at risk. These are students in
need of credit recovery services in order to graduate on time, have not been successful
in their classes, have scored in the lower two performance bands on the CSTs or
CAHSEE, or have been identified by staff members as needing extra support. In
addition to academic guidance, these counselors provide support with personal
problems that often times serve as barriers to student focus and learning.

144
Considering the impending budget cuts, it may serve to benefit each school’s
respective students to expand the services of their guidance counselors to provide the
same support Santana’s supplemental counselors provide.
Administration
The administration category of the EBM includes principals, assistant
principals, secretaries, and clerical workers. The EBM recommends one principal and
for every 600 students one additional assistant principal, one secretary, and three
clerical workers. Every school had exactly one principal and the numbers of assistant
principals were closely matched with the model’s recommendations (see Table 4.10).
At Lakeside, one of the assistant principals works exclusively with 9
th
graders
and is responsible for ensuring that the school’s youngest class of students makes a
seamless transition from middle school to high school.
The FTE counts for Southside include an administrator known as Support
Services Specialist (SSS). It is the main responsibility of the SSS to ensure that
students identified as needing additional support receive that support. Along with the
principal and the counselors, the SSS develops a list of students through the use of
multiple indicators that require interventions. Some of the indicators include three
more Fs on the most recent grading period, CST scores from the previous year,
attendance and tardy records, and scores on the benchmark assessments. These
students and their families meet with the SSS (known as Higher Expectations
Academic Resource Team, or HEART conferences), a guidance counselor, or the
principal to address any issues or barriers to success.

145
An administration recommendation for the six schools is to continue the duties
as they currently present themselves. Although many school districts on the area are
choosing to reduce the number of administrators in an effort to help counter the
significant budget reductions.
Implications
This study provided and analyzed data on resource allocation patterns for six
successful high schools as well as evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student
Performance. Because this incorporated a case study approach, a direct link between
the elements and strategies at each school and the level of student performance was
not explored. However, this study still provides implications for high school principals
looking to increase the efficiency of their school’s limited resources. In essence, the
purpose of this section is to provide principals with recommendations on how to make
better resource allocation decisions, especially important considering the current
economic climate in California’s public schools.
Although the recommendations made here are based on the Evidence-Based
Model and Odden’s Ten Steps, these are not the only strategies that have been proven
to work in schools. However, because the two frameworks guided the study, they
consequently guide the implications as well.
Resource allocation decisions must remain consistent with a school’s
instructional vision. Principals cannot claim that their main focus is on improving
student achievement, yet fail to support that cause. This consistency incorporates
several facets. This section will address improvement strategies, staffing decisions,

146
professional development and teacher collaboration, support for struggling students,
student support services, and some of Odden’s Ten Steps.
Principals must ensure that improvement strategies address specific areas of
need. Understanding performance problems and having a realistic approach to
addressing those needs would allow for appropriate improvement strategies.
In regard to staffing decisions, principals should make efforts to balance out
the ratio of specialist & elective teachers to core content teachers as recommended by
the Evidence-based Model. Although there are logistical limits to the number of
teachers a principal can hire, he or she can still determine who will be hired. One can
expect a deficiency in the number core academic teachers recommended by the EBM,
but this should not be greater than the deficiency of specialist & elective teachers. The
ratio of specialist teachers to core academic teachers should not exceed 20% as it does
in the schools that participated in this study. A school’s API and AYP are not
determined by student performance in elective courses, rather, by their performance on
the CSTs that address only the core content areas. Therefore, it makes sense that this
area remains the focus of a school’s appropriate staffing decisions.
Understanding that funds for professional development are extremely limited,
and in some cases nonexistent, principals can still address this element by taking
advantage of in-house expertise and teacher collaboration time. Identifying effective
teachers on campus and utilizing their expertise can realize positive effects on student
performance without incurring the expense of hiring outside consultants. This is not to
suggest that the practice of hiring outside consultants is a negative one, quite the
opposite is true. However, this recommendation comes in light of the current

147
economic climate in which California schools find themselves. Utilizing available
teacher collaboration time would be the best manner by which to get this
accomplished (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009) if
traditional PD avenues are unavailable.
Focusing on effective instruction would minimize the amount of support
needed for struggling students. It is inevitable that regardless of a teacher’s
effectiveness, there will be some students that require additional assistance. With
limited funding, these offerings would be greatly impacted. Tutoring with a
credentialed teacher has been a proven strategy that any school serious about
improving student performance should offer. However, if funding becomes an issue,
schools can take advantage of free resources provided by community organizations.
Santana provides a great example of how this can be benefit a school.
There are a number of outside agencies and community members that have the
resources and willingness to assist schools in their goal of improving student
achievement. Creating partnerships with these individuals and organizations can have
a profound impact on the school and the students for no monetary cost. This assistance
can be in the form of tutoring (although not be a credentialed teacher, it is a free
resource), counseling services, school safety, or assistance in the classroom.
Schools must ensure that they communicate high standards to their students
and remain consistent with these expectations regardless of the demographics. High
expectations also serve as motivators to keep students focused on their own learning
and growth.

148
Using data to drive decisions has been a repeated strategy effective in
improving student performance. Principals should engage in this practice to monitor
the effectiveness of programs (as a means to ensure efficient use of resources) and
hold personnel accountable for their duties. Implemented properly, this strategy can
eliminate ineffective school practices.
Emulating a professional learning community (PLC), or better yet, becoming
one, can yield positive results for schools. Although the term has been used loosely,
principals wanting to create a PLC on their campuses must ensure that there remains
an intense focus on student achievement. As difficult as it may be under the current
economic conditions, a school cannot let the lack of funding be an excuse for not
performing its functions. The underfunded NCLB Act does not give leniency to
schools based on their funding levels.
Final Thoughts
Accountability of K-12 schools is not a fad and is something that must be in
place to ensure that the needs of students are met. Gone are the days when schools that
failed to meet their students’ needs are allowed to continue with business as usual.
NCLB, although flawed, introduced schools with this crucial missing component of
accountability.
As school leaders, principals must be sure their decisions yield the highest
results for student performance. Resources will continue to remain limited (hopefully
not at current levels) and as a result their efficiency must be fully realized. Inefficient
use of resources has a detrimental effect on student performance (Picus, 2000).

149
The Evidence-Based Model provides a proven framework that principals can
follow. With this model, strategies consistent with Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling
Student Performance can be implemented. Implementing both frameworks, principals
can ensure their stakeholders that they are serious about student achievement, even in
the face of the current economic crisis faced by California’s public schools. Today,
more than ever, schools are expected to do much more with much less.

150
References

Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259-
287.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 80(2).

Bradley, A., Hoff, D., & Manzo, K.K. (1999). Teachers support most standards-based
changes. Education Week, 19(9), 8.

Busch, C., & Odden, A. (1997). Special issue: Collection of school-level finance data.
Journal of Education Finance, 22(3).

Carter, S.C. (2000). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty
schools. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, C.R., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher
development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development
Council: School Redesign Network at Stanford University.

Dufour, R., & Burnette B. (2002). Pull out negativity by its roots: Those who grow
healthy school cultures must root out weeds of bad culture. Journal of Staff
Development, 23(3).

Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by Doing: A
Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Bloomington,
Indiana: Solution Tree.

Duncombe, W., Lukemeyer, A., & Yinger, J. (2008). The No Child Left Behind Act:
Have federal funds been left behind? Public Finance Review, 36, 381-407.

Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (2007). Understanding the Incentive in California’s
Education Finance System.

EdSource. (2008a). California’s School Finance System: The Basics.

EdSource. (2008b). How California Compares: Demographics, Resources, and
Student Achievement. September 2008.

151

EdSource. (2009a). The Basics of California’s School Finance System. January 2009.

EdSource. (2009b). Resource Cards on California Schools. March 2009.

Education Trust. (1999). Dispelling the myth: High poverty schools exceeding
expectations. Washington, DC: Education Trust.

Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the Gap Between Standards and Achievement: The
Imperative for Professional Development in Education. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1996). Professional development and instructional
improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Engelmann, S. & Carnine, D. (1991). Theory of Instruction: Principles and
Applications. Eugene, OR: ADI Press.

Evers. M.E., & Clopton, P. (2006). High spending, low-performing school districts. In
E. Hanushek (2006) Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit
judges’ good intentions and harm our children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Friend, M., & Cook, L. (1992). The new mainstreaming. Instructor, 30-36.

Fowler, W., & Walberg, H. (1991). School size, characteristics and outcomes.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 189-202.

Hall, G., George, A., & Rutherford, W. (1986). Measuring stages of concern about the
innovation: A manual for use of the SoC questionnaire (Rev. ed.). Austin:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (1997). Understanding the twentieth-century growth in
U.S. school spending. The Journal of Human Resources, 32(1), 35-68.

Hill, N.E., Castellino, D.R., Lansford, J.E., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K.A., & Bates, J.E.
(2004). Parent academic involvement as related to school behavior,
achievement, and aspirations: Demographic variations across adolescence.
Child Development, 75(5), 1491-1509.

Howley, C. (1989). Synthesis of the effects of school and district size: What research
says about the achievement in small schools and school districts. Journal of
Rural and Small Schools, 4(1), 2-12.

152
Johnson, R. (2002). Using Data to Close the Achievement Gap: How to Measure
Equity in Our Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student Achievement Through Staff Development
(3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Ladd, H., Chalk, R., & Hansen, J. (Eds.) (1999). Equity and Adequacy in Education
Finance: Issues and Perspectives. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Lee, V., Smith, J. (1997). High school size: Which works best, and for whom?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 205-228.

Legislative Analyst’s Office. (February 3, 2009). 2009-10 Budget Analysis Series:
Proposition 98 Education Programs.

Lindseth, A. (2006). The legal backdrop to adequacy. In E. Hanushek (2006) Courting
failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit judges’ good intentions and harm
our children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Linn, R. (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles: University of
California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student
Testing.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Marzano, R.J., Pickering, D.J., & Pollock, J.E. (2001). Classroom Instruction That
Works: Research –based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Miles, K.H., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Rethinking the allocation of teaching
resources: Some lessons from high-performing schools. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 9-29.

Miles, K. H., Odden, A., Fermanich, M., & Archibald, S. (2004). Inside the black box
of school district spending on professional development: Lessons from five
urban districts. Journal of Education Finance, 30(1), 1-26.

Newman, F. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual
quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

153
Odden, A. (2009). Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.

Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2000). The dynamics of school resource reallocation. In
A better return on investment: Reallocating resources to improve student
achievement. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2001). Reallocating resources: How to boost student
achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2009). Doubling Student Performance… and Finding the
Resources to Do It. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H.A. (2002). A cost
framework for professional development. Journal of Education Finance, 28
(1), 51-74.

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., & Clune, W. (1995). Improving educational productivity and school
finance. Educational Researcher, 24(9), 6-10.

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., & Picus, L. (2008). School finance: A policy perspective (4
th
ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Odden, A. Picus, L.O., Archibald, S., Goetz, M., Mangan, M.T., and Aportela, A.
(2007). Moving from Good to Great in Wisconsin: Funding Schools
Adequately and Doubling Student Performance. Madison: University of
Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Consortium for Policy
Research in Education. Available at
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/finance/WI%20March%201%202007%20Ade
quacy%20Report1.pdf

154
Odden, A., Picus, L.O., Goetz, M., Mangan, M.T., and Fermanich, M. (2006). An
Evidence-Based Approach to School Finance in Washington. Submitted to the
Washington Learns Steering Committee, Olympia, WA. Available at:
http://www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/materials/EvidenceBasedReportFinal9-
11-06_000.pdf

Ormrod, J.E. (2008). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners. (6
th
Ed.). Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Picus, L.O. (2000). How schools allocate and use their resources. ERIC Digest 143, 1-
10. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from:
http://eric.uoregon.edu/publications/digests/digest143.html.

Picus, L.O., Odden, A., Aportela, A. Mangan, M.T., and Goetz, M. (2008a).
Implementing School Finance Adequacy: School Level Resource Use in
Wyoming Following Adequacy-Oriented Finance Reform. North Hollywood,
CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. Prepared for the Wyoming
Legislative Service Office. January 25, 2008. Available at,
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2008/interim/schoolfinance/Resources.pdf

Picus, L.O., Odden, A., Aportela, A. Mangan, M.T., and Goetz, M. (2008b).
Implementing School Finance Adequacy: School Level Resource Use in
Wyoming Following Adequacy-Oriented Finance Reform. North Hollywood,
CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. Prepared for the Wyoming
Legislative Service Office. June 30, 2008. Available at www.lpicus.com.

Raywid, M.A. (1997/1998). Synthesis of research: Small schools: A reform that
works. Educational Leadership, 55(4), 34-39.

Rebell, M. (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. Teachers College, Columbia University.

Resnick, L.B., & Hall, M.W. (2005). Principles of Learning for Efforts-based
Education. Institute for Learning: Learning Research and Development Center.
University of Pittsburgh.

Sack, J.L. (1999). Debate turns on the role of Title I aides: One Colorado district takes
drastic action. Education Week, 19(14), 1, 26-27.

SAS Institute. (2008). Data-driven Decision Making: Analyze Your Data to Improve
Student Learning.

155

Shanahan, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. In L.
Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 23, pp. 217-
234). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Walberg, H.J. (2006). High-poverty, high-performance schools, districts, and states. In
E. Hanushek (2006) Courting failure: How school finance lawsuits exploit
judges’ good intentions and harm our children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.

Wentzel, K.R., & Wigfield, A. (1998). Academic and social motivational influences
on students’ academic performance. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 155-
175.

Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., & Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context
effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.

156
Appendix A
Case Study 1: Santana High School
Background of the School and District
Santana High School is an urban school located in Orange County, CA. The
school’s unified district serves approximately 48,700 students who attend one of 47
elementary schools, ten intermediate schools, seven comprehensive high schools, and
two alternative high schools. Table A1 below provides data on the school, district, and
state student populations.
Table A1: Student Demographics Comparison:
Santana, District, and CA
Student Demographics Santana HS District CA
EL 40.9% 45.8% 24.7%
Free and Reduced Priced
Lunch
77.7% 64.0% 49.7%
Special Education 10.5% 10.7% 10.9%
White 4.3% 12.4% 27.9%
Hispanic 78.6% 53.4% 49.0%
Asian 15.0% 20.8% 8.4%
African-American Less than 1% 7.3%
Filipino 1.2% 2.7%
Pacific Islander 1.0%
American-Indian
Less than 1%
each
Multiple or No Response
Less than 1%
each
Less than 1%
each
3.4%
Total Population 2,200 48,700 6,252,000

157
The school has 2,200 students of which 900 are designated as English Learners
(EL), 1,709 are eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL), and 230 that
currently have Individual Education Plans (IEP) for special education services.
When compared to its district and California, Santana has a higher proportion
of some traditionally high needs students with the exception of English Learners. The
EL population at Santana is significantly higher than the state’s average, 40.9% versus
24.7%, respectively; however, it is slightly lower than its district’s average of 45.8%.
Those qualifying for FRPL make up a much greater percentage at the school than the
district or the state, 77.7%, 64.0%, and 49.7%, respectively. Hispanic populations are
much higher at the school as well. 78.6% of Santana’s students are Hispanic,
compared to the district and state where 53.4% and 49.0%, respectively, are Hispanic.
Regarding another high needs sector, those qualifying for special education
services, there is only a 0.4% variance between the school, district, and state.
Subgroups (White and Asian) that traditionally perform better than others on
the CSTs also differ significantly between Santana, its district, and California. White
populations at the district and state make up 12.4% and 27.9%, respectively, but only
4.3% at Santana. However, the state’s highest performing subgroup, Asian, are
overrepresented at the school when compared to the state, 15.0% versus 8.4%,
respectively.
Santana is currently designated with a statewide rank of 6 with regard to
student performance on standardized tests and graduation rates; this is unchanged from
the previous year. Its similar schools rank (SSR) also remains unchanged earning the
highest possible rank of 10. Given Santana’s high SSR, it is an indication that the

158
school is very effective in getting its high needs students to perform well on the CSTs
and the CAHSEE when compared to similar high schools in the state with regards to
student demographics and resources.
The 2008-09 school year is the first time Santana has not met AYP since 2003.
The school failed to satisfy 4 of its 20 Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs), which
are used as a basis to determine if a school has met AYP. The AMOs not met includes
percent proficient on the CSTs by the Hispanic, socio-economically disadvantaged,
and English Learner subgroups. Hispanics met the mathematics proficiency target of
43.5%, but missed the ELA target of 44.5% by 5.8%. The school’s socio-economically
disadvantaged population failed to satisfy its ELA target as well, falling 4.6% short of
the percent proficient goal. Santana’s EL students are the only subgroup that failed to
satisfy both ELA and mathematics targets. Only 20.6% demonstrated proficiency on
the ELA CSTs, and 34.7% did so on the mathematics CSTs; the goals for both tests
are 44.5% and 43.5%, respectively. Consequently, the improvement process has
focused on the achievement level of the Santana’s large EL population. Much of the
focus for PD and teacher support is aligned with meeting this goal.
The purpose of this case study is to provide an account of how Santana High
School allocates its resource to educate its students. Resource use patterns will be
compared to those recommendations provided by the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
developed by Lawrence Picus and Allen Odden. In addition, the study will look for
evidence of Odden’s 10 Steps to Doubling Student Performance (2010). Although the
intent of the study is not to measure if a school has doubled student performance, nor
has Santana made this a focus, the 10 Steps are research-based strategies that

159
improving schools have used to successfully improve student performance. Therefore,
it is worthwhile to assess whether or not any of these strategies are in place at the
school. Together these two aspects (the EBM and the 10 Steps) will provide an
account of Santana’s improvement process.
Test Scores and Other Data
Since 1999 when California introduced the Academic Performance Index
(API) as a measure of student performance, Santana has experienced a steady growth
in its API. The net growth of 118 points from 1999-00 (API of 524) through 2008-09
(API of 720) is illustrated in Graph A1. Taking into account the two years of decline
from 2005 to 2006 and 2008 to 2009, the school still managed to average an annual
gain of nearly 12 points.

160
Table A2 provides a comparison of API levels from 2005 through 2009 for
Santana, California high schools, and all schools in California. Within this 5-year
period Santana managed to outperform the state high school average three times by an
average of 16 points. In 2005 the two were even at 671, and in 2009 Santana fell
behind by only one point.
The school has demonstrated efficiency and effectiveness given its student
demographics (see Table A1) as evidenced by its SSR of 10, however, both Santana’s
API and the statewide high school average API are significantly lower than the
cumulative average of all California schools. This can be for a number of reasons.
Included in this data are elementary schools, which traditionally have higher levels of
parent and community involvement, smaller class sizes, and a much more narrow
achievement gap between different groups of students.
Table A2: API Comparisons Santana and CA (2005-2009)
Year Santana HS CA (Grades 9-11) CA (All Grades)
2009 712 713 755
2008 720 702 742
2007 711 689 728
2006 692 680 720
2005 671 671 709

Table A3 shows a comparison of API achieved by numerically significant
subgroups across Santana and all high schools in the state on the 2008-09 STAR
results. Only those subgroups with more than 100 students are considered numerically

161
significant for API/AYP purposes; those subgroups with less than 100 individuals are
excluded from these calculations.
With the exception of special education students, Santana’s students are
outperforming California’s high school average by an average of 24.5 points, where
the most significant gains come from EL, socio-economically disadvantaged, and
Hispanic populations (students that traditionally are considered high needs).
Table A3: API Subgroup Comparison Santana and CA (2009 STAR Results)
Subgroup Santana HS
CA (High
Schools)
Santana
Difference
EL 642 612 +30 Santana
Socio-economically
Disadvantaged
701 648 +53 Santana
Special Education 491 495 -4 Santana
White* N/A 788 N/A
Hispanic 686 651 +35 Santana
Asian 852 843 +9 Santana
African-American* N/A 624 N/A
Filipino* N/A 794 N/A
Pacific Islander* N/A 696 N/A
American-Indian* N/A 685 N/A
All Students 712 713 -1 Santana
* Denotes subgroups are not numerically significant, and therefore are excluded from
API or AYP purposes.

162
Santana’s STAR results from 2002 through 2009 are illustrated in Table A4.
Since the state uses the percent of students who reach at least the level of proficient on
the CSTs in ELA and mathematics, the graph provides this specific data.
Table A4: Santana STAR Results (Percent Proficient or Advanced 2002-2009)
Year Tested ELA Mathematics
2009 42.1% 49.6%
2008 48.7% 51.1%
2007 40.3% 49.0%
2006 40.9% 43.3%
2005 43.5% 38.0%
2004 44.4% 46.9%
2003 42.1% 29.7%
2002 21.5% 23.5%

Table A5 further compares Santana’s proficiency rates in ELA to the statewide
average for all schools for the previous three academic years. Table A6 illustrates the
same results for mathematics over the same period.
Table A5: STAR ELA Results – Santana and CA
(Proficient or Advanced 2007-2009)
Year Tested Santana HS CA (All Grades)
2009 42.1% 49.9%
2008 48.7% 45.7%
2007 40.3% 43.3%

163
In ELA, Santana experienced only a 1.8% gain over the three-year period,
whereas the state average has increased by 6.6% over the same period. Additionally,
after experiencing a gain of 8.4% from 2007 to 2008, the percentage declined by 6.6%
in 2009.
Looking at the data in Table A6 for mathematics, it is evident that Santana has
consistently outperformed the state average the since 2007 despite the school’s slight
decline from 2008 to 2009.
Table A6: STAR Mathematics Results – Santana and CA
(Proficient or Advanced 2007-2009)
Year Tested Santana HS CA (All Grades)
2009 49.6% 45.8%
2008 51.1% 42.7%
2007 49.0% 40.5%

High school students first take the CAHSEE during their sophomore year and
are allowed multiple opportunities throughout their high school career to pass both
sections (ELA and mathematics) of the test. The CAHSEE results for Santana’s
sophomores are reported in Graph A2. This is the percentage of who passed the test in
either ELA or mathematics. The figures provided are not mutually exclusive. It is
possible for some students to have passed only one of the two sections, or both
sections; the graph does not distinguish between the two. Although California decided
to exclude special education students from having to pass the test in order to receive a
diploma, the data includes this population.

164

Graph A3 provides CAHSEE data on all grades at Santana High School. This
includes grades tenth, eleventh, and twelfth.

165
Santana High School’s overall graduation rates far exceed the statewide
average (see Table A7); however, when comparing the percentage of graduates having
completed University of California/California State University (UC/CSU) courses
with at least a “C” it is evident that the school is slightly behind the state average.
However, the school has been closing this narrow gap from 2006 through 2008 and
now trails the state by only half of one percent (see Table A8). UC/CSU course are
those that satisfy either UC or CSU entrance requirements.
Table A7: Overall Graduation Rate – Santana and CA (2006-2009)
Graduation Year Santana High School CA
2009 92.3% 80.0%
2008 97.1% 80.6%
2007 93.7% 83.2%
2006 98.6% 85.0%

Table A8: Percentage of Graduates Having Completed
UC/CSU Courses with at least a “C” – Santana and CA (2006-2008)
Graduation Year Santana High School CA
2008 33.4% 33.9%
2007 29.4% 35.5%
2006 27.9% 35.9%

The school’s SAT data is compared to California’s average scores in Table A9.
Overall Santana is performing significantly below the state average by this measure.

166
Table A9: SAT Data – Santana and CA (2006-2008)
Year Subject Santana HS CA
Critical Reading 440 494
Mathematics 463 513
Writing 456 493
2008
Total 1,359 1,500
Critical Reading 452 493
Mathematics 473 513
Writing 452 491
2007
Total 1,377 1,497
Critical Reading 456 495
Mathematics 499 516
Writing 461 495
2006
Total 1,416 1,506

A school enters Program Improvement status (PI) in the third year it fails to
meet AYP. From 2003 through 2009, Santana has successful in meeting AYP five
years; however, as previously mentioned, 2009 marks the first time since 2003 the
school failed to satisfy this NCLB requirement. Santana currently is not in PI. If the
school does not meet AYP for two more years, it will enter PI-1 status.
Improvement Process
When the current principal of Santana High School, Dr. Sandoval, assumed the
leadership role in 2006, the school had already been successful in satisfying AYP for

167
three consecutive years and had just experienced a significant net gain in API of 48
points over the previous two years (from 2003-04 to 2005-06), but was still only at
692, far short of California’s 800-goal for all public schools. Additionally, only 60%
and 65% of all students passed the ELA and mathematics portions, respectively, of the
CAHSEE in 2005. Although respectable gains as evidenced by the school’s 2005 SSR
of 9, it still earned only a statewide rank of 4 (determined by comparing Santana to all
high schools regardless of population or resources). Considering that EL students at
Santana are the lowest performing subgroup (with the exception of special education
students), the focus for improvement has shifted specifically to this population.
The goals for student achievement at Santana are several. In general, the
teachers at the school want their students to become more proficient in all content
areas. The main focus, however, is getting EL students meet proficiency targets on the
CSTs and the CAHSEE, and to have all students improve their performance on the
same standardized tests. Currently, the school is undergoing its first year of a two-year
accreditation process in which a self-study is being conducted. Depending on the
results of this self-study, Dr. Sandoval claims that the goals will become more specific
and measurable.
When asked about the school’s vision of effective instruction, Dr. Sandoval
cited student engagement as the primary component. Rather than having students be
passive in their learning, she believes that a high level of engagement makes them
active learners. The teachers at Santana apparently have accepted and most agree with
this vision. This is evident by the level of engagement Dr. Sandoval and her

168
administration team observes while conducting their frequent classroom walk-
throughs.
Over the previous four years leading up to the current school year, 2009-10,
Santana has undergone some changes to improve the level of performance of all its
students, with a focus on its EL population. Table A10 summarizes some of the
changes.
Table A10: Summary of Santana’s Strategies for
Improving Student Achievement
Strategy/Resources Characteristics/Highlights
Two separate after school tutoring
programs offered for core support
(mathematics, science, social science,
and ELA)
• Library tutoring offered two hours
after school Monday through Friday
• Not mandatory for students to attend
• One paid regular credentialed teacher
facilitates one-on-one peer tutoring (in
library)
• Adult community members volunteer
through the Boys and Girls Club to
offer student support (M-F three hours
per day)
Teacher collaboration
• 10 collaboration Wednesdays
disbursed throughout the school year
(late start for students allows for 100
minutes of teacher collaboration)
• Focus is on sharing of promising
practices, data analysis, lesson design
• Creation of common benchmark
assessments
Creating PLCs within the school
• Math department best encompasses the
characteristics of a true PLC
• Other departments still working
towards a more cohesive small
learning community
• Sharing of promising practices and use
of assessments and data to drive
instruction still have areas of
improvement
Strengthening AVID
• School has earned the title of National
Demonstration School

169
Table A10: Continued
Strengthening AVID
• Successful components of AVID are
shared throughout the school with non-
AVID teachers and students
(especially special education)
• Program viewed as a main component
of driving student success
Sharing of promising practices
• Apart from AVID strategies, principal
uses email to communicate with staff
promising instructional strategies
witnessed via classroom walkthroughs
• Collaboration Wednesdays allow for
sharing of promising practices within
departments
• Continuous teacher training in
strategies to support the school’s large
EL population
School Community Liaisons (SCLs)
• Duties include increasing parent and
community involvement
• Serve as translators for non-English
speaking parents
• Teach the Ten Commandments of
Education to parents and other
community members
Five days of professional development
offered by the district
• Super Week focuses on lesson design,
Gradual Release of Responsibility
Model, co-planning, and other
promising instructional strategies
• One full additional day offered in
December (focus in 2009 will be on
WASC)
Supplemental counseling services
• Offer guidance support for students
under-performing or in need of credit
recovery opportunities
• Counseling support with personal
problems, not just academic
EL support
• Extensive teacher training in effective
EL strategies across content areas
• SCLs work closely with EL parents in
getting them involved in school and
their respective children’s education

170
Prior to 2005, teachers voluntarily offered tutoring to their own students as
each one’s availability allowed. In 2005, the school officially began an after school
tutoring program in the library facilitated by one credentialed teacher for ELA and one
for mathematics. Depending on the demand, there are several peer-tutors available on
a daily basis to assist any student who voluntarily attends the session. The teacher
basically monitors the peer tutoring and intervenes as necessary. In addition to this
support, Santana’s students have the option of attending a tutoring program available
at the nearby Boys and Girls Club. Although off the school’s campus, Dr. Sandoval
believes she has a significant number of students who take advantage of this support
because in addition to tutoring, students can also utilize the recreational facilities.
Although the tutors at the Boys and Girls Club are not credentialed teachers, they are
usually college students aspiring to become teachers and offer their support on a
volunteer basis.
Santana has ten late-start Wednesdays for their students that allows for 1,000
minutes of teacher collaboration (100 minutes per day). Although not mandated
directly, the topics of collaboration vary from sharing of promising practices, data
analysis, and effective lesson design. Based on the instructional practices observed in
the classroom, the principal does not feel the need to closely monitor this collaboration
time, although administrators do visit each department during this time to gain better
insight into the discussion and practices being shared.
Through the collaboration sessions, teachers have created common benchmark
assessments in the core content areas of mathematics and ELA. These assessments are

171
administered to students at the end of each grading quarter. The resulting data allows
teachers to provide in-class interventions when and where appropriate.
Although Dr. Sandoval doesn’t characterize Santana as a true professional
learning community, she does acknowledge that the mathematics department serves as
a model for the entire school in this respect. This department has been the most
effective in using student assessment data to make instructional decisions and she has
observed the teachers being very specific in sharing promising practices. The other
departments have shown signs and have made progress in this area, but there is still
some work to be done. The mathematics department has also been the most effective
in using common benchmark assessments to drive instructional decisions. By
collaboratively analyzing student results on these assessments, teachers have been able
to provide appropriate interventions in the classroom to remediate necessary skills.
The school’s AVID program has been designated a National Demonstration
School due to the program’s high success and continued growth. The program is
designed to support middle-performing students who may or may not be interested in
attending college improve their performance and make college a goal. Many times the
students are the first in their respective families to attend college, and at Santana,
many EL students are encouraged to become a part of the program, as are socio-
economically disadvantaged students. The study skills taught through this program
have been taught throughout the entire school as well and are really emphasized in
both EL classes and special education.
It was previously mentioned that the school’s staff has not become entirely
proficient in sharing promising practices, but it has become a focus for Santana.

172
Considering that teaching strategies have a profound impact on student achievement,
Dr. Sandoval often communicates with her teachers the importance of effective
teaching strategies. In conducting classroom visits, she observes what she has
described as “great teaching and student engagement” throughout the school. After
these visits she emails her entire staff and describes what she has observed.
Through ten available days of teacher collaboration, teachers are encouraged to
share promising practices. Although there is no system of accountability in place, Dr.
Sandoval feels confident that this is taking place as evidenced by the high level of
student engagement she has observed throughout the school. These ten days are
provided on Wednesdays about once per month. Although students report
approximately an hour and a half later on these days than other days, Lakeside’s
teachers report at their usual time. Instead of starting their day with their first class,
they actually meet as a department to discuss and address whatever needs or issues
might arise.
Another belief shared by Dr. Sandoval and her staff at Santana High School is
that parent involvement at the school and at home with their children is a crucial
component of student success. As a result, the school utilizes the services of two
school community liaisons (SCLs) each at one FTE. The functions of the SCLs is to
communicate with the parents in either English or Spanish about anything the school
feels is relevant for them to know. This ranges from standardized testing to everyday
classroom procedures.
In recent years the focus of the SCLs has been on teaching parents the school’s
Ten Commandments of Education. These Commandments address CSTs, CAHSEE,

173
effective study skills, college entrance requirements and financial aid (including
scholarships), SAT/ACT testing, and general ways parents can support students at
home or even become involved at the school site. Although actual figures could not be
provided, Dr. Sandoval has seen an increase in the number of parents that attend
school functions such as Back-to-School Night.
Super Week is five days of intensive professional development offered by the
district prior to the beginning of the school year. Although the focus of the five days
changes annually, recent training has revolved around the Gradual Release of
Responsibility Model (GRR) and other promising practices. In the GRR teachers
essentially relinquish responsibility to the students over their own learning. Much like
direct instruction allows for teacher modeling of a skill or concept, GRR allows
students to demonstrate their level of mastery initially with the teacher’s guidance, and
eventually independently. Dr. Sandoval feels very strongly that this continued focus at
Santana has allowed for a higher level of student engagement throughout the school.
In addition to the typical services provided by a high school guidance
counselor, the school utilizes two part-time counselors that work individually with
those students identified as at risk. These are students in need of credit recovery
services in order to graduate on time, have not been successful in their classes, have
scored in the lower two performance bands on the CSTs or CAHSEE, or have been
identified by staff members as needing extra support. In addition to academic
guidance, these counselors provide support with personal problems that often times
serve as barriers to student focus and learning. It is the belief of Dr. Sandoval that
providing students with personal counseling will allow them to deal with issues

174
outside of school (such as problems at home). By doing so students are then more
willing and able to pay more attention to their studies and performance in the
classroom.
The final piece of Santana High School’s strategic plan for improving student
performance is offering support specifically to their large EL population. Those who
teach English Language Development (ELD) classes often collaborate around content
and strategies for improving the language acquisition of their students. Those EL
students not in ELD classes are all in classes taught by teachers identified as having
been successful in working with these students. In addition, the SCLs reach out to all
EL parents to get them involved and make them informed of how to best support their
child academically and personally.
Although the strategies outlined here have not been directly linked to specific
improvements in student achievement at Santana High School, Dr. Sandoval believes
very strongly that it is a combination of all of the above that have sustained her
school’s success. However, when asked about Santana’s decline in API from 2008 to
2009, she cited possible factors related to the economy and the stress that some
families and students might’ve experienced over the year.
EBM Comparisons
Table A11 below provides a comparison of resource-use at Santana High
School and how it aligns with the recommendations outlined by the Evidence-Based
Model.

175
Table A11: Santana and EBM Comparisons
Staffing Category
EB Funding
Model
Actual
Core Academic Teachers (includes 6.5 GATE) 88 53.2
Specialist & Elective Teachers 29.3 25.6
Library Staff
Librarian/Media Specialist (Certified) 3.7 1
Library/Media Tech Aides (Non-Certified) 3.7 1
Extra Help
Certified Teacher Tutors for English Language Learners 9 0
Certified Teacher Tutors for At-Risk Students 16.9 0.5
Non-certified Tutors 0 0
Resource Room Teachers (non-special education) 0 0.6
Resource Room Aides (non-special education) 0 3
Special Education Teachers Fully Funded 9
Special Education Aides Fully Funded 7
Gifted & Talented Aide 0 0
Gifted & Talented Funds $55,000 $0
Extended Day 14.2 2
Summer School 14.2 0
Professional Development
Total # of Professional Development Days 10 6
Instructional Facilitators (coaches) 11 0

176
Table A11: Continued
Teacher Time (Substitutes & Stipends)
Trainer/Consultant Funds
Materials, Equipment & Facilities
Travel & Transportation
Tuition & Conference Fees
$220,000 $22,000
Other Instructional Staff
Building Substitutes & Other Substitutes 0 0
Instructional Aides 0 0
Supervisory Aides 11 4
Student Support
Counselors 7.3
Nurses 1
Social Workers
17.1
0
Psychologists Fully Funded 0
Speech/ OT/ PT Fully Funded 0
Health Assistant 0 1
Administration
Principal 1 1
Assistant Principal 2.7 3
Secretary 3.7 3
Clerical 11 5

177
In analyzing the data in Table A11, Santana does not match well with the
recommendations provided by the EBM. The following are significant areas of
deficiency:
• Where the model calls for 88 core teachers, Santana has only 53.2, which
includes 6.5 for GATE
• Although close to the model, specialist/elective teachers fall a bit shy at 25.6
• The school offers two separate tutoring programs after school, but does not
have specific support in this capacity for EL students
• Certified teacher-tutors fall significantly short of the 17.9 recommendation
• Currently no additional funds are available for GATE
• Only 6 days of PD versus 10
• Santana does not use instructional facilitators
• Extended day support is only at 2 FTEs, instead of 14.2
• Although there are $22,000 available for PD, this amount falls significantly
shy of the $220,000 recommended by the model
• Student support is only at 6.3 FTEs versus the model’s 17.1
Although beyond the scope of this study, it can be inferred that if Santana’s
level of resources was more aligned to those in the Evidence-Based Model, perhaps
the achievement level of its student can be improved beyond what the school has
experienced in recent years.
Lessons Learned
Although not necessarily a focus (or awareness of the steps) of the school,
Table A12 below provides evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student

178
Performance found at Santana; nine of the ten steps were present. The extent to which
each is exists is unclear.
Table A12: Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at
Santana
Step Features Evidence
Understand performance
problem
• Recognizing low
student performance
• Accepting that change
is necessary
• Meeting NCLB
accountability
mandates and AYP
• School did not meet
AYP in 2009
• API dropped 8 points
from 2008 (720) to
2009 (712)
• EL populations did not
meet proficiency
targets in ELA or
mathematics
• Statewide rank has not
gone above a 4
Set and maintain higher
goals
• Regardless of student
population, standards
must be high
• Maintain high
standards to help create
a culture of success
• Student motivation
• Increase in PD focus to
ensure EL students
improve performance
• Ten Commandments of
Education
• AVID
Adopt new curriculum
and improve instructional
practices
• Curriculum must be
aligned to new high
standards
• Most influential
component on student
performance
• Gradual Release of
Responsibility (GRR)
• Sharing of promising
practices across staff
through collaboration
or Super Week
• Increased student
engagement
Using data to drive
instructional decisions
• Use student data to
identify needs and
drive decisions
• Use of appropriate
assessment strategies in
the classroom to
provide appropriate
instruction
• Use of CST data to
identify areas of
strength and
improvement
• Use of common
assessment data to
identify opportunities
for re-teaching

179
Table A12: Continued
Ongoing professional
development for teachers
• Training for teachers to
become proficient in
analyzing data to drive
their instructional
practices
• Increasing
effectiveness of
teachers
• Collaboration
Wednesdays
• Super Week
Use time more efficiently
• Make use of every
instructional minute
comprising the 180-day
school year
• Increase allocation of
time to core content
areas
• Late start days to allow
for teacher
collaboration
Support for struggling
students
• Small class sizes
• Tutoring with
credentialed teacher
• Rigorous curriculum
• High-quality teachers
• After school tutoring in
library
• Supplemental
counseling services
Create professional
learning communities
(PLCs)
• Role of teachers as
instructional leaders
• Collaborative school
culture
• Intense focus on
student learning
• Use of data to drive
instructional decisions
• Collaboration
Wednesdays
• Teacher input in
creating the school’s
vision of effective
instruction and student
goals
Professional behavior and
promising practices
• Seeking promising
practices in all aspects
of schooling
• Professional behavior
by teachers and staff
members
• Seeking outside
expertise
• Sharing of promising
practices through
teacher collaboration
Human capital
• Finding the right
people to carry out the
new demands of
improving student
performance
• No evidence found

180
Table A12: Continued
Human capital
• Principal and teacher
talent
• No evidence found
Source: Odden (2009)

Despite the school’s high SSR rank, its statewide rank has yet to rise above a 4.
This is an indication that there is still significant room for improvement in student
achievement.
Given the school’s high-needs students, it has maintained high expectations for
its students. Santana is not accepting that its EL students did not reach its AMOs last
year and is proactive in ensuring that isn’t the case this year; increasing the focus of
PD opportunities on improving the level of learning for its EL students provides
evidence. In teaching the Ten Commandments of Education to its parents and
community, it is communicating that success is expected of all Santana’s students.
Although the school did not adopt a new curriculum, it has made vast efforts in
improving the instructional practices of its teachers through Super Week and
collaboration time throughout the year.
CST student data is analyzed at the school level to determine areas of strength
and areas for improvement. In addition to the CSTs, data from school-wide common
benchmark assessments allows for timelier teacher interventions. Administered at the
end of each quarter, the benchmarks assess student knowledge of the preceding
quarter’s content standards. With release time provided, content-like teachers conduct
an item analysis to determine areas of deficiency and this allows for re-teaching of
those standards. Although there is no accountability to ensure that the teachers follow

181
through on re-teaching the standards, the principal feels confident that this is in fact
taking place as evidenced by her frequent classroom walk-throughs and teacher
collaboration meetings.
Professional development is an important component for sustaining student
growth at Santana High School. Prior to the start of every school year, the district
provides a five-day intensive training session known as Super Week. Although the
topics vary annually, the focus is on improving teacher effectiveness in the classroom.
Through monthly collaboration sessions, teachers are given opportunities to share
promising practices, analyze various student data, or discuss any other topic relevant
at that time. Dr. Sandoval feels it is unnecessary to monitor these sessions because she
believes that teachers are doing what is expected of them.
Throughout the school year, Santana has ten scheduled late-start days to allow
for teacher collaboration. This is an indication that the school has at least in part
addressed the efficiency in its use of time. This approach does not lengthen to school
day.
In addition to individual teacher interventions, Santana provides support for
academically struggling students in two different forms. First, there are two after
school tutoring programs that students are invited to attend. Although not mandatory,
each provides assistance in the core content areas of mathematics, English, science,
and social science. Second, for those who require more intensive interventions,
supplemental counseling services are available. Those identified by CST data,
CAHSEE data, grades, or by teachers meet on an ongoing basis with one of two
supplemental counselors. These counselors offer academic guidance and personal

182
counseling or act as liaisons for more serious services (mental or physical health
concerns).
One of Dr. Sandoval’s personal goals is to make Santana a true professional
learning community. At the moment she cites the mathematics department as a true
PLC in that the teachers work very closely to share promising practices, are proactive
in using student data to drive their instructional decisions, and share an intense focus
on the success of their students. Although she observes some of these aspects in her
other departments, she does not believe it is to the same degree. One component that
she feels has been instrumental in moving the school in the direction of a true PLC is
having teacher input in the vision of the school and in determining student goals.
Regarding Odden’s ninth step, professional behavior and sharing of promising
practices, Santana shares promising practices via monthly collaboration meetings. In
addition, Dr. Sandoval and her administration team send emails to all teachers sharing
some of the effective strategies observed in various classrooms. Time is also allocated
at monthly staff meetings to discuss some of these strategies.
As previously mentioned, there was no real evidence that one of the ten steps
existed at Santana High School: human capital. This is not to suggest that the school
has not engaged in seeking quality personnel to educate its students, simply that
throughout the course of this study, evidence was not found. An argument can be
made that a stronger presence of each can have a greater impact on the level of student
achievement.
Additional Resources

183
In order for Santana to continue its improvement process, Dr. Sandoval cited
two additional resources that she felt are reasonable and attainable: expanding the role
of her School Community Liaisons (SCLs) and making the school a stronger PLC.
First, she believes strongly that expanding her School Community Liaisons
(SCLs) and parent involvement will have great positive impact on student
achievement. She estimates that about 25% of her parents are currently actively
involved in the education of their children. When asked to clarify, she defines
“actively involved” as communicating often with teachers, frequently attending school
functions, and volunteering their time to assist the school as needed.
Second, Dr. Sandoval feels that Santana High School needs to become more of
a PLC in order to make greater gains in their level student achievement. Although
there is some evidence that a PLC exists, even in moderate terms, there are two main
aspects that she would like to see increase: the use of data and the sharing of
promising practices.
Although many teachers are proficient in analyzing their students’ data, there
are some that still require support in this area. With limited funding and time, Dr.
Sandoval is struggling to provide them with the appropriate support.
Regarding the sharing of promising practices, she would like to give teachers
opportunities to not only discuss effective instructional strategies, but also avail them
the opportunity to observe each implement these strategies. There is no greater method
of sharing highly effective strategies than modeling and even co-implementation of
those strategies. Dr. Sandoval is unsure about how teachers would react to observing
each other in the classroom. Additionally, she is also concerned that given all the

184
responsibilities already put on teachers, where she could find the time to allow them to
conduct classroom observations. Another barrier are the stipulations of the teacher
contract regarding peer observations. Although not clearly outlined, she did mention
that the contract prohibits her from requiring teachers to visit other classrooms.
Although not cited as an additional resource, it seems that technology can act
as another component for improving the performance level of Santana’s students.
There wasn’t much of an emphasis on the use of technology in the classroom and it
wasn’t entirely evident that it is widely used or embraced by the teachers. Given the
role of technology in today’s society and workplace, Santana can stand to benefit from
its use in the classroom.

185
Appendix B
Case Study 2: Kaman High School
Background of the School and District
Kaman High School is an urban school located in Orange County, CA. The
school’s union high school district serves approximately 33,300 students who attend
one of eight middle schools, nine comprehensive high schools, or one continuation
high school. Table B1 below provides data on the school, district, and state student
populations.
Table B1: Student Demographics Comparison:
Kaman, District, and CA
Student Demographics Kaman District CA
EL 40.7% 23.8% 24.7%
Free and Reduced Lunch 60% 51% 49.7%
Special Education 9.8% 10.5% 10.9%
White 10.7% 15.4% 27.8%
Hispanic 80.3% 59.2% 49.0%
Asian 3.2% 11.2% 8.4%
African-American 1.6% 2.9% 7.3%
Filipino 1.2% 3.5% 2.7%
Pacific Islander 1.4%
American-Indian
Less than 1% each
Less than 1%
Less than 1% each
Multiple or No Response 2.1% 7.8% 3.4%
Total Population 2,700 33,300 6,252,000

186
The school has 2,700 students of which 1,100 are designated as English
Learners (EL), 1,615 are eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL), and 265
currently have Individual Education Plans (IEP) for special education services.
When compared to its district and California, Kaman has a significantly greater
proportion of some traditionally high needs students. English Learners make up over
40% of Kaman’s population, compared to nearly 24% and nearly 25% for the district
and the state, respectively. Sixty percent of the school’s students qualify for FRPL,
whereas approximately half of the students for both the district and the state qualify.
Hispanic populations are over-represented at Kaman as well; just over 80% compared
to the district’s nearly 60% and California’s 49%. This poses unique challenges for the
school in providing the appropriate support for these students.
Regarding another high needs sector, those qualifying for special education
services, Kaman’s population of 9.8% is slightly below the district and state rates of
10.5%, and 10.9%, respectively, but still comparable.
Conversely, traditionally well-performing students are underrepresented at the
school when compared to both its district and the state. White populations for the three
are as follows: 10.7%, 15.4%, and 27.8%, respectively. Asians make up 3.2%, 11.2%,
and 8.4%, respectively.
Kaman is currently designated with a statewide rank of 4 with regard to student
achievement on standardized tests and graduation rates; this is down from 5 the
previous year. Its similar schools rank (SSR) also declined since 2008 by two levels
from 8 to 6. Although the school experienced a decline in SSR, a score of 6 still
implies that the school is more effective than 60% of 100 similar high schools (in

187
terms of student demographics and resources) across the state in educating its students
as measured by California’s STAR program (a standardized testing system)
The 2008-09 school year is the first time since 2003 that the school has not met
AYP. Its targets for percent proficient in ELA and mathematics for 2008-09 were
44.5% and 43.5%, respectively. School wide, Kaman missed its ELA proficiency
target of 44.5% by almost 5%, and only 29.9% of EL students demonstrated
proficiency in this area. In mathematics, Kaman exceeded its school-wide target of
43.5%, however, only 29.7% of EL students reached proficiency—the only group that
failed to satisfy its target. Consequently, the improvement process has focused on the
achievement of the school’s large EL population in ELA. Much of the focus for PD
and teacher support is aligned with meeting this goal. It is the belief of the school’s
principal, Dr. Anderson, that if students are literate in English they will be better
prepared to perform well in other content areas.
The purpose of this case study is to provide an account of how Kaman High
School allocates its resource to educate its students. Resource use patterns will be
compared to those recommendations provided by the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
developed by Lawrence Picus and Allen Odden. In addition, the study will look for
evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance (2010). Although
the intent of the study is not to measure if a school has doubled student performance,
nor has Kaman made this a focus, the 10 Steps are research-based strategies that
improving schools have used to successfully improve student performance. Therefore,
it is worthwhile to assess whether or not any of these strategies are in place at the

188
school. Together these two aspects (the EBM and the 10 Steps) will provide an
account of Kaman’s improvement process.
Test Scores and Other Data
Since 1999 when California introduced the Academic Performance Index
(API) as a measure of student performance, Kaman has experienced a steady growth
in its API. The net growth of 118 points from 1999-00 (API of 582) through 2008-09
(API of 700) is illustrated in Graph B1. With the exception of the 2005-06 school year
when its API decreased from 651 the previous year to 642, the school has
demonstrated average annual growth of nearly 12 points.

Table B2 provides a comparison of API levels from 2005 through 2009 for
Kaman, California high schools, and all grades in California. Although below the
statewide high school average, the school has demonstrated efficiency and

189
effectiveness given its student demographics (see Table B1) as evidenced by its SSR
of 6. Both Kaman’s API and the statewide high school average API are significantly
lower than that of all California schools combined. This can be for a number of
reasons. Included in this data are elementary schools, which traditionally have higher
levels of parent and community involvement, smaller class sizes, and a much more
narrow achievement gap between different groups of students.
Table B2: API Comparisons Kaman and CA (2005-2009)
Year Kaman HS CA (High Schools) CA (All Schools)
2009 700 713 755
2008 690 702 742
2007 688 689 728
2006 642 680 720
2005 651 671 709

Table B3 shows a comparison of API achieved by numerically significant
subgroups across Kaman and all high schools in the state based on 2008-09 STAR
results. With the exception of special education students, Kaman’s traditionally
challenging populations are outperforming the state (EL, socio-economically
disadvantaged, and Hispanics).
Table B3: API Subgroup Comparisons Kaman and CA (2009 STAR Result)
Subgroup Kaman HS
CA (High
Schools)
Kaman Difference
EL 628 612 +16
Socio-economically
Disadvantaged
677 648 +29

190
Table B3: Continued
Special Education 481 495 -14
White 772 788 -16
Hispanic 682 651 +31
Asian* N/A 843 N/A
African-American* N/A 624 N/A
Filipino* N/A 794 N/A
Pacific Islander* N/A 696 N/A
American-Indian* N/A 685 N/A
All Students 700 713 -13 Kaman
* Denotes subgroups are not numerically significant, and therefore are excluded from
API or AYP purposes.

Kaman’s STAR results from 2002 through 2009 are illustrated in Table B4.
Since the state uses the percent of students who reach at least the level of proficient on
the CSTs in ELA and mathematics, the graph provides this specific data.
Table B4: Kaman STAR Results (Percent Proficient or Advanced 2002-2009)
Year Tested ELA Mathematics
2009 39.6% 45.8%
2008 45.9% 44.4%
2007 37.0% 50.3%
2006 44.9% 43.6%
2005 44.7% 43.2%
2004 42.2% 41.5%

191
Table B4: Continued
2003 43.6% 34.6%
2002 27.8% 24.5%

Table B5 further compares Kaman’s proficiency rates in ELA to the statewide
average for all schools for the previous three academic years. Table B6 illustrates the
same results for mathematics over the same period.
Table B5: STAR ELA Results – Kaman and CA
(Proficient or Advanced 2007-2009)
Year Tested Kaman HS CA (All Grades)
2009 39.6% 49.9%
2008 45.9% 45.7%
2007 37.0% 43.3%

When comparing the data above, it is evident that the school has demonstrated
a net increase in percent proficient of 2.6% over the three-year period, whereas the
state average has increased by 6.6% over the same period. Additionally, after enjoying
nearly a 9% gain in proficiency from 2007 to 2008, the percentage actually decreased
by 6.3%.
Looking at the data in Table B6 for mathematics, it is evident that performance
in this area is comparable to the state average, despite a decrease of 4.5% from 2007 to
2009. Over the same span of time, the state average increased by 5.3% to match
Kaman’s proficiency rate at 45.8% in 2009.

192
Table B6: STAR Mathematics Results – Kaman and CA
(Proficient or Advanced 2007-2009)
Year Tested Kaman HS CA (All Grades)
2009 45.8% 45.8%
2008 44.4% 42.7%
2007 50.3% 40.5%

High school students first take the CAHSEE during their tenth grade year and
are allowed multiple opportunities to pass both sections (ELA and mathematics) of the
test. Kaman’s CAHSEE results for sophomores are reported below in Graph B2. This
is the percentage of students who passed the test in either ELA or mathematics. The
figures provided are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for some students to have
passed only one of the two sections, or both sections; the graph does not distinguish
between the two. Although California decided to exclude special education students
from having to pass the test in order to receive a diploma, the figures shown below
include this population.

193

Graph B3 provides CAHSEE data on all grades at Kaman High School. This
includes grades tenth, eleventh, and twelfth.

194
Kaman High School’s overall graduation rates well exceed the statewide
average (Table B7); however, when comparing the percentage of graduates having
completed University of California/California State University (UC/CSU) courses
with at least a “C” it is evident that there is up to a 10% gap between the two (Table
B8). UC/CSU course are those that satisfy either UC or CSU entrance requirements.
Table B7: Overall Graduation Rate – Kaman and CA (2006-2009)
Graduation Year Kaman High School CA
2009 95.2% 80.0%
2008 98.2% 80.6%
2007 100.0% 83.2%
2006 99.2% 85.0%

Table B8: Percentage of Graduates Having Completed
UC/CSU Courses with at least a “C” – Kaman and CA (2006-2008)
Graduation Year Kaman High School CA
2008 26.6% 33.9%
2007 26.1% 35.5%
2006 20.5% 35.9%

The school’s SAT data is compared to California’s average scores in Table B9.
Overall Kaman is performing significantly below the state average by this measure.

195
Table B9: SAT Data – Kaman and CA (2006-2008)
Year Subject Kaman HS CA
Critical Reading 449 494
Mathematics 479 513
Writing 448 493
2008
Total 1,376 1,500
Critical Reading 463 493
Mathematics 491 513
Writing 453 491
2007
Total 1,407 1,497
Critical Reading 468 495
Mathematics 503 516
Writing 465 495
2006
Total 1,436 1,506
am Improvement status (PI) in the third year it fails to meet AYP. From 2003
through 2008, Kaman has been successful in meeting AYP; however, as previously
mentioned, 2009 marks the first time since 2003 the school failed to satisfy this NCLB
requirement. Due to these facts, Kaman currently is not in PI. If the school does not
meet AYP for two more years, it will enter PI-1 status.
Improvement Process
The current principal of Kaman High School, Dr. Anderson, is in his second
year at the school. He spent 5 years prior to this post as an assistant principal at this
school. Given his experience with Kaman, he provided an overview of the process the

196
school has undergone in the past several years. Although showing respectable levels of
student achievement as evidenced by AYP progress, there are two specific catalysts
resulting in Kaman making changes to how it approaches educating its student
population.
First, over the previous ten years the school’s English Learners, socio-
economically disadvantaged, and minority populations have grown considerably (see
Table B10), posing new challenges for teachers and administrators. Lacking fluency in
English makes if much more difficult for a student to make sense of the content.
Eligibility for FRPL is an indicator that the level of support at home as well as the
education obtainment of parents or guardians is lower than it otherwise could be
belonging to a higher socio-economic class (Hill, Castellino, Lansford, Nowlin,
Dodge, & Bates, 2004). Furthermore, state data shows a general trend that minority
populations tend to score below White students on standardized tests such as the CSTs
and CAHSEE (Johnson, 2002).
Table B10: Comparison of Kaman’s Student
Demographics between 1998-99 and 2009-10
Year
EL
(% of Population)
Eligible for FRPL
(% of Population)
Minority
(% of Population)
2009-10 1,100 students (40.7%)
1,615 students
(60%)
2,411 students
(89.3%)
1998-99 670 students (30.4%)
630 students
(28.4%)
1,557 students
(71.5%)

Second, Kaman’s SSR dropped from an 8 in 2008 to a 6 in 2009, and its
statewide rank dropped from a 5 to a 4 in the same period. The reason for this is that in
2008-09 the school failed to meet all 18 of its criteria; it satisfied 13 of them. None of
the subgroups met percent proficient requirements in ELA and the school’s EL

197
population did not satisfy proficiency requirements in mathematics. In a year where
the state experienced an overall increase in percent proficient in ELA (48.2% in 2008
to 52.4% in 2009) and mathematics (51% in 2008 to 54.5% in 2009), the school’s
percentage dropped in ELA (45.9% in 2008 to 39.6% in 2009) and rose only slightly
in mathematics (44.4% in 2008 to 45.8% in 2009).
Together these scenarios have caused the school to make some new
adjustments as well to continue some efforts that have already been in place. Kaman
has renewed its focus on improving the achievement of its fast growing EL
population. The actions taken by Dr. Anderson and his staff at Kaman High School are
summarized in Table B11.
Table B11: Summary of Kaman’s Strategies for
Improving Student Achievement
Strategy/Resources Characteristics/Highlights
Shared vision on effective instruction
• School wide input on defining
effective instruction
• Provides teachers guidelines to follow
for effective instructional practices
• Increased student engagement
• Clearly defined learning objectives
• Effective assessment of student
knowledge
Identified essential standards
• Narrowed focus regarding content
standards
• Curriculum mapping based on these
identified standards
Common assessments
• Quarterly assessments in core content
areas
• Assessments based on essential
standards
Lesson design
• Increased focus on effective lessons
• Increased focus in ELA and
mathematics
• Increased student engagement
• Clearly defined learning objectives

198
Table B11: Continued
Data-driven decision-making
• Use of student data to determine
appropriate interventions
• Allows for re-teaching opportunities
Teacher collaboration and PD
• Late-start Wednesdays allow for
teacher collaboration
• PD opportunities provided on some
Wednesdays
Raising student awareness on CA
standardized testing
• Implications of testing shared with all
students
• Making testing relevant to each student

When asked to describe his and the school’s vision of effective instruction, Dr.
Anderson simply stated there are certain components that he feels are necessary. He
cited the following as essential components of effective instruction: a high level of
student engagement, clearly stated learning objectives and student outcomes,
appropriate assessment of student knowledge, standards-based content, and alignment
of lessons to district-identified power standards. Teachers were asked (as one of their
outcomes for collaboration) to identify how they view effective instruction. After
receiving feedback from all departments, Dr. Anderson and his administrative team
compiled the aforementioned list and communicated to teachers that these are the
components to consciously incorporate into their instructional practices.
At the district level, core content teachers representing all school sites have
identified power standards for each core content area including ELA and mathematics.
At the school level, Kaman teachers further analyzed the power standards to ensure
that their specific students would be provided with a well-rounded standards-based
education. Although minor adjustments were made (with district approval), the
school’s teachers felt the identified standards were satisfactory.

199
District support for schools includes a lesson design coach at each school site
that assists teachers in designing a lesson that incorporates the elements of effective
instruction. Via one district professional development day per department, teachers
were trained by the lesson design coaches on how to incorporate the necessary
elements of effective instruction into their lessons. After receiving the relevant
training, it became the lesson design coach’s responsibility to provide further ongoing
teacher support at each site.
As supported by the PLC concept, core content teachers (beginning with ELA
and mathematics) were provided with release time to collaborate and develop common
quarterly assessments (benchmarks) based on the previously identified power
standards. It is the intention of these summative assessments to gauge student mastery
of the power standards and to serve as an indicator of performance on the CSTs. In
addition, they are also designed as a measure to ensure that regardless of the teacher,
students were receiving the same standards-based education. More immediate effects
of these assessments include re-teaching opportunities for teachers.
After administering the benchmarks, teachers are given release time to conduct
an item analysis based on student responses. By doing so they were able to identify
areas of re-teaching and areas of strength. Although there doesn’t appear to be an
accountability measure to ensure that re-teaching does occur, the item analysis does
provide individual teachers with data on their specific students. It is the expectation of
Dr. Anderson that teachers use this data to address specific areas of concern to
improve student performance and mastery.

200
Given the school’s continued growth with its EL population in recent years,
much of Kaman’s professional development has focused on strategies effective in
educating EL students. The school has built into its schedule one late start Wednesday
that allows for two hours of teacher collaboration and/or PD. Rather than using
funding for outside expertise, Dr. Anderson elected to have in-house experts on the
topic conduct these PD sessions. The rationale behind this strategy is that the school
already has great teachers that there is no need to use its limited funding on outside
sources. It is much more economical and personal to have a fellow respected colleague
train the other teachers on-site. The strategies addressed are aligned with specially
designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE).
It is a belief of the school’s administrators that raising student awareness of the
implications of standardized testing serves as a motivator for the students to perform
well on those assessments. Teachers were instructed to share specific information
about the CSTs and CAHSEE with all students, and ELD teachers shared with their
EL students the implications of the CELDT. Although the effectiveness of this
strategy is yet to be explored or determined, Dr. Anderson believes it has made a
difference in the students’ approach to the tests.
Although the strategies outlined here have not been directly linked to specific
improvements in student achievement at Kaman, Dr. Anderson believes very strongly
that it is a combination of all of the above that have had a positive impact on his
students’ learning.
EBM Comparisons

201
Table B12 provides a comparison of resource-use at Kaman High School and
how it aligns with the recommendations outlined by the Evidence-Based Model.
Table B12: Kaman and EBM Comparisons
Staffing Category
EB Funding
Model
Actual
Core Academic Teachers (includes 5 GATE) 108 64
Specialist & Elective Teachers 36 25.9
Library Staff
Librarian/Media Specialist (Certified) 4.5 1
Library/Media Tech Aides (Non-Certified) 4.5 1
Extra Help
Certified Teacher Tutors for English Language Learners 11 0
Certified Teacher Tutors for At-Risk Students 16.2 0
Non-certified Tutors 0 0
Resource Room Teachers (non-special education) 0 1
Resource Room Aides (non-special education) 0 1
Special Education Teachers Fully Funded 9.5
Special Education Aides Fully Funded 12
Gifted & Talented Aide 0 0
Gifted & Talented Funds $67,500 $0
Extended Day 13.5 3
Summer School 13.5 30
Professional Development

202
Table B12: Continued
Total # of Professional Development Days 10 6
Instructional Facilitators 13.5 0
Teacher Time (Substitutes & Stipends)
Trainer/Consultant Funds
Materials, Equipment & Facilities
Travel & Transportation
Tuition & Conference Fees
$270,000 $64,871
Other Instructional Staff
Building Substitutes & Other Substitutes 0 0
Instructional Aides 0 0
Supervisory Aides 13.5 4
Student Support
Counselors 6
Nurses 1
Social Workers
24.3
0
Psychologists Fully Funded 1
Speech/ OT/ PT Fully Funded 1
Health Assistant 0 1
Administration
Principal 1 1
Assistant Principal 3.5 3

203
Table B12: Continued
Secretary 4.5 1
Clerical 13.5 8

In analyzing the data in Table B11, Kaman does not match well with the
recommendations provided by the EBM. The following are significant areas of
deficiency:
• 44 less core academic teachers (which includes 5 GATE teachers) and 10.1
less specialists/elective teachers
• Certified teacher tutors are not available
• Currently no additional funding available for GATE
• Only 6 days of PD versus 10
• Although the use of lesson design coaches is present at Kaman, there are no
instructional coaches available
• Although there are $64,871 available for PD, this amount falls significantly
shy of the $270,000 recommended by the model
• Student support is only at 7 FTEs versus the model’s 19.8
Although beyond the scope of this study, it can be inferred that if Kaman’s
level of resources was more aligned to those in the Evidence-Based Model, perhaps
the achievement level of its student can be improved.
Lessons Learned

204
Although not necessarily a focus (or awareness of the steps) of the school,
Table B13 provides evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance
found at Kaman.
Table B13: Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at Kaman
Step Features Evidence
Understand performance
problem
• Recognizing low
student performance
• Accepting that change
is necessary
• Meeting NCLB
accountability mandates
and AYP
• In 2002 only about
one-quarter of students
demonstrated
proficiency on the
CSTs
• 9-point decrease in
API from 2005 to 2006
• Did not meet AYP in
2009
• EL subgroup did not
meet AMOs in ELA or
mathematics
Set and maintain higher
goals
• Regardless of student
population, standards
must be high
• Maintain high standards
to help create a culture
of success
• Student motivation
• Increase in PD focus to
ensure EL students
improve performance
• Increase student
awareness of
standardized testing
implications
Adopt new curriculum and
improve instructional
practices
• Curriculum must be
aligned to new high
standards
• Most influential
component on student
performance
• Use of lesson design
coach to improve
effectiveness of
instructional practices
• Although new
curriculum not
adopted, it is standard-
based
Using data to drive
instructional decisions
• Use student data to
identify needs and drive
decisions
• Use of appropriate
assessment strategies in
the classroom to
provide appropriate
instruction
• Item analysis on
benchmarks to guide
re-teaching efforts
• Increased frequency of
use of formative
assessments to gauge
student progress

205
Table B13: Continued
Ongoing professional
development for teachers
• Training for teachers to
become proficient in
analyzing data to drive
their instructional
practices
• Increasing effectiveness
of teachers
• Focus on lesson design
• Focus on EL strategies
• Use of in house
expertise
Use time more efficiently
• Make use of every
instructional minute
comprising the 180-day
school year
• Increase allocation of
time to core content
areas
• Late-start days to allow
for teacher
collaboration
Support for struggling
students
• Small class sizes
• Tutoring with
credentialed teacher
• Rigorous curriculum
• High-quality teachers
• Standards-based
curriculum
• All teachers are highly
qualified as mandated
by NCLB
• Individual tutoring
offered by teachers
Create professional
learning communities
(PLCs)
• Role of teachers as
instructional leaders
• Collaborative school
culture
• Intense focus on student
learning
• Monthly collaboration
time for all teachers
• Teacher input in
creating vision of
effective instructional
practices
• Data-driven decision
making
Professional behavior and
promising practices
• Seeking promising
practices in all aspects
of schooling
• Professional behavior
by teachers and staff
members
• Seeking outside
expertise
• Lesson design
• In-house expertise
Human capital
• Finding the right people
to carry out the new
demands of improving
student performance
• Principal and teacher
talent
• Dr. Anderson brought
back as principal upon
earning his doctorate
degree in education

206
In interviewing Dr. Anderson he was well aware that his EL subgroup failed to
meet proficiency targets in both ELA and mathematics; resulting in Kaman not
meeting AYP for the first time since 2003. This caused the school to set a goal of
having this subgroup meet its AMOs for the current school year.
Although a new curriculum was not adopted, there is a school-wide effort to
improve instructional practices. The use of a lesson design coach is intended to
increase the level of student engagement in daily lessons and to increase teacher
effectiveness.
The use of student data to drive instructional decisions has become more
prevalent at Kaman than in recent years. Teachers are provided with release time to
analyze student performance on the school’s benchmark assessments as means of
identifying areas for re-teaching opportunities. Teachers have also increased the use of
formative assessments for the same purpose. Knowing areas of students’ weaknesses
allows teachers to provide the appropriate support.
Ongoing professional development (PD) for teachers remains a priority at
Kaman. The current focus of PD opportunities is on effective lesson design and EL
strategies. The use of lesson design coaches is intended to increase student
engagement, a component Dr. Anderson and his staff feel is essential for improving
student learning. Although EL strategies weren’t clearly defined during the interview
with the principal, he did cite this component as a way of reaching the school’s large
EL population.

207
Regarding the use of time, Kaman has scheduled into its week one late-start
day. This approach does not lengthen to school day and allows for some valuable time
for teachers to collaborate.
For those students who struggle to master the standards, Kaman offers some
support. First, the curriculum for all content areas is standards-based. Second, all
teachers satisfy the highly qualified mandate of NCLB. Third, every mathematics and
ELA teacher offers his or her own tutoring on a volunteer basis for his or her
respective students.
Although Dr. Anderson would not consider his school to embody all the
characteristics of a true professional learning community (PLC), there are three key
components that are present at Kaman: collaboration time for teachers, collaborative
effort in creating a vision of effective instruction for the school, and the use of data to
drive instructional decisions.
Regarding step nine, Kaman’s teachers take advantage of in-house expertise
(both at the school and district levels) and through collaboration, share promising
practices such as effective lesson design.
The only evidence found in regards to Odden’s tenth step (human capital) is
the fact that the district brought back Dr. Anderson as principal after a brief departure.
He occupied an assistant principal position for five years at Kaman prior to leaving to
become the principal at a different school site for two years. During that departure he
completed his doctor of education, so when he returned to assume the principal
position at Kaman, he had his new title of doctor.

208
Although all of Odden’s Ten Steps were evidenced at Kaman, it is unclear to
what extent each is present. The argument can be made that if there existed a very
strong presence of each of the steps, much like the EBM comparisons, one can expect
a higher level of student achievement.
Additional Resources
When asked about what additional resources are needed to support Kaman in
continuing or expanding their efforts, Dr. Anderson gave two specific responses.
First, he believes more collaboration time for teachers to analyze data is
needed. In order to take full advantage of data as a catalyst for improving instructional
decisions and practices, teachers require better training and release time to be able to
effectively analyze any data that is already available or can be collected via classroom
assessments. Doing so, he stated, will allow for more timely teacher-centered
interventions to support students in the classroom.
Second, greater district-level support is needed. Dr. Anderson specifically cited
having a more central focus on creating memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with
the teacher union. Site principals are left to negotiate with the union on certain
initiatives that are in the best interest of students, but may not be entirely supported by
the union. One example given is having teachers spend time outside of the regularly
scheduled instructional day to expand on some of the school-wide efforts to support
student achievement. Dr. Anderson feels that if this type of action were district-driven
and not site-based, the chances of moving ahead would be greater.
Although not given as a possible resource, Kaman does lack a school-wide
intervention program to support struggling students. The school offers an official after

209
school tutoring program for ELA and mathematics that is optional for students to
attend. Beyond this, there is no systematic support outside of classroom teacher
intervention.
Additional parental support is also needed at Kaman, although the principal did
not cite this. Reaching out to all parents, especially those of low performing students,
can have a significant impact on the overall level of student achievement. Finding
ways to connect such a diverse population can prove beneficial for the school, its
students, and its surrounding community.
Finally, training for implementing technology in the classroom can prove to be
a valuable resource for Kaman as well. Considering the technology-driven society of
present day, using technology in the classroom can offer a more enriched educational
experience for Kaman’s students.

210
Appendix C
Case Study 3: Belvedere High School
Background of the School and District
Belvedere High School is an urban school located in Orange County,
California. The school’s union high school district serves a diverse population of
approximately 16,400 students who attend one of six comprehensive high schools, one
continuation high school, or one alternative high school. Figure C1 below provides
data on the school, district, and state student populations.
Table C1: Student Demographics Comparison:
Belvedere, District, and CA
Student Demographics School District CA
EL 28% 20.7% 24.7%
Free and Reduced Priced
Lunch
42.3% 16.2% 49.7%
Special Education 8.1% 7.2% 10.9%
White 11.0% 23.0% 27.9%
Hispanic 67.1% 48.6% 49.0%
Asian 7.8% 18.9% 8.4%
African-American 5.5% 2.1% 7.3%
Filipino 4.0% 2.7% 2.7%
Pacific Islander
American-Indian
Less than 1%
each
Less than 1%
each
Less than 1%
each
Multiple or No Response 4.0% 4.3% 3.4%
Total Population 1,970 16,350 6,252,000

211
The school has 1,970 students of which 551 are designated as English Learners
(EL), 833 are eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL), and 160 currently
have Individual Education Plans (IEP) for special education services.
When compared to its district Belvedere has higher proportions of EL students,
Hispanics, African-Americans, and those qualifying for FRPL. Compared to
California, the school has a higher proportion of ELs and Hispanics. Although lower
than the state average, those students qualifying for FRPL at Belvedere still make up a
significant percentage of the population at 42.3%.
Subgroups (White and Asian) that traditionally perform better than others on
the CSTs also differ significantly between Belvedere, its district, and California.
White populations at the district and state make up 23% and 27.9%, respectively, but
only 11% at Belvedere. The state’s highest performing subgroup, Asians, is
comparable to the state percentage of 8.4%, but much lower than the district’s
percentage of 18.9%.
Belvedere is currently designated with a statewide rank of 6 with regard to
student performance on standardized tests and graduation rates; this is unchanged from
the previous year. Its similar schools rank (SSR), however, is much higher at 9.
Belvedere’s high SSR is an indication that the school is very effective in getting its
high needs students to perform well on the CSTs and the CAHSEE when compared to
other high schools in the state with similar student demographics and resources.
Over a four-year span from 2003 through 2006 Belvedere failed to meet AYP
in 2003, 2005, and 2006. Heading into the 2006-07 school year, the school was in
danger of entering program improvement (status PI-1). 2009 marks the third

212
consecutive year Belvedere has satisfied AYP. The school was successful in meeting
all 18 of its Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) in 2009, including having its
numerically significant subgroups satisfy percent proficient requirements in English
Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics. The school-wide goals for percent proficient
or advanced in 2009 for ELA and mathematics were 44.5% and 43.5%, respectively.
Belvedere’s school-wide proficiency rates for both areas were 53.1% and 51.9%,
respectively.
When asked about Belvedere’s improvement process, the principal, Dr. West
commented that in light of the latest CAHSEE data the focus has shifted to improving
student proficiency on both the writing and the mathematics portions of the CAHSEE.
The purpose of this case study is to provide an account of how Belvedere High
School allocates its resource to educate its students. Resource use patterns will be
compared to those recommendations provided by the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
developed by Lawrence Picus and Allen Odden. In addition, the study will look for
evidence of Odden’s 10 Steps to Doubling Student Performance (2010). Although the
intent of the study is not to measure if a school has doubled student performance, nor
has Belvedere made this a focus, the 10 Steps are research-based strategies that
improving schools have used to successfully improve student performance. Therefore,
it is worthwhile to assess whether or not any of these strategies are in place at the
school. Together these two aspects (the EBM and the 10 Steps) will provide an
account of Belvedere’s improvement process.

213
Test Scores and Other Data
Since 1999 when California introduced the Academic Performance Index as a
measure of student achievement, Belvedere has experienced a steady annual growth in
its API scores—with one exception. In 2009 its API fell for the first time from 729 in
2008 to 725. Despite this 4-point decline, Belvedere still managed to experience a net
growth from 1999-00 (API of 525) through 20008-09 (API of 725) of 200 points.
That’s an annual average growth of 20 points. Graph C1 below shows this steady
growth.

Table C2 provides a comparison of API levels from 2005 through 2009 for
Belvedere, California high schools, and all schools in California. Within this 5-year
period Belvedere managed to outperform the state high school average three times by
an annual average of just over 22 points.

214
The school has demonstrated efficiency and effectiveness given its student
demographics (see Table C1) as evidenced by its SSR of 9, however, both Belvedere’s
API and the statewide high school average API are significantly lower than the
cumulative average of all California schools. This can be for a number of reasons.
Included in this data are elementary schools, which traditionally have higher levels of
parent and community involvement, smaller class sizes, and a much more narrow
achievement gap between different groups of students.
Table C2: API Comparisons Belvedere and CA (2005-2009)
Year Belvedere HS CA (Grades 9-11) CA (All Grades)
2009 725 713 755
2008 729 702 742
2007 717 689 728
2006 614 680 720
2005 662 671 709

Table C3 shows a comparison of API achieved by numerically significant
subgroups across Belvedere and all high schools in California based on 2008-09
STAR results. With the exception of White students, Belvedere’s subgroups are
significantly outperforming the state. Traditionally challenging populations (EL,
socio-economically disadvantaged, special education and Hispanic) at this school are
outperforming the state high schools by an average of nearly 66 points.

215
Table C3: API Subgroup Comparisons Belvedere and CA (2009 STAR Results)
Subgroup Belvedere HS CA (High Schools)
Belvedere
Difference
EL 679 612 +67 Belvedere
Socio-
economically
Disadvantaged
721 648 +73 Belvedere
Special Education 562 495 +67 Belvedere
White 771 788 -17 Belvedere
Hispanic 707 651 +56 Belvedere
Asian* N/A 843 N/A
African-
American*
N/A 624 N/A
Filipino* N/A 794 N/A
Pacific Islander* N/A 696 N/A
American-Indian* N/A 685 N/A
All Students 725 713 +12 Belvedere
* Denotes subgroups are not numerically significant, and therefore are excluded from
API or AYP purposes.

Belvedere’s STAR results from 2002 through 2009 are illustrated in Table C4
below. Since the state uses the percent of student who reach at least the level of
proficient on the CSTs in ELA and mathematics, the graph provides this specific data.
Table C4: Belvedere STAR Results (Percent Proficient or Advanced 2002-2009)
Year Tested ELA Mathematics
2009 53.1% 51.9%
2008 56.0% 51.0%

216
Table C4: Continued
2007 45.9% 52.7%
2006 48.9% 49.4%
2005 37.6% 33.8%
2004 39.3% 30.1%
2003 33.9% 30.1%
2002 18.9% 19.2%

Table C5 further compares Belvedere’s proficiency rates in ELA to the
statewide average for all schools over the previous three academic years. Table C6
illustrates the same results for mathematics over the same period.
Table C5: STAR ELA Results – Belvedere and CA
(Proficient or Advanced 2007-2009)
Year Tested Belvedere HS CA (All Grades)
2009 53.1% 49.9%
2008 56.0% 45.7%
2007 45.9% 43.3%

In ELA, Belvedere experienced a decline of 2.9% from 2008 to 2009 after a
significant growth of just over 10% from 2007 to 2008. Over the same three-year
period the state average has increased by 6.6%. Still, the school has a 3.2% advantage
over California.
Looking at the data in Table C6 for mathematics, it is evident that Belvedere
has consistently outperformed the state average the since 2007 despite the school’s
slight decline from 2007 to 2008.

217
Table C6: STAR Mathematics Results – Belvedere and CA
(Proficient or Advanced 2007-2009)
Year Tested Belvedere HS CA (All Grades)
2009 51.9% 45.8%
2008 51.0% 42.7%
2007 52.7% 40.5%

High school students first take the CAHSEE during their tenth grade year and
are allowed multiple opportunities to pass both sections (ELA and mathematics) of the
test. Belvedere’s CAHSEE results for sophomores are reported below in Graph C2.
This is the percentage of students who passed the test in either ELA or mathematics.
The figures provided are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for some students to
have passed only one of the two sections, or both sections; the graph does not
distinguish between the two. Although California decided to exclude special education
students from having to pass the test in order to receive a diploma, the figures shown
below include this population.

218

Graph C3 provides CAHSEE data on all grades at Santana High School. This
includes grades tenth, eleventh, and twelfth.

219
Belvedere High School’s overall graduation rates well exceed the statewide
average (Table C7), however, when comparing the percentage of graduates having
completed University of California/California State University (UC/CSU) courses
with a “C” or better (Table C8), the two are evenly matched.
Table C7: Overall Graduation Rate – Belvedere and CA (2006-2008)
Graduation Year Belvedere High School CA
2008 100% 80.6%
2007 100% 83.2%
2006 100% 85.0%

Table C8: Percentage of Graduates Having Completed
UC/CSU Courses with at least a “C” – Belvedere and CA (2006-2008)
Graduation Year Belvedere High School CA
2008 32.3% 33.9%
2007 30.2% 35.5%
2006 33.8% 35.9%

The school’s SAT data is compared to California’s average scores in Table C9.
Overall Belvedere’s students are performing significantly below the state by this
measure.

220
Table C9: SAT Data – Belvedere and CA (2006-2008)
Year Subject Belvedere HS CA
Critical Reading 444 494
Mathematics 474 513
Writing 449 493
2008
Total 1,367 1,500
Critical Reading 455 493
Mathematics 468 513
Writing 453 491
2007
Total 1,376 1,497
Critical Reading 431 495
Mathematics 439 516
Writing 429 495
2006
Total 1,299 1,506

A school enters program improvement (PI) in the third consecutive year it fails
to meet AYP; currently, Belvedere is not in PI. However, the school was in danger of
entering PI in 2007 after failing to satisfy this NLCB mandate in 2005 and 2006. The
school also fell short in 2003. After not meeting AYP in three of the previous four
years, Belvedere was finally successful in 2007 and 2009 marked the third consecutive
year it has met AYP. This is a direct result of the improvement process the school has
undergone since the current principal (Dr. West) took over in 2007.

221
Two aspects of the school that have contributed to the overall success of its
students is the Advanced Academics Academy (AAA) and AVID. AAA is a program
in which entering students who are interested must apply for acceptance. The group of
approximately 150 students forms a cohort that stays together for the entire four years
of high school and takes the same classes with the same teachers and the same
rigorous curriculum. The main focus of AAA is to get its students into four-year
universities immediately after high school. It is the belief of Dr. West that the
program’s success serves as a motivator for those students not in the program to
improve their own academic performance.
Belvedere’s success is evidenced by two distinguished accolades: a recipient of
the California Golden Bell Award and being named one Newsweek’s Top 100 High
School in America. There are 19 categories that used to determine if a school is
worthy of the Golden Bell award. Among them are a rigorous curriculum, instruction,
accountability, and invigorating high schools. To be considered a Top 100 High
School in America, Newsweek magazine uses rigorous curriculum and the number of
students taking Advanced Placement (AP) or other college-level courses as the main
criteria. The fact that Belvedere has received recognition by both parties (as well as its
SSR of 9) is an indicator that the school is effectively educating its students to high
standards.
Improvement Process
In 2007 when Dr. West assumed the leadership role at Belvedere High School
they were in danger of entering PI for failing to meet AYP in the previous two
consecutive years. Having exited his previous school from PI status, he entered

222
Belvedere with a certain level of credibility from the staff’s perspective and as a result,
was able to implement many of his ideas and initiatives with relatively little
opposition. These components will be addressed in this section.
In 2005 and 2006 the school’s API (see Table C2) was significantly below
California’s high school average. After Dr. West’s first year as principal in 2007,
Belvedere experienced a one-year growth of 103 points, compared to the state’s nine-
point gain. In that same year, the school’s percent proficient on California’s STAR
testing rose above 50% for the first time in both ELA and mathematics.
Table C10 below summarizes some of the changes, as well as some of the
components that have undergone an improvement process under Dr. West’s
leadership.
Table C10: Summary of Belvedere’s Strategies for
Improving Student Achievement
Strategy/Resources Characteristics/Highlights
Identification of essential standards in
core academic areas
• Focuses instruction on standards
addressed by the CSTs and CAHSEE
• Teacher-driven
• Resulted in creation of common
benchmark assessments
Increased focus on ELA and
mathematics interventions
• Hiring more mathematics and ELA
teachers
• Increased ELA and mathematics PD
• Year-long mathematics intervention
class
Data-driven decision-making
• Allows for appropriate student
interventions in ELA and mathematics
• Student Success Conferences
• Individual achievement plans for the
lowest performing students
Strengthening Advanced Academics
Academy and AVID
• AAA curriculum highly aligned with
college-level courses
• High expectations for AVID students
clearly defined and communicated

223
Table C10: Continued
Student performance rewards/incentives
and recognition
• Students are rewarded for CST
performance
• Students receive school-wide
recognition for academic performance
throughout the year
Intense PD focused on improving teacher
effectiveness in the classroom
• Princeton Review
• Writing strategies
• Direct Interactive Instruction (DII)
across the curriculum
• Teacher collaboration

Prior to 2007 there was a district-wide effort to identify essential standards in
an attempt to align instruction to the content assessed by the CSTs. When Dr. West
joined the school in 2007 he and his staff further refined those standards. Each
department was responsible for defining its own content standards based on the
frameworks provided by the California Department of Education (CDE). The CDE
releases a set of questions and standards assessed as a means of helping schools
prepare for the CSTs. Belvedere has taken full advantage of this information.
Resulting form the identification of the essential standards, Belvedere’s
teachers created common benchmark assessments in the core content areas of
mathematics and ELA. Administered at the end of each grading quarter, these
assessments provide data on student progress and serve as indicators of student
performance on the CSTs.
As teachers have left or retired from Belvedere, Dr. West has focused on hiring
more ELA and mathematics teachers (initially he focused on ELA and more recently
on mathematics). This has allowed the school to offer intervention courses within the
school day to those students who need it the most as evidenced by STAR data. Those

224
students performing in the lower performance bands of the CSTs are enrolled in either
an ELA or mathematics intervention class (or both if necessary). Beginning next year
those students entering Belvedere who have performed extremely low on their 8
th

grade CSTs in mathematics will be enrolled in a two-year Algebra I course. The
standards and content will be the same as the traditional one-year course, but would be
taught at a much slower pace.
In 2007 and 2008 the school focused mainly on ELA interventions, but this
year that has shifted to mathematics as a result of the STAR data. Initially, most of
Belvedere’s students passing the CAHSEE in ELA were not demonstrating
proficiency on the test and as a result, hurt the school’s API and AYP. California has
set a score of 350 as passing, but a score of 380 as proficient. For API and AYP
purposes the state looks at not only passing rates, but proficiency rates as well. After
analyzing the data, the school found that students were getting very low scores on the
writing portion of the test. Consequently, there was a school-wide focus on writing
strategies. Over the previous two years students have improved their performance in
this regard, but the mathematics proficiency rates remained relatively low. Now the
focus has shifted to mathematics.
This is one way in which Belvedere uses student assessment data to drive
instructional decisions. It allows for the appropriate level of interventions in either
ELA or mathematics.
California uses five performance bands to identify levels of student
performance on the STAR testing system: far below basic (FBB), below basic (BB),
basic (B), proficient (P), and advanced (A). Students who score into the upper levels

225
(P or A) help their school, whereas students who score in the lower levels (FBB, BB,
or B) hurt their school.
At Belvedere, this is used to develop individual performance improvement
plans for the lowest performing students; those in FBB, BB, or B. Prior to the start of
each school year teachers receive CST data for each of their students. With this data
teachers identify and sort their students into each of the performance bands. With one
PD day prior to the start of the school year and another one about one month into the
school year, teachers are expected to provide Dr. West with a plan on how they will
try to move the students into the proficient performance band. Since the principal
introduced this practice in his first year at the school, he feels that all plans he has
received have been appropriate.
In addition, just before the CSTs are administered in the spring, 4
th
period
teachers meet with every one of their students to discuss their individual performance
on during the previous year. Together they develop a short-term plan to improve that
level of performance. It is the belief of Dr. West that making students aware of their
performance serves as a motivator to want to improve.
Since becoming principal at Belvedere another focus of Dr. West has been on
strengthening the school’s already successful Advanced Academics Academy (AAA)
and AVID. Although AAA was already designed to prepare students for college with a
college-level curriculum, the AAA teachers have found ways to make the program
even more relevant. The success of the improvements has resulted in an even higher
percentage of AAA students being accepted into some of America’s most prestigious

226
universities such as the University of Southern California, the University of California
Los Angles, and Harvard.
AVID targets middle-performing students; most of who are first generation
college-bound. Since Dr. West became principal, the number of students participating
in AVID has grown to approximately 300. This is significant because the program
teaches students effective study skills and provides them with opportunities to explore
college as a real possibility upon graduating from high school.
Dr. West personally goes into the community to solicit rewards for his students
from local businesses and amusement parks such as Knott’s Berry Farm and
Disneyland. In order for students to earn a reward, they must improve on their overall
CST scores from the previous year. Even a one-point gain merits two passes to Knott’s
Berry Farm. For those students who reach proficient or advanced, they are given
greater rewards and in addition, are entered into a raffle to receive one of several
grand prizes. Some grand prizes in recent years have been Wii video game systems,
Playstation 3 video game systems, iPods, and hand-held video recording devices such
as the Flip.
Dr. West also introduced to Belvedere a greater focus on professional
development as a means of improving student performance. Upon becoming principal
the students of Belvedere were underperforming in the writing section of the
CAHSEE. As a result, he introduced a PD focus on effective writing strategies.
Through release time for English teachers they were able to successfully develop and
implement new strategies for their students. Additionally, he introduced Princeton

227
Review into the intervention courses that focused on preparing students for the
CAHSEE.
Perhaps the most significant PD aspect has been that of Direct Interactive
Instruction (DII) across all core content areas. It is this instructional strategy that Dr.
West attributes as having the greatest effect in getting his previous high school to exit
PI status. After three years of significant improvement, he makes the same claims
about Belvedere High School.
DII focuses on three main components of instruction: teacher-questioning
techniques, student engagement, and frequent formative assessments. He hired an
outside consulting firm, ALS, to work closely with teachers in each core content area
over an entire year to effectively implement the strategy. This is the third year the
consultants have been at Belvedere. Each year they have worked with two or three
departments. Throughout the year, ALS visits each teacher about ten times to provide
ongoing support. The teachers first observe ALS consultants teach a lesson with the
components of DII, and then are given subsequent opportunities to teach other lessons
while the ALS consultants observe. At the conclusion of each lesson ALS consultants
provide immediate feedback and discuss ways that teachers can increase their
respective effectiveness.
Included with working with the consultants is time for teacher collaboration.
Because Belvedere does not implement a late-start day to allow for such sessions,
collaboration is provided as release time where teacher either work closely with the
consultants, or on their own as a department.

228
Although the effectiveness of each of the components in Table C10 is unclear,
the cumulative results are very clear. A school in danger of entering PI status and
performing significantly below the state’s high schools in terms of API in 2006 (a 66-
point deficit), has successfully met AYP for three consecutive years and now has a 12-
point advantage as of 2009.
EBM Comparisons
Table C11 below provides a comparison of resource-use at Belvedere High
School and how it aligns with the recommendations outlined by the Evidence-Based
Model.
Table C11: Belvedere and EBM Comparisons
Staffing Category
EB Funding
Model
Actual
Core Academic Teachers (includes 6 for GATE) 78.8 49.6
Specialist & Elective Teachers 26.3 23.8
Library Staff
- Librarian/Media Specialist (Certified) 3.3 1
- Library/Media Tech Aides (Non-Certified) 3.3 1
Extra Help
- Certified Teacher Tutors for English Language
Learners
8.3 0
- Certified Teacher Tutors for At-Risk Students 8.3 0
- Non-certified Tutors 0 0
- Resource Room Teachers (non-special education) 0 0.6
- Resource Room Aides (non-special education) 0 3

229
Table C11: Continued
- Special Education Teachers Fully Funded 8.5
- Special Education Aides Fully Funded 8
- Gifted & Talented Aide 0 0
- Gifted & Talented Funds $49,250 $0
- Extended Day 6.9 4
- Summer School 6.9 0
Professional Development
- Total # of Professional Development Days 10 3
- Instructional Facilitators 9.9 0
- Teacher Time (Substitutes & Stipends)
- Trainer/Consultant Funds
- Materials, Equipment & Facilities
- Travel & Transportation
- Tuition & Conference Fees
$197,000 $50,000
Other Instructional Staff
- Building Substitutes & Other Substitutes 0 0
- Instructional Aides 0 0
- Supervisory Aides 9.9 4
Student Support
- Counselors 5
- Nurses
13.8
1

230
Table C11: Continued
- Social Workers 0
- Psychologists Fully Funded 1
- Speech/ OT/ PT Fully Funded 0.5
- Health Assistant 0 1
Administration
- Principal 1 1
- Assistant Principal 4 4
- Secretary 3.3 1
- Clerical 9.9 7

In analyzing the data in Table C11, Belvedere does not match well with the
recommendations provided by the EBM. The following are significant areas of
deficiency:
• Where the model calls for 78.8 core teachers, Belvedere has only 49.6
including 6 for GATE
• Although close to the model, specialist & elective teachers are
recommended at 26.3, but the school has 23.8
• Due to the school’s lack of a tutoring program, there are no FTE’s to
compare to the EBM’s recommendations
• Currently no additional funds are available for GATE, however, the model
recommends $49,250
• Only 3 days of PD versus 10

231
• Although there are $50,000 available for PD, this amount falls significantly
shy of the $197,000 recommended by the model (see note below)
• Student support is only at 6.0 FTEs versus the model’s 13.8
It should be noted that although there are no FTEs entered under the
instructional facilitators category, Belvedere does use an outside consulting firm
(ALS) to offer training for its teachers. All funds allocated to professional
development ($50,000) are used on this outside consultants. There are no additional
fees incurred if ALS needs to provide more coaches for a larger department, such as
English and mathematics.
Although beyond the scope of this study, it can be inferred that if Belvedere’s
level of resources was more aligned to those in the Evidence-Based Model, perhaps
the achievement level of its student can be improved beyond what the school has
experienced in recent years.
Lessons Learned
Although not necessarily a focus (or awareness of the steps) of the school,
Table C12 below provides evidence of Odden’s 10 Steps to Doubling Student
Performance found at Belvedere.

232
Table C12: Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at Belvedere
Step Features Evidence
Understand performance
problem
• Recognizing low
student performance
• Accepting that change
is necessary
• Meeting NCLB
accountability mandates
and AYP
• School in danger of
entering PI status in
2007
• Low rates of
proficiency
demonstrated on the
CAHSEE
Set and maintain higher
goals
• Regardless of student
population, standards
must be high
• Maintain high standards
to help create a culture
of success
• Student motivation
• Increase student
achievement in the
core content areas
school-wide by 5% as
measured by the CSTs
• AAA and AVID serve
as motivators for entire
student body
Adopt new curriculum and
improve instructional
practices
• Curriculum must be
aligned to new high
standards
• Most influential
component on student
performance
• Enhance current
curriculum in AAA,
ELA, and mathematics
• Direct Interactive
Instruction
Using data to drive
instructional decisions

• Use student data to
identify needs and drive
decisions
• Use of appropriate
assessment strategies in
the classroom to
provide appropriate
instruction

• Student interventions
based on CST and
CAHSEE data
Ongoing professional
development for teachers
• Training for teachers to
become proficient in
analyzing data to drive
their instructional
practices
• Increasing effectiveness
of teachers

• Writing strategies
• CAHSEE test prep
• Direct Interactive
Instruction (DII)

233
Table C12: Continued
Use time more efficiently
• Make use of every
instructional minute
comprising the 180-day
school year
• Increase allocation of
time to core content
areas

• No evidence found
Support for struggling
students
• Small class sizes
• Tutoring with
credentialed teacher
• Rigorous curriculum
• High-quality teachers
• Standards-based
curriculum
• All teachers are highly
qualified as mandated
by NCLB
• ELA and mathematics
intervention
• Counselors and dean
meet continually with
struggling students
Create professional
learning communities
(PLCs)
• Role of teachers as
instructional leaders
• Collaborative school
culture
• Intense focus on student
learning
• Data-driven decision-
making
• Ongoing PD in DII
Professional behavior and
promising practices
• Seeking promising
practices in all aspects
of schooling
• Professional behavior
by teachers and staff
members
• Seeking outside
expertise
• Use of ALS to promote
DII
Human capital
• Finding the right people
to carry out the new
demands of improving
student performance
• Principal and teacher
talent
• Hiring of Dr. West
• Replacing teachers
with more ELA and
mathematics teachers
Source: Odden (2009)

234
Although Belvedere was in danger of entering PI status in 2007, Dr. West
states that many teachers (even district personnel) were unaware of this fact. Due to
the other schools in the district successfully meeting their AYP requirements, there
was organizational level of ignorance on what it meant to enter PI, as well as how a
school qualified for this status. The school and district focused mainly on CST
performance and did not realize that CAHSEE proficiency played a significant role as
well in determining a school’s API and AYP. With Dr. West’s knowledge, they were
able to address this issue resulting in the school meeting AYP.
Dr. West set a school-wide goal of having all students improve their
performance on the CSTs by 5% across all core content areas, regardless of their
current level of performance. Those underperforming were expected to reach the
proficiency performance band, and those already successful were still expected to
improve their scores as well.
Additionally, the recognitions and accolades of those students in the Advanced
Academics Academy and AVID serve as motivators for the rest of the student body to
improve their own level of performance not only on the standardized tests, but also on
everyday indicators. In the three years that Dr. West has actively promoted these two
programs, Belvedere saw the number of students taking AP and honors courses triple.
Although the school has not adopted any new curriculum, they have enhanced
their current curriculum in AAA and ELA and mathematics interventions. Citing a
lack of funding as the main reason for not making any major curricular changes, Dr.
West asked his AAA, ELA, and mathematics teachers to find ways to increase the
rigor of their standards. DII played a role in this by addressing the types of questions

235
they were asking their students (higher order thinking skills as opposed to basic or
knowledge-type questions) and increasing the use of formative assessments in the
classroom. The effectiveness of DII training has been attributed to having the greatest
effect on the significant improvement of Belvedere’s students over the previous three
years.
As previously mentioned, Belvedere has increased its use of student data to
drive major instructional decisions. STAR testing data serves as the main component
in determining which students require additional support or interventions. This allows
the teachers at the school to target specific areas in which students performed very
low.
The school also has an increased focus on PD as a major component of
improving student achievement. The three major PD focuses under Dr. West’s
leadership are effective writing strategies for students, Princeton Review to prepare
students for the CAHSEE, and DII. Since shifting PD to these three areas, the overall
performance levels of Belvedere’s students have improved significantly.
Regarding support for struggling students, Belvedere offers its students
lunchtime tutoring, interventions in ELA and mathematics, and individual conferences
with low performing students.
Although Dr. West does not consider Belvedere to be a true PLC, there are two
components present at the school: data-drive decision-making and ongoing
professional development for teachers. The continued focus for PD has been direct
interactive instruction (DII). Dr. West has taken advantage of outside expertise and set

236
aside the school’s entire PD funding for the purpose of hiring ALS to train and support
teachers in DII.
There is only one of the ten steps not evidenced at Belvedere: the use of time
more efficiently. This is not to suggest, however, that efforts have not been made in
this area.
Although nine of the ten steps are present at Belvedere, the extent of each
one’s influence on student achievement is unclear and extends beyond the scope of
this study. The argument can be made that an increased presence of each step, much
like the EBM comparisons, may result in a higher level of student performance.
Additional Resources
In order for Belvedere to continue or expand its improvement process, there
are additional resources that Dr. West feels are needed. He cited two specific needs:
increased mathematics interventions and technology across the curriculum.
When he became the principal in 2007, there were sufficient funds to
implement several intervention programs in ELA and writing. Since that was the focus
of the school’s goals, the funding went to this specific cause. Since then, the goals of
the school have shifted to improving student proficiency on the mathematics portion
of the CAHSEE. However, as a result of the statewide budget reductions, funding for
intervention has been negatively affected. With more funding, Dr. West feels
Belvedere would be better equipped to offer more support for those students who truly
need it.
Also resulting from the recent budget reductions is the funding available for
technology purpose across the school. Dr. West feels this is an area sorely lacking at

237
Belvedere High School. Technology makes it possible to increase student engagement,
present the content in varying aspects, and better prepares students for a society more
dependent on it than ever before.
Although not cited, there are three additional resources that the school can
benefit from: an after school tutoring program, EL student support, and parental
outreach programs.
Currently Belvedere offers peer tutoring during lunch, but not many students
take advantage of it. An after school tutoring program led by a licensed teacher has
been proven to be a successful intervention for struggling students, that it is one of the
recommendations of the Evidence-Based Model.
Another area of support lacking at Belvedere are programs aimed at assisting
its large EL population (currently approximately 550 EL students, or about 28% of the
overall population). Although this subgroup enjoys a significant gain over the state
high school average in terms of API (see Table C3), it is the lowest performing group
at the school in terms of percent proficient.
Finally, there are almost no parental outreach programs other than the
traditional PTSA. Reaching out to all parents, especially those of low performing
students, can have a significant impact on the overall level of student achievement.

238
Appendix D
Case Study 4: Genry High School
Background of the School and District
Genry High School is an urban school located in Los Angeles County, CA.
The school’s unified district serves a diverse population of approximately 20,800
students who attend one of 19 elementary schools, five intermediate schools, four
comprehensive high schools, or two alternative high schools. Table D1 below provides
data on the school, district, and state student populations.
Table D1: Student Demographics Comparison:
Genry, District, and CA
Student Demographics Genry HS District CA
EL 6.7% 19.8% 24.7%
Free and Reduced Priced
Lunch
30.2% 40.5% 49.7%
Special Education 7.5% 8.9% 10.9%
White 10.9% 8.1% 27.9%
Hispanic 38.5% 39.4% 49.0%
Asian 19.9% 28.7% 8.4%
African-American 14.7% 9.7% 7.3%
Filipino 13.2% 9.6% 2.7%
Pacific Islander
American-Indian
Less than 1%
each
Less than 1%
each
Less than 1%
each
Multiple or No Response 1.8% 3.5% 3.4%
Total Population 2,050 20,800 6,252,000

239

The school has 2,050 students of which 137 are designated as English Learners
(EL), 619 are eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL), and 154 that
currently have Individual Education Plans (IEP) for special education services.
When compared to its district and California, Genry has a lower proportion of
some traditionally high needs populations: EL, those who qualify for FRPL, and
Hispanic. Where the state has nearly one-quarter of its students designated as EL,
Genry has a modest 6.7% and its district at nearly 20%. The school’s principal, Mrs.
Zane, mentioned that although the percentage of students who qualify as EL is rather
low, there are still well over 30 different languages spoken by her student body.
Nearly half of California’s students qualify for FRPL, but only 30.2% of
Genry’s students fall into this category. The school’s Hispanic population is almost the
same as its district at 38.5% and 39.4%, respectively, but significantly lower than the
state’s 49.0%. Regarding those qualifying for special education services, Genry has a
low percentage as well: only 7.5% compared to the district and state at 8.9% and
10.9%, respectively.
Subgroups (White and Asian) that traditionally perform better than others on
the CSTs also differ significantly between Genry and California. California’s White
population is at nearly 28%, but only 10.9% at Genry. The state’s highest performing
subgroup, Asian, is overrepresented at the school and its district when compared to the
state: 19.9%, 28.7%, and 8.4%, respectively.
Genry is currently designated with a statewide rank of 8 with regard to student
performance on standardized tests and graduation rates; this is up one from a 7 the

240
previous year. Its similar schools rank (SSR) remains unchanged earning the high
ranking of seven. Given Genry’s high SSR, it is an indication that the school is very
effective in getting its high needs students to perform well on the CSTs and the
CAHSEE when compared to similar high schools in the state with regards to student
demographics and resources.
However, 2009 marks the first year the school failed to meet its AYP
requirement under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Genry met 23 of its 24
Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs); the only target it did not meet is EL
proficiency in English Language Arts (ELA) on California’s STAR testing.
In ELA, the school-wide target of 44.5% was surpassed by a margin of nearly
20%, reaching a proficiency rate of 64.2%. However, less than one-third of EL
students (30.5%) demonstrated proficiency in this area. By contrast, the school’s
Filipino subgroup reached a high proficiency rate of 80 percent.
All subgroups met proficiency targets in mathematics, allowing the school to
satisfy its school-wide goal of 43.5%. Genry surpassed this target by an impressive
27.2% margin, demonstrating a 70.7% proficiency rate. Over half of EL students also
met this target.
In both content areas EL students were the lowest scoring subgroup. However,
the goals for student achievement at the school do not address this group specifically.
Instead, the goals are very general: to prepare students for the next level beyond high
school.
The purpose of this case study is to provide an account of how Genry High
School allocates its resource to educate its students. Resource use patterns will be

241
compared to those recommendations provided by the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
developed by Lawrence Picus and Allen Odden. In addition, the study will look for
evidence of Odden’s 10 Steps to Doubling Student Performance (2010). Although the
intent of the study is not to measure if a school has doubled student performance, nor
has Genry made this a focus, the 10 Steps are research-based strategies that improving
schools have used to successfully improve student performance. Therefore, it is
worthwhile to assess whether or not any of these strategies are in place at the school.
Together these two aspects (the EBM and the 10 Steps) will provide an account of
Genry’s improvement process.
Test Scores and Other Data
Since 1999 when California introduced the Academic Performance Index
(API) as a measure of student performance, Genry has experienced a steady growth in
its API. The net growth of 165 points from 1999-00 (API of 614) through 2008-09
(API of 779) is illustrated in Graph 1. The school has been successful in
demonstrating positive gains every single year and managed to average an annual
growth of nearly 17 points. Its current API of 779 is just 21 points shy of California’s
goal for all schools.

242

Table D2 provides a comparison of API levels from 2005 through 2009 for
Genry, California high schools, and all schools in California. Within this 5-year period
Genry managed to outperform the state high school average every single year by an
average of just over 46 points.
In comparing California’s high school API average to its average for all school
it is clear that there is a significant disparity between the two. This can be for a
number of reasons. Included in this data are elementary schools, which traditionally
have higher levels of parent and community involvement, smaller class sizes, and a
much more narrow achievement gap between different groups of students. However,
Genry’s API has surpassed the state’s overall average in 2007, 2008, and 2009 by 17,
26, and 24 points, respectively. The school has demonstrated efficiency and
effectiveness given its student demographics (see Table D1) earning its SSR of 7.

243
Table D2: API Comparisons Genry and CA (2005-2009)
Year Genry HS CA (Grades 9-11) CA (All Grades)
2009 779 713 755
2008 768 702 742
2007 745 689 728
2006 715 680 720
2005 680 671 709

Table D3 shows a comparison of API achieved by numerically significant
subgroups across Genry and all high schools in the state on the 2008-09 STAR results.
Only those subgroups with more than 100 students are considered numerically
significant for API/AYP purposes; those subgroups with less than 100 individuals are
excluded from these calculations.
With the exception of special education students, Genry’s students are
outperforming California’s high school average by an average of 46.5 points, where
the most significant gains come from EL, socio-economically disadvantaged, and
Hispanic populations (students that traditionally are considered high needs). The latter
groups show even stronger gains by averaging nearly 71 points above their statewide
counterparts.

244
Table D3: API Subgroup Comparison Genry and CA (2009 STAR Results)
Subgroup Genry HS
CA (High
Schools)
Genry Difference
EL 668 612 +56 Genry
Socio-economically
Disadvantaged
729 648 +81 Genry
Special Education 481 495 -14 Genry
White 794 788 +6 Genry
Hispanic 726 651 +75 Genry
Asian 849 843 +6 Genry
African-American* N/A 624 N/A
Filipino 849 794 +55 Genry
Pacific Islander* N/A 696 N/A
American-Indian* N/A 685 N/A
All Students 779 713 +66 Genry
* Denotes subgroups are not numerically significant, and therefore are excluded from
API or AYP purposes.

Genry’s STAR results from 2002 through 2009 are illustrated in Table D4.
Since the state uses the percent of students who reach at least the level of proficient on
the CSTs in ELA and mathematics, the graph provides this specific data.
Table D4: Genry STAR Results (Percent Proficient or Advanced 2002-2009)
Year Tested ELA Mathematics
2009 64.2% 70.7%
2008 64.9% 70.5%
2007 54.8% 61.1%

245
Table D4: Continued
2006 56.6% 61.5%
2005 49.6% 54.7%
2004 47.5% 51.6%
2003 49.8% 53.8%
2002 30.4% 32.0%

Table D5 further compares Genry’s proficiency rates in ELA to the statewide
average for all schools for the previous three academic years. Table D6 illustrates the
same results for mathematics over the same period.
Table D5: STAR ELA Results – Genry and CA
(Proficient or Advanced 2007-2009)
Year Tested Genry HS CA (All Grades)
2009 64.2% 49.9%
2008 64.9% 45.7%
2007 54.8% 43.3%

In ELA, Genry experienced a 9.4% gain over the three-year period, whereas
the state average has increased by 6.6% over the same period. Additionally, after
experiencing a gain of 10.1% from 2007 to 2008, there was a slight decline of 0.7% in
2009.
Looking at the data in Table D6 for mathematics, it is evident that Genry has
consistently outperformed the state average (as it did in ELA as well) over the
previous three years since 2007.

246
Table D6: STAR Mathematics Results – Genry and CA
(Proficient or Advanced 2007-2009)
Year Tested Genry HS CA (All Grades)
2009 70.7% 45.8%
2008 70.5% 42.7%
2007 61.1% 40.5%

High school students first take the CAHSEE during their sophomore year and
are allowed multiple opportunities throughout their high school career to pass both
sections (ELA and mathematics) of the test. The CAHSEE results for Genry’s
sophomores are reported in Graph 2. This is the percentage of who passed the test in
either ELA or mathematics. The figures provided are not mutually exclusive. It is
possible for some students to have passed only one of the two sections, or both
sections; the graph does not distinguish between the two. Although California decided
to exclude special education students from having to pass the test in order to receive a
diploma, the data includes this population.

247

Graph D3 provides CAHSEE data on all grades at Genry High School. This
includes grades tenth, eleventh, and twelfth.

248
Genry High School’s overall graduation rates far exceed the statewide average
(see Table D7); however, when comparing the percentage of graduates having
completed University of California/California State University (UC/CSU) courses
with at least a “C” it is evident that the school is slightly behind the state average.
However, the school has been closing this narrow gap from 2006 through 2008 and
now trails the state by 4% (see Table D8). UC/CSU course are those that satisfy either
UC or CSU entrance requirements.
Table D7: Overall Graduation Rate – Genry and CA (2006-2009)
Graduation Year Genry High School CA
2009 96.3% 80.0%
2008 98.1% 80.6%
2007 98.5% 83.2%
2006 98.5% 85.0%

Table D8: Percentage of Graduates Having Completed
UC/CSU Courses with at least a “C” – Genry and CA (2006-2008)
Graduation Year Genry High School CA
2008 29.9% 33.9%
2007 25.8% 35.5%
2006 24.3% 35.9%

The school’s SAT data is compared to California’s average scores in Table D9.
Overall Genry is performing significantly below the state average by this measure.

249
Table D9: SAT Data – Genry and CA (2006-2008)
Year Subject Genry HS CA
Critical Reading 454 494
Mathematics 501 513
Writing 456 493
2008
Total 1,411 1,500
Critical Reading 470 493
Mathematics 513 513
Writing 470 491
2007
Total 1,453 1,497
Critical Reading 479 495
Mathematics 536 516
Writing 476 495
2006
Total 1,491 1,506

A school enters Program Improvement status (PI) in the third year it fails to
meet AYP. Since 2009 is the first time Genry has not met this NCLB requirement, the
school is currently not in PI. If the school does not meet AYP for two more years, it
will enter PI-1 status.
Improvement Process
When California first implemented the API system in 1999 as a measure of
student performance, Genry High School did not perform as well as the current
principal, Mrs. Zane, would’ve thought. The school received a notice from the

250
California Department of Education (CDE) stating that Genry qualified for PI support.
As Mrs. Zane (assistant principal at that time) describes it, it was a “wake up call” that
their students were not being prepared. Since then, there have been multiple measures
taken by the school’s leadership to ensure that their students perform at high levels.
Table D11 provides a summary of the key elements of Genry’s improvement process
as described by Mrs. Zane. She gives her perspective as a 16-year veteran of the
school as a former teacher, assistant principal, and now principal.
As previously mentioned, the goals for student achievement at Genry are very
broad, even in the midst of their EL students not having met proficiency targets in
ELA. They have been described as preparing students for the next level beyond high
school; that can mean the workforce or a college education. The driving component
behind this goal is the school’s Expected Schoolwide Learning Results (ESLRs).
These are five components that students are expected to master as part of their
education experience at Genry. They are not fully correlated with the elements
outlined in Table D10, but there are some loose connections that can be drawn. The
ESLRs are as follows:
• Link learning to real life
• Effectively communicate
• Access information and utilize technology
• Recognize and respect diversity
• Navigate the future through critical thinking
When asked about the school’s vision of effective instruction, Mrs. Zane cited
student two key aspects: student engagement and relationship building. Rather than

251
having students be passive in their learning, she believes that a high level of
engagement makes them active learners. She cites her frequent classroom visits as
evidence that her teachers have accepted this vision and work towards implementing it
in daily lessons. The second component, relationship building, isn’t directly related to
each lesson, but she feels that time invested into building positive relationships with
students will facilitate teaching the daily lessons across the school. When asked to
elaborate, Mrs. Zane claims that a high level of mutual respect between the teachers
and their students eliminates many of the barriers to teaching such as discipline
problems and classroom management issues.
Table D10: Summary of Genry’s Strategies for
Improving Student Achievement
Strategy/Resources Characteristics/Highlights
Teacher collaboration
• Common conference periods for
teachers teaching intervention classes
• Weekly collaboration meetings per
department
• Creation of common benchmark
assessments in ELA and mathematics
Alignment of teaching to the content
standards
• Using standards (not textbooks) as
guide for instruction
• Use of CST blueprints and release
questions as guide for instruction
Intervention courses in ELA and
mathematics
• Struggling students provided with
additional support in ELA and
mathematics
• CAHSEE prep classes offered after
school
After school tutoring
• Daily tutoring offered in ELA and
mathematics
• Credentialed teachers as tutors
Access to technology
• Two computer labs available for entire
school
• Teachers in all content areas highly
encouraged and expected to make use
of labs

252
Table D10: Continued
Weekly basic skills assessments
• Required in all mathematics classes
• Intended to ensure students have the
necessary foundation to be successful
in any math course
Data-driven decision-making process
• Use of DataDirector to gauge student
past and current student performance
• CST data used to place students into
appropriate courses
• Test Chat prior to CST
• Common benchmark assessment data
Why Try? sessions
• Motivation seminars conducted yearly
for ninth and tenth graders
• Conducted during PE class to ensure
all students hear the message
Outreach to feeder middle schools
• Communicating expectations to middle
school students
• Working with middles school staff to
ensure students are adequately
prepared for high school rigor

A few years ago Genry implemented modified schedule to allow for weekly
collaboration sessions for all departments. Classes begin one hour later on
Wednesdays to allow teachers to collaborate. Although the topics for these weekly
sessions are not mandated by the school’s administration, it is up to each department
to determine what the focus should be. The most common areas of focus tend to
revolve around promising practices, appropriate assessments, and data analysis. The
concept of late-start Wednesdays resulted from providing teachers teaching
intervention classes with a common conference period to allow for not only weekly
collaboration, but also daily collaboration as necessary. Realizing that students in
intervention classes need significant support beyond those students already
demonstrating success, Mrs. Zane felt it would benefit these teachers to have sufficient
time to meet as needed to have the appropriate support to address the needs of their

253
respective students. She then realized that although improbable to provide all same-
content teachers with the same conference period, weekly sessions could prove to be
beneficial as well.
Resulting form teacher collaboration sessions were common benchmark
assessments administered at the end of each grading quarter. The data from these
assessments in ELA and mathematics allows the school to provided the appropriate
support and interventions for students.
In the current era of standards-based education, Genry began using California’s
content standards and blueprints as the main guide for instruction. Rather than
following the sequence laid out in the textbooks, the teachers (through collaboration
sessions) developed pacing guides that weren’t necessarily aligned to the chapters in
the books. Instead these guides were aligned to the content standards outlined in the
blueprints provided by the CDE. Additionally, the pacing guides ensured that
instruction was properly aligned to the standards.
Having the pacing guides in place then allowed teachers to create common
benchmark assessments in the core content areas. These assessments further ensured
that the curriculum remained fully aligned to the content standards and the pacing
guides.
Benchmark assessment data, along with student grades and CST data allowed
Genry’s guidance counselors to place students into the appropriate intervention class if
necessary. The school offers block classes in ELA and mathematics. Rather than
taking just one period of English and/or math, students identified as needing extra
support are placed into two-hour blocks where the content covered is the same as in

254
non-intervention classes, but at a much slower pace and with more exploratory
approaches. Because only ninth, tenth, and eleventh graders are required to take the
CSTs, only students in these grade levels are eligible for intervention classes.
Additionally, those students who have yet to pass the CAHSEE are provided
with an after school prep class in either ELA or mathematics, whichever portion of the
test they haven’t passed. Each class is offered twice a week on alternating days to
allow students to attend both sections if necessary.
For the students who require additional support outside of the classroom, they
have the option of attending the school’s after school tutoring program in the library.
The sessions run for two hours Monday through Thursday and offers support in ELA
and mathematics. Each session is run by two of the school’s teachers—one for each
subject. Although not mandatory for students to attend, Mrs. Zane claims that the
turnout is “quite impressive.” As each semester nears its end and finals approach, the
demand for tutoring is such that there an additional math teacher needs to be added.
Three years ago the school received a grant that allowed it to update its lone
computer lab and also set up an additional one. Although teachers are not required to
make use of the labs, they are highly encouraged and expected to make us of the
facilities across the content areas. The computers have content specific programs
installed that allow teachers to teach in much more creative ways than in traditional
settings. Software for math and English classes allows teachers to conveniently
monitor student progress with certain skills such as basic computations or reading.
One manner in which the computer labs have been used, although not required,
is to administer weekly basic skills quizzes to students in all mathematics classes.

255
Genry’s district has implemented a 3-year math graduation requirement that resulted
in the school focusing on this content area. Although it is up to each course level to
determine its own set of basic skills, teachers within each level (Algebra I, Geometry,
etc.) administer the same test to ensure students school wide are receiving the same
instruction. Although there is no concrete link between this practice and the level of
performance of Genry’s students on standardized math tests, the school’s level of
proficiency far exceeds the state’s average (see Table D6).
Although Mrs. Zane admits that the school’s use of data to drive instructional
decisions is not at the level of proficiency she would like to see, there are signs that
her staff understands the importance of the strategy and have the willingness to
improve their practice. Two years ago Genry began training teachers on DataDirector,
a web-based management system that allows for monitoring of student progress and
provides data on student assessments. This data along with CST and CAHSEE data
from the state allows the school to provide the appropriate course placement for
students.
Prior to the CST administration in the spring, teachers are required to meet
with their students to discuss the students’ test scores from the previous year. Teachers
assist in goal setting for their students. The goals are all the same: to improve at least
one performance band (see Table D11). This practice is referred to as Test Chat.

256
Table D11: STAR Testing Performance Bands
Advanced* A
Proficient* P
Basic B
Below Basic BB
Far Below Basic FBB
* Denotes performance level required for school to satisfy AYP requirements. Schools
are penalized when student do not reach at least proficient on standardized tests.

Twice a year there are two teachers responsible for conducting motivation
seminars in all ninth and tenth grade PE classes. These sessions, referred to as Why
Try? seminars, are designed to motivate students to focus on their academic success.
In these seminars the school promotes its No F policy. Although not an official policy
in that there are no consequences for its implementation, it is a message clearly
communicated to students that failure in any class should not be an option. All
resources available to students are made known through Why Try? to ensure that
students are aware they have support.
The final element Mrs. Zane contributes to the overall success of her school is
the close collaboration between Genry and the three feeder middle schools.
Representatives from Genry’s core content areas conduct yearly visits with the middle
schools to communicate to their students the implications of academic success and
failure at the high school level, as well as the expectations of them as high school
students. In addition, Genry’s department chairs meet with their middle school

257
counterparts to communicate to them the necessary skills in order for students to be
successful in high school.
Although the strategies outlined here have not been directly linked to specific
improvements in student achievement at Genry High School, Mrs. Zane believes very
strongly that it is a combination of all of the above that have sustained her school’s
success. However, when asked about Genry’s failure to meet AYP for the first time,
she was unable to provide a clear explanation. She is optimistic that this will not
happen again this year.
EBM Comparisons
Table D12 below provides a comparison of resource-use at Genry High School
and how it aligns with the recommendations outlined by the Evidence-Based Model.
Table D12: Genry and EBM Comparisons
Staffing Category
EB Funding
Model
Actual
Core Academic Teachers (includes 6 for GATE) 82 50.2
Specialist & Elective Teachers 27.3 24.8
Library Staff
Librarian/Media Specialist (Certified) 3.4 1
Library/Media Tech Aides (Non-Certified) 3.4 1
Extra Help
Certified Teacher Tutors for English Language Learners 1.4 0
Certified Teacher Tutors for At-Risk Students 6.2 3.2
Non-certified Tutors 0 0

258
Table D12: Continued
Resource Room Teachers (non-special education) 0 0.8
Resource Room Aides (non-special education) 0 3
Special Education Teachers Fully Funded 8.4
Special Education Aides Fully Funded 8
Gifted & Talented Aide 0 0
Gifted & Talented Funds $51,250 $0
Extended Day 5.2 1.6
Summer School 5.2 0
Professional Development
Total # of Professional Development Days 10 2
Instructional Facilitators 10.3 0
Teacher Time (Substitutes & Stipends)
Trainer/Consultant Funds
Materials, Equipment & Facilities
Travel & Transportation
Tuition & Conference Fees
$205,000 $26,750
Other Instructional Staff
Building Substitutes & Other Substitutes 0 0
Instructional Aides 0 0
Supervisory Aides 10.3 4
Student Support

259
Table D12: Continued
Counselors 5.6
Nurses 1
Social Workers
6.2
0
Psychologists Fully Funded 1
Speech/ OT/ PT Fully Funded 0
Health Assistant 0 1
Administration
Principal 1 1
Assistant Principal 2.4 4
Secretary 3.4 3
Clerical 10.3 4

In analyzing the data in Table D12, Genry does not match well with the
recommendations provided by the EBM. The following are significant areas of
deficiency:
• Where the model calls for 82 core teachers, Genry has only 50.2 including 6
for GATE
• Although close to the model, specialist/elective teachers fall a bit shy at 24.8
• The school does not offer specific tutoring support for its small EL population
• Certified teacher-tutors fall short of the 6.2 recommendation
• Currently no additional funds are available for GATE
• Only two days of PD versus 10

260
• Genry does not use instructional facilitators
• Although there are $26,750 available for PD, this amount falls significantly
shy of the $205,000 recommended by the model
• Student support is slightly below the recommended 6.2 at 5.6 FTEs
Although beyond the scope of this study, it can be inferred that if Genry’s level
of resources was more aligned to those in the Evidence-Based Model, perhaps the
achievement level of its student can be improved beyond what the school has
experienced in recent years.
Lessons Learned
Although not necessarily a focus (or awareness of the steps) of the school,
Table D13 below provides evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student
Performance found at Genry; nine of the ten steps are found to be present. The extent
to which each is exists is unclear.
Table D13: Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at Genry
Step Features Evidence
Understand performance
problem
• Recognizing low
student performance
• Accepting that change
is necessary
• Meeting NCLB
accountability
mandates and AYP
• School did not meet
AYP in 2009
• EL populations did not
meet proficiency
targets in ELA
Set and maintain higher
goals
• Regardless of student
population, standards
must be high
• Maintain high
standards to help create
a culture of success
• Student motivation
• Why Try? motivation
seminars
• No F policy
• Test Chat

261
Table D13: Continued
Adopt new curriculum
and improve instructional
practices
• Curriculum must be
aligned to new high
standards
• Most influential
component on student
performance
• Instructional practices
aligned to California’s
content standards
• Collaboration allows
for sharing of
promising practices
Using data to drive
instructional decisions
• Use student data to
identify needs and
drive decisions
• Use of appropriate
assessment strategies in
the classroom to
provide appropriate
instruction
• Use of DataDirector to
gauge student past and
current student
performance
• CST data used to place
students into
appropriate courses
Ongoing professional
development for teachers
• Training for teachers to
become proficient in
analyzing data to drive
their instructional
practices
• Increasing
effectiveness of
teachers
• Collaboration
Wednesdays
Use time more efficiently
• Make use of every
instructional minute
comprising the 180-day
school year
• Increase allocation of
time to core content
areas
• Block periods for
intervention classes
Support for struggling
students
• Small class sizes
• Tutoring with
credentialed teacher
• Rigorous curriculum
• High-quality teachers
• Small class sizes for
intervention classes
• After school tutoring in
library
• After school CAHSEE
prep courses
Create professional
learning communities
(PLCs)
• Role of teachers as
instructional leaders
• Collaborative school
culture
• Intense focus on
student learning
• Use of data to drive
instructional decisions
• Collaboration
Wednesdays

262
Table D13: Continued
Professional behavior and
promising practices
• Seeking promising
practices in all aspects
of schooling
• Professional behavior
by teachers and staff
members
• Seeking outside
expertise
• Sharing of promising
practices through
teacher collaboration
Human capital
• Finding the right
people to carry out the
new demands of
improving student
performance
• Principal and teacher
talent
• No evidence found
Source: Odden (2009)

Despite the school’s high SSR rank, 2009 marks the first time Genry has not
met AYP due to its EL population not having met its ELA target. Although the school
recognizes this, there have been no specific measures implemented to keep this from
happening again.
Genry’s Why Try? seminars and its unofficial No F policy are indicators that
the school has set high expectations for all students. Further evidence is found in the
one-on-one Test Chat sessions between students and teachers. During these chats
goals are set for each student to improve at least performance band from the previous
year’s CST scores.
Although the school has not adopted new curriculum, it is aligned to the state’s
content standards. Through collaboration sessions teachers have created pacing guides

263
based on the frameworks and CST release questions provided by the state. These
sessions also allow for teachers to share promising practices throughout departments.
The teachers at the school have begun using DataDirector as a tool to monitor
student progress. The school has also used CST data to place students into the
appropriate classes, including interventions if necessary.
Although the funds for professional development are extremely limited due to
the recent budget reductions, teachers are encouraged to attend any training offered by
the district. The topics vary depending on the needs determined by district personnel.
In addition, Wednesday collaboration sessions provide opportunities fro teachers to
work together to improve each one’s effectiveness.
Given the 180-day school year, Genry has modified its schedule for those
students requiring intensive support in ELA and/or mathematics. These students are
scheduled into a two-period block of English or math to allow for a slower pace and
more intensive support. A significant characteristic of the intervention classes is that
they are limited to 20 students. In addition to these classes, Genry also provides
support for its students through an after school tutoring targeting ELA and
mathematics. Although attendance is not mandatory, the school’s very own teachers
provide tutoring.
Considering the CAHSEE is a graduation requirement, Genry offers an after
school prep class for ELA and math for those students who have not passed the test.
Offered twice a week on alternating days, students who have yet to pas both sections
are allowed to get support for both areas.

264
Although Mrs. Zane does not feel it is necessary for a school to be a true
professional learning community to support its students, she does cite two components
of a PLC present at Genry: data-driven decision-making and teacher collaboration.
Although the extent each one is present at the school is not as intense as in a true PLC,
the teachers have accepted the two practices and the effectiveness of each is improved
yearly.
Regarding Odden’s ninth step, professional behavior and sharing of promising
practices, Genry shares promising practices via weekly collaboration meetings. There
was no evidence found in regards to professional behavior.
There was also no real evidence found regarding the final step, human capital.
Although the principal does feel her current staff includes the “right people to carry
out the demands of the school.”
Furthermore, the extent to which each step is present is unclear. An argument
can be made that a stronger presence of each can have a greater impact on the level of
student achievement.
Additional Resources
In order for Genry to continue its efforts and improvement process, Mrs. Zane
cited two additional resources that she feels are necessary; one is attainable the other is
seemingly farfetched considering the current economic climate of the state and
schools: teacher training on the use of technology and a new science building.
Even with the new computer labs, there has not been sufficient training to get
more teachers to take advantage of the available resources. Those who are comfortable
exploring on their own have been the ones to make use of the labs; those teachers

265
timid around computers have not even considered the lab as a tool, rather another
classroom unrelated to theirs.
Mrs. Zane states that her science building has not been updated since it was
first built almost 40 years ago, and that the equipment and materials are also outdated.
As she puts it, she “feels bad for her science teachers having to teach in such
conditions.” Although highly unlikely that the district will provide any funding for
renovations or a new building, she feels it would benefit her science teachers and
students if her wishes come to fruition.
Although not cited by Mrs. Zane, there are three additional resources that can
benefit her school and its students if made available: training to make the school a true
PLC, support for EL students, and parent/community outreach resources.
As previously mentioned there is slight evidence of two PLC components at
Genry, data-driven decision-making and teacher collaboration. However, by Mrs.
Zane’s own admission, there is still some “work to be done” in these two areas. A
stronger practice in this regard would allow for more appropriate student interventions
and teacher support.
Due to Genry High School’s relatively small EL population (only 137 students,
or about 6.7% of the population), there is no systematic support for these students.
Considering they are the reason why the school did not meet AYP in 2009, it is
important for the school to target these students and provide the appropriate support.
Although this subgroup enjoys a significant gain over the state high school average in
terms of API (see Table D3), it is the lowest performing group at the school in terms
of percent proficient.

266
Finally, there are almost no parental outreach programs other than the
traditional PTSA. Reaching out to all parents, especially those of low performing
students, can have a significant impact on the overall level of student achievement.
Adding to the importance of this element is the fact that there are approximately 30
different languages spoken by the students at Genry. Finding ways to connect such a
diverse population can prove beneficial for the school, its students, and its surrounding
community.

267
Appendix E
Case Study 5: Lakeside High School
Background of the School and District
Lakeside High School is an urban school located in Orange County, California.
The school’s unified district serves a diverse population of approximately 48,700
students who attend one of 47 elementary schools, ten intermediate schools, seven
comprehensive high schools, or two alternative high schools. Table E1 below provides
data on the school, district, and state student populations.
Table E1: Student Demographics Comparison:
Lakeside, District, and CA
Student Demographics Lakeside HS District CA
EL 37.5% 45.8% 24.7%
Free and Reduced Priced
Lunch
79.5% 64.0% 49.7%
Special Education 10.3% 10.7% 10.9%
White 4.6% 12.4% 27.9%
Hispanic 73.8% 53.4% 49.0%
Asian 19.2% 20.8% 8.4%
African-American Less than 1% 7.3%
Filipino 1.2% 2.7%
Pacific Islander 1.0%
American-Indian
Less than 1%
each
Multiple or No Response
Less than 1%
each
Less than 1%
each
3.4%
Total Population 2,270 48,700 6,252,000

268
The school has 2,270 students of which 851 are designated as English Learners
(EL), 1,805 are eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL), and 234 currently
have Individual Education Plans (IEP) for special education services.
Lakeside’s student population includes a high proportion of traditionally high-
needs students, but also a significant number of the state’s highest performing
subgroup, Asian. Its EL population is lower than the district, but much higher than the
state’s average—37.5%, 45.8%, and 24.7%, respectively. Students qualifying for free
and reduced-priced lunch (FRPL) are overrepresented at Lakeside when compared to
its district and California. Slightly less than half of the state’s students qualify
compared to nearly 80% of Lakeside’s students. The school’s Hispanic population is
also significantly higher than its district and the state—73.8%, 53.4%, and 49.0%,
respectively. Special education is relatively the same across the three representing just
over 10% of the population at the school, district, and state level.
Subgroups (White and Asian) that traditionally perform better than others on
the CSTs differ significantly between Lakeside and California. White populations at
the district and state make up 12.4% and 27.9%, respectively, but only 4.6% at
Lakeside. However, the state’s highest performing subgroup, Asian, are
overrepresented at the school when compared to the state, 19.2% versus 8.4%,
respectively.
Lakeside is currently designated with a statewide rank of 5 with regard to
student performance on standardized tests and graduation rates; this is unchanged from
the previous year. Its similar schools rank (SSR) also remains unchanged earning a
high ranking of 8. Given Lakeside’s high SSR, it is an indication that the school is

269
very effective in getting its high needs students to perform well on the CSTs and the
CAHSEE when compared to similar high schools in the state with regards to student
demographics and resources.
The 2008-09 school year is the first time Lakeside has not met AYP since
California implemented the measure. The school failed to satisfy four of its 22 Annual
Measurable Objectives (AMOs), which are used as a basis to determine if a school has
met AYP. The AMOs not met includes percent proficient on the CSTs by the
Hispanic, socio-economically disadvantaged, and English Learner subgroups.
Hispanics met the mathematics proficiency target of 43.5%, but failed to meet English
Language Arts (ELA) target of 44.5%, falling short with only 34.2% proficiency. The
socio-economically disadvantaged also met the proficiency target in mathematics, but
not in ELA demonstrating only 38.7% proficiency. Lakeside’s EL students are the
only subgroup to not meet either target. In ELA the group’s proficiency rate was the
lowest in the school at 23.9%, and in mathematics (also the lowest in the school) it
was 41.2%. By contrast, the Asian subgroup surpassed both targets by impressive
margins in ELA and mathematics: 73.0% and 87.3%, respectively.
Consequently, the improvement process has focused on the achievement level
of the Lakeside’s large EL population; although it should be noted that this is not the
school’s only focus. The goals for student achievement also address other areas, which
will be provided in the proceeding account of Lakeside’s improvement process.
The purpose of this case study is to provide an account of how Lakeside High
School allocates its resource to educate its students. Resource use patterns will be
compared to those recommendations provided by the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)

270
developed by Lawrence Picus and Allen Odden. In addition, the study will look for
evidence of Odden’s 10 Steps to Doubling Student Performance (2010). Although the
intent of the study is not to measure if a school has doubled student performance, nor
has Lakeside made this a focus, the 10 Steps are research-based strategies that
improving schools have used to successfully improve student performance. Therefore,
it is worthwhile to assess whether or not any of these strategies are in place at the
school. Together these two aspects (the EBM and the 10 Steps) will provide an
account of Lakeside’s improvement process.
Test Scores and Other Data
Since 1999 when California introduced the Academic Performance Index
(API) as a measure of student performance, Lakeside has experienced a steady growth
in its API. The net growth of 144 points from 1999-00 (API of 567) through 2008-09
(API of 711) is illustrated in Graph E1. Taking into account the two years of slight
decline from 1999 to 2000 and 2008 to 2009, the school still managed to average an
annual gain of just over 14 points.

271

Table E2 provides a comparison of API levels from 2005 through 2009 for
Lakeside, California high schools, and all schools in California. Within this 5-year
period Lakeside managed to outperform the state high school average three times,
however, in the most recent year the school fell behind the state high school average
by two points.
The school has demonstrated efficiency and effectiveness given its student
demographics (see Table E1) as evidenced by its SSR of 8, however, both Lakeside’s
API and the statewide high school average API are significantly lower than the
cumulative average of all California schools. This can be for a number of reasons.
Included in these data are elementary schools, which traditionally have higher levels
of parent and community involvement, smaller class sizes, and a much more narrow
achievement gap between different groups of students.

272

Table E2: API Comparisons Lakeside and CA (2005-2009)
Year Lakeside HS CA (Grades 9-11) CA (All Grades)
2009 711 713 755
2008 715 702 742
2007 694 689 728
2006 678 680 720
2005 675 671 709

Table E3 shows a comparison of API achieved by numerically significant
subgroups across Lakeside and all high schools in the state on the 2008-09 STAR
results. Only those subgroups with more than 100 students are considered numerically
significant for API/AYP purposes; those subgroups with less than 100 individuals are
excluded from these calculations.
With the exception of special education students, Lakeside’s students are
outperforming California’s high school average by an average of nearly 28 points,
where the most significant gains come from EL and socio-economically disadvantaged
populations (students that traditionally are considered high needs).
Table E3: API Subgroup Comparisons Lakeside and CA (2009 STAR Results)
Subgroup Lakeside HS
CA (High
Schools)
Lakeside
Difference
EL 642 612 +30 Lakeside
Socio-economically
Disadvantaged
696 648 +48 Lakeside
Special Education 412 495 -83 Lakeside

273
Table E3: Continued
White* N/A 788 N/A
Hispanic 673 651 +22 Lakeside
Asian 854 843 +11 Lakeside
African-American* N/A 624 N/A
Filipino* N/A 794 N/A
Pacific Islander* N/A 696 N/A
American-Indian* N/A 685 N/A
All Students 711 713 -2 Lakeside
* Denotes subgroups are not numerically significant, and therefore are excluded from
API or AYP purposes.

Lakeside’s STAR results from 2002 through 2009 are illustrated in Table E4.
Since the state uses the percent of students who reach at least the level of proficient on
the CSTs in ELA and mathematics, the graph provides this specific data.
Table E4: Lakeside STAR Results (Percent Proficient or Advanced 2002-2009)
Year Tested ELA Mathematics
2009 42.1% 54.5%
2008 49.2% 57.5%
2007 36.3% 53.1%
2006 43.3% 55%
2005 49% 50.1%
2004 42.5% 44.7%
2003 48.5% 39.3%

274
Table E4: Continued
2002 20.8% 30.5%

Table E5 further compares Lakeside’s proficiency rates in ELA to the
statewide average for all schools for the previous three academic years. Table E6
illustrates the same results for mathematics over the same period.
Table E5: STAR ELA Results – Lakeside and CA
(Proficient or Advanced 2007-2009)
Year Tested Lakeside HS CA (All Grades)
2009 42.1% 49.9%
2008 49.2% 45.7%
2007 36.3% 43.3%

In ELA, Lakeside experienced only a 5.8% gain over the three-year period,
whereas the state average has increased by 6.6% over the same period. Additionally,
after experiencing a significant gain of 12.9% from 2007 to 2008, the percentage
declined by 7.1% in 2009.
Looking at the data in Table E6 for mathematics, it is evident that Lakeside has
consistently outperformed the state average since 2007 despite the school’s slight
decline from 2008 to 2009.
Table E6: STAR Mathematics Results – Lakeside and CA
(Proficient or Advanced 2007-2009)
Year Tested Lakeside HS CA (All Grades)
2009 54.5% 45.8%
2008 57.5% 42.7%

275
Table E6: Continued
2007 53.1% 40.5%

High school students first take the CAHSEE during their sophomore year and
are allowed multiple opportunities throughout their high school career to pass both
sections (ELA and mathematics) of the test. The CAHSEE results for Lakeside’s
sophomores are reported in Graph E2. This is the percentage of who passed the test in
either ELA or mathematics. The figures provided are not mutually exclusive. It is
possible for some students to have passed only one of the two sections, or both
sections; the graph does not distinguish between the two. Although California decided
to exclude special education students from having to pass the test in order to receive a
diploma, the data includes this population.

276
Graph E3 provides CAHSEE data on all grades at Lakeside High School. This
includes grades tenth, eleventh, and twelfth.

Lakeside High School’s overall graduation rates far exceed the statewide
average (see Table E7); however, when comparing the percentage of graduates having
completed University of California/California State University (UC/CSU) courses
with at least a “C” it is evident that the school is slightly behind the state average.
After surpassing California’s average by half of one percent, in 2007, Lakeside fell
behind by 6.8% (see Table E8). UC/CSU course are those that satisfy either UC or
CSU entrance requirements.

277
Table E7: Overall Graduation Rate – Lakeside and CA (2006-2009)
Graduation Year Lakeside High School CA
2009 93.0% 80.0%
2008 98.1% 80.6%
2007 99.0% 83.2%
2006 99.7% 85.0%

Table E8: Percentage of Graduates Having Completed
UC/CSU Courses with at least a “C” – Lakeside and CA (2006-2008)
Graduation Year Lakeside High School CA
2008 27.1% 33.9%
2007 36% 35.5%
2006 23.2% 35.9%

The school’s SAT data is compared to California’s average scores in Table E9.
In 2006 the gap between the two was only one point, however, since then it has been
widening reaching a 70-point disparity in favor of California in 2008.

278
Table E9: SAT Data – Lakeside and CA (2006-2008)
Year Subject Lakeside HS CA
Critical Reading 462 494
Mathematics 502 513
Writing 466 493
2008
Total 1,430 1,500
Critical Reading 456 493
Mathematics 506 513
Writing 472 491
2007
Total 1,434 1,497
Critical Reading 490 495
Mathematics 522 516
Writing 493 495
2006
Total 1,505 1,506

A school enters Program Improvement status (PI) in the third year it fails to
meet AYP. Since 2009 is the first time Genry has not met this NCLB requirement, the
school is currently not in PI. If the school does not meet AYP for two more years, it
will enter PI-1 status.
Improvement Process
Ms. Peters was an assistant principal at Lakeside High School last year with
the expectation that she would become the eventual principal for the current school
year, which she has become. She is in her first year as the principal but has an

279
extensive knowledge of the school and its students. She is highly committed to not
allowing the school’s API to drop for the second consecutive year. 2009 was the first
time since 2001 that Lakeside experienced a decline in API (a 3-point drop from 567
to 564), and the first time the school failed to meet AYP. As previously mentioned,
Hispanics, EL students, and those who qualify for FRPL did not satisfy proficiency
targets in ELA, and EL students also failed to satisfy the mathematics goal.
Consequently, the goals for student achievement are to have every student improve at
least one performance band on the CSTs (see Table E10). Because the school’s EL
population failed to satisfy either target, there is an added emphasis on their
performance. In addition, Ms. Peters is also focused on improving the school’s A-G
passing rate. A-G refers to those high school courses that satisfy University of
California (UC) and California State University (CSU) entrance requirements.
Table E10: STAR Testing Performance Bands
Advanced* A
Proficient* P
Basic B
Below Basic BB
Far Below Basic FBB
* Denotes performance level required for school to satisfy AYP requirements. Schools
are penalized when student do not reach at least proficient on standardized tests.

Over the years Lakeside has implemented several strategies to improve their
students’ level of performance, and with a new principal there are also some new

280
initiatives designed to support the school’s continued efforts. The strategies for
improving student performance are summarized in Table E11.
Table E11: Summary of Lakeside’s Strategies for
Improving Student Achievement
Strategy/Resources Characteristics/Highlights
Focus on instructional practices through
professional development
• Super Week focuses on lesson design,
Gradual Release of Responsibility
Model, co-planning, and other
promising instructional strategies
Ninth grade support (first-year high
school students)
• 9
th
grade Learning Center
• 9
th
grade assistant principal
Teacher collaboration
• 10 collaboration Wednesdays
disbursed throughout the school year
(late start for students allows for 100
minutes of teacher collaboration)
• Focus is on sharing of promising
practices, lesson design
• Common benchmark assessment data
analysis
School Community Liaisons (SCLs)
• Duties include increasing parent and
community involvement
• Serve as translators for non-English
speaking parents
• Teach the Ten Commandments of
Education to parents and other
community members
AVID
• School has earned the title of National
Demonstration School
• Program viewed as a main component
of driving student success
SMART goals
• Department-specific goals to monitor
student progress
• Aligned with school goals
Tutoring
• Homework Club
• Targeted Tutoring for struggling
students
Principal’s Exchange
• Allows for open communication
between the teachers and the principal
• Allows for the principal to learn about
all aspects of the school

281
Before embarking on those strategies, it is appropriate to address the school’s
vision of effective instruction as the foundation for understanding the strategies
implemented at Lakeside. It is Lakeside’s belief that effective instruction translates
into student engagement. Ms. Peters feels very strongly that getting students actively
engaged in the learning process allows for them to construct their own meaning of the
content and as a result makes the learning relevant. It is through this relevance that
students are allowed to not only learn initially, but also retain for longer periods of
time the material they learned. Although this view was not concluded through a
process of consensus between the principal and the teachers, it was communicated
very clearly to the staff by Ms. Peters and by her account, they have “fully accepted
it.” The level of student engagement she and her administration team observes
throughout the school during their informal classroom visits evidences this acceptance
by the teachers.
In addition to Ms. Peters’ vision of effective instruction, the school’s continued
professional development in the Gradual Release of Responsibility Model (GRR) is
also responsible for this level of engagement. Prior to the current principal’s arrival at
Lakeside, the district made it a focus for all high schools to implement the GRR model
as an effective instructional practice. Support for this is offered via the district’s five
annual days of intensive PD referred to as Super Week. Super Week occurs just prior to
the start of every school year and is designed to offer teachers support in a variety of
areas designed to improve their instructional practices. Although the focus of the five
days changes annually, recent training has revolved around the Gradual Release of
Responsibility Model (GRR) and other promising practices. In the GRR teachers

282
essentially relinquish responsibility to the students over their own learning. Much like
Direct Instruction allows for teacher modeling of a skill or concept, GRR allows
students to demonstrate their level of mastery initially with the teacher’s guidance, but
eventually this is done independently. Ms. Peters feels very strongly that this
continued focus at her school has allowed for a higher level of student engagement.
A second strategy for improving student achievement is the school’s support
for its ninth grade students. The school has a 9
th
grade learning center and an
administrator whose sole responsibilities are ensuring that Lakeside’s first-year high
school students have the support necessary to allow for a seamless transition from
middle school to high school. Understanding the issues and difficulty many ninth
graders experience through their first year in high school Lakeside has provided
support specifically for them. The learning center is an academic support mechanism
that provides tutoring and academic advice. There is also an administrator who
oversees the learning center and also monitors the progress of the ninth grade class.
Through ten available days of teacher collaboration, teachers are encouraged to
share promising practices. Although there is no system of accountability in place, Ms.
Peters feels confident that this is taking place as evidenced by the high level of student
engagement she has observed throughout the school. These ten days are provided on
Wednesdays about once per month. Although students report approximately an hour
and a half later on these days than other days, Lakeside’s teachers report at their usual
time. Instead of starting their day with their first class, they actually meet as a
department to discuss and address whatever needs or issues might arise.

283
During teacher collaboration, analysis of student assessment data occurs. This
data is from common assessments developed by teachers in the core content areas
through this allotted collaboration time.
Lakeside utilizes the services of two school community liaisons (SCLs) each at
one FTE. The functions of the SCLs is to communicate with the parents in either
English or their own native language about anything the school feels is relevant for
them to know. This ranges from standardized testing to everyday classroom
procedures.
In recent years the focus of the SCLs has been on teaching parents the school’s
Ten Commandments of Education. These Commandments address CSTs, CAHSEE,
effective study skills, college entrance requirements and financial aid (including
scholarships), SAT/ACT testing, and general ways parents can support students at
home or even become involved at the school site.
The school’s AVID program has been designated a National Demonstration
School due to the program’s high success and continued growth. The program is
designed to support middle-performing students who may or may not be interested in
attending college improve their performance and make college a goal. Many times the
students are the first in their respective families to attend college, and at Lakeside,
many EL students are encouraged to become a part of the program, as are socio-
economically disadvantaged students. The study skills taught through this program
have been attributed to the continued success of the school’s disadvantaged
population.

284
Last year when Ms. Peters was an assistant principal, she implemented
SMART goals for each department. SMART is an acronym for specific (S),
measurable (M), attainable (A), realistic (R), and timely (T). Although she did not
create the goals, she set the expectation that each department would develop their own
SMART goals satisfying the criteria she set. Although the school is still in the process
of revising and creating such goals, it is expected that they will have a positive impact
on the success of the Lakeside’s students.
The school offers its students two separate opportunities for tutoring:
Homework Club and Targeted Tutoring (TT). Homework Club is offered four days a
week for two hours after school. The tutoring is offered by one of the school’s
credentialed teachers in the areas of English and mathematics. This is available to all
students who chose to attend. Targeted Tutoring, however, is available only to those
ninth grade students identified as needing additional intensive support. Ninth grade
teachers identify students they feel require additional academic support in order to be
successful in the classroom. Often times, these students require support that the
classroom teacher is unable to provide. It is the responsibility of the ninth grade
administrator to ensure that these students attend TT sessions. These sessions are not
voluntary as with the Homework Club, instead, these are required tutoring sessions.
Students who do not attend face consequences. Although currently only ninth grade
students have TT, Ms. Peters is in the process of reserving resources to expand the
practice to all grade levels.
The newest strategy being implemented at Lakeside is referred to as the
Principal’s Exchange. In essence, this provides an open forum for teachers and

285
students to give the principal feedback about the school. This can be done on a
confidential basis if necessary, or in the presence of others. Ms. Peters’ rationale for
this practice is that students can let her know if the school is meeting all their needs, as
well as what the school can do better to serve their needs. It is also intended to allow
teachers to express without consequence or retaliation how they fell about the school’s
operations and how she can better support them in educating Lakeside’s students.
It is important to consider that although the strategies outlined in this section
have not been linked specifically to student achievement, it is the belief of Ms. Peters
that each one plays an important role in the achievement of each student.
EBM Comparisons
Table E12 below provides a comparison of resource-use at Lakeside High
School and how it aligns with the recommendations outlined by the Evidence-Based
Model.
Table E12: Lakeside and EBM Comparisons
Staffing Category
EB Funding
Model
Actual
Core Academic Teachers 90.8 54.8
Specialist & Elective Teachers 30.3 19.6
Library Staff
Librarian/Media Specialist (Certified) 3.8 1
Library/Media Tech Aides (Non-Certified) 3.8 1
Extra Help
Certified Teacher Tutors for English Language Learners 8.5 0

286
Table E12: Continued
Certified Teacher Tutors for At-Risk Students 18.5 4
Non-certified Tutors 0 0
Resource Room Teachers (non-special education) 0 0.2
Resource Room Aides (non-special education) 0 1
Special Education Teachers Fully Funded 5.2
Special Education Aides Fully Funded 5
Gifted & Talented Aide 0 0
Gifted & Talented Funds $56,750 $0
Extended Day 15.4 1.6
Summer School 15.4 0
Professional Development
Total # of Professional Development Days 10 6
Instructional Facilitators 11.4 0
Teacher Time (Substitutes & Stipends)
Trainer/Consultant Funds
Materials, Equipment & Facilities
Travel & Transportation
Tuition & Conference Fees
$227,000 $21,000
Other Instructional Staff
Building Substitutes & Other Substitutes 0 0
Instructional Aides 0 0

287
Table E12: Continued
Supervisory Aides 11.4 4
Student Support
Counselors 6
Nurses 1
Social Workers
18.5
0
Psychologists Fully Funded 0.5
Speech/ OT/ PT Fully Funded 0
Health Assistant 0 1
Administration
Principal 1 1
Assistant Principal 2.8 3
Secretary 3.8 2.5
Clerical 11.4 4

In analyzing the data in Table E11, Lakeside does not match well with the
recommendations provided by the EBM. The following are significant areas of
deficiency:
• Where the model calls for 90.8 core teachers, Lakeside has only 54.8 including
6 for GATE
• Specialist/elective teachers fall shy of the recommendations by 10.7 FTEs
• Given the school’s number of high-risk students, there is a great shortage of
available tutors

288
• There are no tutors available to target EL students
• In addition to the 48.8 core teachers, there are 6 FTEs who teach GATE classes
across the core content areas
• Currently no additional funds are available for GATE
• Only 6 days of PD versus 10
• Extended day support is only at 1.6 FTEs, instead of 15.4
• Although there are $21,000 available for PD, this amount falls significantly
short of the $227,000 recommended by the model
• Student support is only at 7 FTEs versus the model’s 18.5 recommendation
Although beyond the scope of this study, it can be inferred that if Lakeside’s
level of resources was more aligned to those in the Evidence-Based Model, perhaps
the achievement level of its student can be improved beyond what the school has
experienced in recent years.
Lessons Learned
Although not necessarily a focus (or awareness of the steps) of the school,
Table E13 provides evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance
found at Lakeside. There is evidence of all ten most steps, however, the extent to
which each exists is unclear and extends beyond the scope of this study.

289
Table E13: Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at Lakeside
Step Features Evidence
Understand performance
problem
• Recognizing low
student performance
• Accepting that change
is necessary
• Meeting NCLB
accountability
mandates and AYP
• School did not meet
AYP in 2009
• API dropped 4 points
from 2008 (715) to
2009 (711)
• EL populations did not
meet proficiency
targets in ELA or
mathematics
• Two other subgroups
failed to meet
proficiency targets in
ELA
Set and maintain higher
goals
• Regardless of student
population, standards
must be high
• Maintain high
standards to help create
a culture of success
• Student motivation
• SMART goals
• Expectation that all
students will improve
CST performance
• Ten Commandments of
Education
• AVID
Adopt new curriculum
and improve instructional
practices
• Curriculum must be
aligned to new high
standards
• Most influential
component on student
performance
• Gradual Release of
Responsibility (GRR)
• Increased student
engagement Sharing of
promising practices
across staff through
collaboration or Super
Week
Using data to drive
instructional decisions
• Use student data to
identify needs and
drive decisions
• Use of appropriate
assessment strategies in
the classroom to
provide appropriate
instruction
• Use of CST data to
identify areas of
strength and
improvement
• Student data used for
appropriate course-
level placement
• Common assessment
data used to monitor
student progress

290
Table E13: Continued
Ongoing professional
development for teachers
• Training for teachers to
become proficient in
analyzing data to drive
their instructional
practices
• Increasing
effectiveness of
teachers
• Collaboration
Wednesdays
• Super Week
Use time more efficiently
• Make use of every
instructional minute
comprising the 180-day
school year
• Increase allocation of
time to core content
areas
• Late-start days allow
for teacher
collaboration
Support for struggling
students
• Small class sizes
• Tutoring with
credentialed teacher
• Rigorous curriculum
• High-quality teachers
• Homework Club
• Targeted Tutoring
• 9
th
grade learning
center
Create professional
learning communities
(PLCs)
• Role of teachers as
instructional leaders
• Collaborative school
culture
• Intense focus on
student learning
• Teacher collaboration
Professional behavior and
promising practices
• Seeking promising
practices in all aspects
of schooling
• Professional behavior
by teachers and staff
members
• Seeking outside
expertise
• Sharing of promising
practices through
teacher collaboration
Human capital
• Finding the right
people to carry out the
new demands of
improving student
performance
• Principal and teacher
talent
• Hiring of new principal
to replace previous
principal

291
Lakeside understands that 2009 marks the first time it failed to meet AYP and
the first time its API has declined since 2001 (see Graph E1).
Given the school’s high-needs students, it has maintained high expectations for
all of its students. Lakeside is aware of the level of performance of its students and has
set high goals for all of them. To expect all its students to improve one performance
band on the CSTs, as well as its successful AVID program provide evidence of this
notion.
Although the school did not adopt a new curriculum, it has made vast efforts in
improving the instructional practices of its teachers through its focus on the Gradual
Release of Responsibility model, as well as Super Week and collaboration time
throughout the year.
CST student data is analyzed at the school level to determine areas of strength
and areas for improvement. In addition to the CSTs, data from school-wide common
benchmark assessments allows for timelier teacher interventions. Administered at the
end of each quarter, the benchmarks assess student knowledge of the preceding
quarter’s content standards. With release time provided, content-like teachers conduct
an item analysis to determine areas of deficiency and this allows for re-teaching of
those standards. Although there is no accountability to ensure that the teachers follow
through on re-teaching the standards, the principal feels confident that this is in fact
taking place as evidenced by her frequent classroom informal classroom visits and
teacher collaboration meetings.
Professional development is an important component for sustaining student
growth at Lakeside High School. Prior to the start of every school year, the district

292
provides a five-day intensive training session known as Super Week. Although the
topics vary annually, the focus is on improving teacher effectiveness in the classroom.
Through monthly collaboration sessions, teachers are given opportunities to share
promising practices, analyze various student data, or discuss any other topic relevant
at that time. Ms. Peters feels it is unnecessary to monitor these sessions because she
believes that teachers are doing what is expected of them.
Throughout the school year, Lakeside has ten scheduled late-start days to allow
for teacher collaboration. This is an indication that the school has at least in part
addressed the efficiency in its use of time. This approach does not lengthen to school
day.
In addition to individual teacher interventions, Lakeside provides support for
academically struggling students in two different forms. First, for 9
th
grade students
there is Targeted Tutoring that is required for those who are identified by teachers as
needing additional support that the teacher is unable to provide for any reason. For all
other students, they have the Homework Club available after school for tutoring in
mathematics or English.
Although Ms. Peters does not consider her school to be a professional learning
community, she does address teacher collaboration as one of Lakeside’s strengths.
Teachers have one Wednesday per month available for collaboration.
Regarding the ninth step, professional behavior and sharing of promising
practices, Lakeside shares promising practices via monthly collaboration meetings.
Although the school does not seek outside expertise, the teachers do take advantage of
the professional development offered by the district.

293
When Ms. Peters was hired as an assistant principal last year, it was with the
expectation that she’d be replacing the principal this current school year, which she
did. This is indicative of the school seeking the appropriate person to replace the
former principal who spent over ten years at the post.
Although there is evidence of most of the steps, this study does not attempt to
link them specifically to student performance. However, an argument can be made that
a stronger presence of each step can have a positive impact on student achievement at
Lakeside High School.
Additional Resources
In order for Lakeside to continue its improvement process, Ms. Peters cited
three additional resources that she felt could have a profound impact on the
achievement of her students. Those resources are additional funds for reducing class
sizes, improved support for technology, and a grade-level school model (which
requires additional personnel to be properly implemented).
First, she believes strongly that reducing the class sizes in the core content
areas would allow teachers to provide more one-on-one attention to struggling
students. Smaller classes would also allow for more timely teacher-interventions and
student monitoring, according to Ms. Peters. Although highly unlikely that she would
obtain the resources to carry out this desire, she cites this as a sure way to reach the
school’s goals.
Second, Ms. Peters would like additional training and support for her teachers
on how to implement technology in the classroom to enhance their students’ earning
experience. Her justification for this resource is society’s increasing reliance on

294
advanced technology. She believes that “we are still teaching students like we did fifty
years ago, but the world is not as it was fifty years ago.” Using technology such as
smart boards, computers, and LCD projectors could create a greater interest in the
content being taught and as a result, greater understanding and mastery of the
standards. In addition to possibly improving CST performance, it would also prepare
students for the “real world.”
Perhaps the most ambitious of the three resources is a grade-level school
model. According to the principal, her previous school site implemented this model
with great effectiveness, but due to the increased funding required to sustain it, it had
to be dropped. Lakeside already has components of a grade level model in place, its 9
th

grade support via its learning center and 9
th
grade administrator. However, in a true
grade-level model 10
th
, 11
th
, and 12
th
graders would have the same level of support.
Although student schedules and course-loads are the same as in a traditional approach,
each grade would each have its own set of administrators and support staff such as
counselors. The support staff for each would have their own offices located apart from
the others. The reason for this is that when students or parents require assistance there
would be one central location dedicated to the needs unique to each grade level. In
order for this model to be implemented Lakeside would require additional
administrators, counselors, and other personnel to provide the necessary support for its
students.
Although not cited as a needed resource by Ms. Peters, the school can benefit
from tutoring support specifically targeting its EL population. Considering the size of
this population and the fact that this is the only subgroup to fall short of proficiency

295
targets in both ELA and mathematics, the school can benefit from providing additional
support for them outside of the classroom.

296
Appendix F
Case Study 6: Southside High School
Background of the School and District
Southside High School is an urban school located in Los Angeles County, CA.
The school’s unified district serves approximately 14,400 students who attend one of
12 elementary schools, three intermediate schools, three comprehensive high schools,
and one continuation high school. Table F1 below provides data on the school,
district, and state student populations.
Table F1: Student Demographics Comparison:
Southside, District, and CA
Student Demographics Southside HS District CA
EL 4.6% 12.9% 24.7%
Free and Reduced Priced
Lunch
29.2% 47.6% 49.7%
Special Education 6.2% 10.6% 10.9%
White 23.0% 14.8% 27.9%
Hispanic 53.8% 68.1% 49.0%
Asian 10.9% 5.9% 8.4%
African-American 6.1 4.5% 7.3%
Filipino 3.6% 3.3% 2.7%
Pacific Islander
American-Indian
Less than 1%
each
Less than 1%
each
Less than 1%
each
Multiple or No Response 1.6% 2.7% 3.4%
Total Population 2,070 14,400 6,252,000

297
The school has 2,070 students of which 95 are designated as English Learners
(EL), 604 are eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRPL), and 130 that
currently have Individual Education Plans (IEP) for special education services.
When compared to its district and California, Southside has a lower proportion
of some traditionally high needs students such as English Learners, those that qualify
for FRPL, and those with IEPs. The EL population at Southside is significantly lower
than the state’s average, 4.6% versus 24.7%, respectively. Those qualifying for FRPL
make up a much smaller percentage at the school than the district or the state, 29.2%,
47.6%, and 49.7%, respectively. Hispanic populations are comparable at the school
and state levels, 53.8% and 49.0%, respectively. Regarding those qualifying for
special education services, 6.2% of the school’s students have IEPs compared to the
district and state at 10.6% and 10.9% respectively.
Subgroups (White and Asian) that traditionally perform well on California’s
STAR tests are represented comparably at Southside and the state.
Southside is currently designated with a statewide rank of 7 with regard to
student performance on standardized tests and graduation rates; this is unchanged from
the previous year. Its similar schools rank (SSR) also remains unchanged earning the
highest possible rank of 10. Given Southside’s high SSR, it is an indication that the
school is very effective in getting all its numerically significant subgroups to perform
well on the CSTs and the CAHSEE when compared to similar high schools in the state
with regards to student demographics and resources.
The school has been successful in meeting AYP every year the measure has
been implemented. In 2008-09 Southside met all 18 of its annual measurable

298
objectives (AMOs). The school’s targets for both English Language Arts (ELA) and
mathematics proficiency were 44.5% and 43.5%, respectively. In ELA, Southside’s
students demonstrated 59.4% proficiency; in mathematics the school wide proficiency
rate was 54%. Hispanics demonstrated 50.5% proficiency in ELA and 45.4% in
mathematics. Those classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged met both targets
within a one percent margin.
Because less than one hundred of Southside’s students are designated as
English Learners, this population is excluded from API and AYP considerations;
however, it should be noted that they failed to meet either target. Their proficiency
rate in ELA and mathematics was 35.7% and 37.5%, respectively. In 2007-08 there
were 113 EL students (approximately 5.6% of the population) marking the only year
since No Child Left Behind was implemented that this population was numerically
significant at Southside. In this year they satisfied both ELA and mathematics targets
demonstrating 35.7% proficiency on both areas. The school’s targets that year were
33.4% in ELA and 32.2% in mathematics.
The principal, Ms. Norwood, commented that a high percentage of their
students continue into college; consequently, improvement process is currently
focused on preparing students for post-secondary education. Additionally, there is an
emphasis as well on the performance of the school’s small EL population. Although
not considered numerically significant for API or AYP purposes, the current number
of EL students fall only five shy of the requirement to become numerically significant.
Since this group failed to meet proficiency targets in ELA or mathematics, there is a

299
concern that if this population continues to grow, the school needs to ensure their
academic needs are being met.
The purpose of this case study is to provide an account of how Southside High
School allocates its resource to educate its students. Resource use patterns will be
compared to those recommendations provided by the Evidence-Based Model (EBM)
developed by Lawrence Picus and Allen Odden. In addition, the study will look for
evidence of Odden’s 10 Steps to Doubling Student Performance (2010). Although the
intent of the study is not to measure if a school has doubled student performance, nor
has Southside made this a focus, the 10 Steps are research-based strategies that
improving schools have used to successfully improve student performance. Therefore,
it is worthwhile to assess whether or not any of these strategies are in place at the
school. Together these two aspects (the EBM and the 10 Steps) will provide an
account of Southside’s improvement process.
Test Scores and Other Data
Since 1999 when California introduced the Academic Performance Index
(API) as a measure of student performance, Southside has experienced a net gain of 81
points (see Graph F1). In that time its API has experienced declines in four years
(2001, 2002, 2006, and 2007), the most significant drop occurring in 2006 when the
API went from 752 in 2005 to 744.

300

Table F2 provides a comparison of API levels from 2005 through 2009 for
Southside, California high schools, and all schools in California. Despite the four
years in which the school’s API declined within this five-year period, Southside still
managed to outperform the state high school average every year, as well as the
statewide average (which includes all K-12 schools).
Table F2: API Comparisons Southside and CA (2005-2009)
Year Southside HS CA (Grades 9-11) CA (All Grades)
2009 762 713 755
2008 760 702 742
2007 743 689 728
2006 744 680 720

301
Table F2: Continued
2005 752 671 709

Table F3 shows a comparison of API achieved by numerically significant
subgroups across Southside and all high schools in the state on the 2008-09 STAR
results. Only those subgroups with more than 100 students are considered numerically
significant for API/AYP purposes; those subgroups with less than 100 individuals are
excluded from these calculations.
With the exception of special education students, Southside’s students are
outperforming California’s high school average by an average of 24.5 points, where
the most significant gains come from EL, socio-economically disadvantaged, and
Hispanic populations (students that traditionally are considered high needs).
Table F3: API Subgroup Comparison Southside and CA (2009 STAR Results)
Subgroup Southside HS
CA (High
Schools)
Southside
Difference
EL* N/A 612 N/A
Socio-economically
Disadvantaged
710 648 +62 Southside
Special Education 480 495 -15 Southside
White 786 788 -2 Southside
Hispanic 725 651 +74 Southside
Asian 901 843 +58 Southside
African-American* N/A 624 N/A
Filipino* N/A 794 N/A
Pacific Islander* N/A 696 N/A

302
Table F3: Continued
American-Indian* N/A 685 N/A
All Students 762 713 +49 Southside
* Denotes subgroups are not numerically significant, and therefore are excluded from
API or AYP purposes.

Southside’s STAR results from 2002 through 2009 are illustrated in Table F4.
Since the state uses the percent of students who reach at least the level of proficient on
the CSTs in ELA and mathematics, the graph provides this specific data.
Table F4: Southside STAR Results (Percent Proficient or Advanced 2002-2009)
Year Tested ELA Mathematics
2009 59.4% 54.0%
2008 62.5% 52.8%
2007 54.9% 52.5%
2006 54.5% 47.6%
2005 58.7% 52.3%
2004 56.3% 56.2%
2003 59.1% 50.5%
2002 36.9% 35.5%

Table F5 further compares Southside’s proficiency rates in ELA to the
statewide average for all schools for the previous three academic years. Table F6
illustrates the same results for mathematics over the same period.

303

Table F5: STAR ELA Results – Southside and CA
(Proficient or Advanced 2007-2009)
Year Tested Southside HS CA (All Grades)
2009 59.4% 49.9%
2008 62.5% 45.7%
2007 54.9% 43.3%

In ELA, Southside experienced only a 4.5% gain over the three-year period,
whereas the state average has increased by 6.6% over the same period. Additionally,
after experiencing a gain of 7.6% from 2007 to 2008, the percentage declined by 3.1%
in 2009.
Looking at the data in Table F6 for mathematics, it is evident that Southside
has consistently outperformed the state average the since 2007. In this three-year
period the school experienced a slight gain in proficiency of 1.5%, whereas the state’s
proficiency grew by 5.3%.
Table F6: STAR Mathematics Results – Southside and CA
(Proficient or Advanced 2007-2009)
Year Tested Southside HS CA (All Grades)
2009 54.0% 45.8%
2008 52.8% 42.7%
2007 52.5% 40.5%

High school students first take the CAHSEE during their sophomore year and
are allowed multiple opportunities throughout their high school career to pass both
sections (ELA and mathematics) of the test. The CAHSEE results for Southside’s

304
sophomores are reported in Graph F2. This is the percentage of who passed the test in
either ELA or mathematics. The figures provided are not mutually exclusive. It is
possible for some students to have passed only one of the two sections, or both
sections; the graph does not distinguish between the two. Although California decided
to exclude special education students from having to pass the test in order to receive a
diploma, the data includes this population.

Graph F3 provides CAHSEE data on all grades at Southside High School.
This includes grades tenth, eleventh, and twelfth.

305

Southside High School’s overall graduation rates far exceed the statewide
average (see Table F7); however, in 2006 and 2007 the school was slightly behind
California in the percentage of graduates having completed University of
California/California State University (UC/CSU) courses with at least a “C.” In 2008
the school experienced a significant increase in this measure of 15.1% surpassing the
state’s average of 33.9% by 13.9% (see Table F8). UC/CSU course are those that
satisfy either UC or CSU entrance requirements.

306
Table F7: Overall Graduation Rate – Southside and CA (2006-2008)
Graduation Year Southside High School CA
2008 99.3% 80.6%
2007 100% 83.2%
2006 99.8% 85.0%

Table F8: Percentage of Graduates Having Completed
UC/CSU Courses with at least a “C” – Southside and CA (2006-2008)
Graduation Year Southside High School CA
2008 47.8% 33.9%
2007 32.7% 35.5%
2006 28.7% 35.9%

The school’s SAT data is compared to California’s average scores in Table F9.
Overall Southside is performing below the state average by this measure.
Table F9: SAT Data – Southside and CA (2006-2008)
Year Subject Southside HS CA
Critical Reading 489 494
Mathematics 505 513
Writing 487 493
2008
Total 1,481 1,500
Critical Reading 488 493
Mathematics 508 513 2007
Writing 490 491

307
Table F9: Continued
2007 Total 1,486 1,497
Critical Reading 483 495
Mathematics 502 516
Writing 483 495
2006
Total 1,468 1,506

A school enters Program Improvement status (PI) in the third year it fails to
meet AYP. Since Southside has been successful in meeting AYP every single year, it
is currently is not in PI.
Improvement Process
Southside High School continues to outperform the state average terms of API
scores and has met AYP every single year the measure has been implemented. The
school has earned the title of California Distinguished School each of the previous six
years and there have not been any major events that have caused the school to
dramatically alter the way it educates its students
The current principal, Ms. Norwood, has been at Southside High School in the
same capacity for 22 years. Over that span she has noticed that her demographics have
changed considerably, yet has maintained a respectable level of success for her
students. She did cite the general demands of present-day society as a motivator to
continue to improve. She also cited low student performance in the classroom and the
CSTs as a basis for this continued improvement. Although the number of students

308
identified as needing additional support is minor, Ms. Norwood stated that her
school’s philosophy is that “all students will succeed.” To follow through on that
philosophy, there are certain strategies the school has implemented over the years.
These strategies are summarized in Table F10.
Table F10: Summary of Southside’s Strategies for
Improving Student Achievement
Strategy/Resources Characteristics/Highlights
HEART conferences
• One-on-one conferences with
struggling students
• Involve families of struggling students
• Multiple indicators
Interventions and support during the
school day
• Independent study classes
• Grade-level mathematics classes
• Support Services Specialist
CAHSEE prep classes
• Prepare students for both sections of
the CAHSEE
• District-wide CAHSEE predictor test
After school tutoring
• Available 12 hours per week
• All core content areas available
• One credentialed teacher assisted by
peer-tutors
Common benchmark assessments
• Implemented in all core content areas
• Data provides for timely interventions
and support
• Ensures same level of education across
the school
Teacher collaboration
• 2 days available per month
• Allows for sharing of promising
practices
Data-driven decision-making
• HEART conferences
• Allows for appropriate interventions
and support

Southside has an additional administrator known as a Support Services
Specialist (SSS). It is the main responsibility of the SSS to ensure that students
identified as needing additional support receive that support. Along with the principal
and the counselors, the SSS develops a list of students through the use of multiple

309
indicators that require interventions. Some of the indicators include three more Fs on
the most recent grading period, CST scores from the previous year, attendance and
tardy records, and scores on the benchmark assessments. These students and their
families meet with the SSS (known as Higher Expectations Academic Resource Team,
or HEART conferences), a guidance counselor, or the principal to address any issues
or barriers to success. Ultimately, it is the counselors’ responsibility to develop a 6-
week plan for success for each of these students. As of December 2009, there were 38
9
th
graders, 25 20
th
graders, 11 11
th
graders, and 4 12
th
graders on such a 6-week plan.
In addition to the HEART conferences, Southside offers it struggling students
interventions during the school day. Having a SSS on campus gives them a direct
resource at any time. In math, the school recently implemented grade-level courses.
For example, rather than having simply an Algebra I class with 9
th
and 10
th
graders,
there is a 9
th
grade Algebra I class and a seperate10
th
grade Algebra I class. Ms.
Norwood feels strongly that at each grade level, students have different needs, so it
makes sense to have them in a class with others in the same grade. Although the
effects of this model are yet to be realized, there is optimism that it would have a
positive impact on student performance in mathematics. Another strategy recently
implemented at the school is offering students with an independent study class. This is
essentially a tutoring class built into the student’s daily schedule.
For those students identified as needing assistance in preparing for the
CAHSEE, the school offers them a semester-long CAHSEE prep class in either ELA
or mathematics. CST scores and previous math grades are used to identify these
students. Additionally, the district provides each of its three high schools with a

310
CAHSEE predictor test. Those who do not pass also become eligible for these prep
courses.
In addition to the strategies already addressed, there is a school-wide after
school tutoring program available for students, although it is on a voluntary basis. This
is available Monday through Thursday for three hours and is facilitated by one of the
school’s full-time credentialed teachers. There are paid peer tutors that help the
students while the teacher monitors and intervenes as necessary. Assistance is
provided in the core content areas, mainly English and mathematics.
Also in the core content areas, the school has implemented benchmark
assessments as a measure to ensure the same standards-based education to all its
students regardless of their teacher. Data from these assessments allows for timely
teacher-driven interventions, or more appropriate measures if necessary.
Twice per month the school has late-start days that allow for teacher
collaboration. Although each department determines the topics for its collaboration
sessions, there is a focus on sharing promising practices.
The final component of Southside’s strategies for improving student
performance is its use of student data to drive it decision-making process. Every year
prior to the start of the school year, the principal and the SSS analyze student to
determine the appropriate placement or necessary interventions. This is the first step in
identifying those students that require a HEART conference. In addition to HEART
conferences, identified students are enrolled in CAHSEE prep courses and/or
independent study classes.

311
Although the strategies outlined here have not been directly linked to specific
improvements in student achievement at Southside High School, Ms. Norwood
believes very strongly that it is a combination of all of the above that have sustained
her school’s success and allowed it to satisfy AYP every year.
EBM Comparisons
Table F11 below provides a comparison of resource-use at Southside High
School and how it aligns with the recommendations outlined by the Evidence-Based
Model.
Table F11: Southside and EBM Comparisons
Staffing Category
EB Funding
Model
Actual
Core Academic Teachers 82.8 65.6
Specialist & Elective Teachers 27.6 18.4
Library Staff
Librarian/Media Specialist (Certified) 3.5 0
Library/Media Tech Aides (Non-Certified) 3.5 1
Extra Help
Certified Teacher Tutors for English Language Learners 0.95 0
Certified Teacher Tutors for At-Risk Students 6 0
Non-certified Tutors 0 0
Resource Room Teachers (non-special education) 0 0.8
Resource Room Aides (non-special education) 0 3
Special Education Teachers Fully Funded 8.2

312
Table F11: Continued
Special Education Aides Fully Funded 8
Gifted & Talented Aide 0 0
Gifted & Talented Funds $51,750 $3,000
Extended Day 5 0
Summer School 5 0
Professional Development
Total # of Professional Development Days 10 1.5
Instructional Facilitators 10.4 0
Teacher Time (Substitutes & Stipends)
Trainer/Consultant Funds
Materials, Equipment & Facilities
Travel & Transportation
Tuition & Conference Fees
$207,000 $0
Other Instructional Staff
Building Substitutes & Other Substitutes 0 0
Instructional Aides 0 0
Supervisory Aides 10.4 3.5
Student Support
Counselors 4.7
Nurses 0
Social Workers
14.5
0

313
Table F11: Continued
Psychologists Fully Funded 1
Speech/ OT/ PT Fully Funded 0
Health Assistant 0 0.2
Administration
Principal 1 1
Assistant Principal 4.3 3
Secretary 3.5 4
Clerical 10.4 6

In analyzing the data in Table F11, Southside does not match well with the
recommendations provided by the EBM. The following are significant areas of
deficiency:
• Where the model calls for 82.8 core teachers, Southside has only 65.6
including 6.4 for GATE
• The number of specialist/elective teachers, 18.4, is nearly 10 shy of the
model’s recommendations
• Due to the budget reductions, the school has lost its lone librarian
• The school offers after school tutoring four days per week, but most of this is
done with peer tutors and only one credentialed teacher that facilitates the
process
• No after school interventions aimed directly at EL students
• $3,000 GATE funding falls well below the model’s recommended $51,750

314
• Only 1.5 days of PD versus 10
• Also resulting from the recent budget reductions, the school has lost all
funding for professional development, but the models calls for $207,000
• Student support is only at 4.7 FTEs versus the model’s 14.5
Although beyond the scope of this study, it can be inferred that if Southside’s
level of resources was more aligned to those in the Evidence-Based Model, perhaps
the achievement level of its student can be improved beyond what the school has
experienced in recent years.
Lessons Learned
Although not necessarily a focus (or awareness of the steps) of the school,
Table F12 below provides evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps to Doubling Student
Performance found at Southside. Each of the ten steps were present at the school,
however, the extent to which each is exists is unclear. Some of the steps were
evidenced through an analysis of documentation provided by the school and from data
gathered from the California Department of Education’s website. Evidence for some
of the steps relied solely on responses given by the school’s principal during the
interview process. Furthermore, the effectiveness of each and their link to student
achievement are also unclear.

315
Table F12: Evidence of Ten Steps to Doubling Student Performance at Southside
Step Features Evidence
Understand performance
problem
• Recognizing low
student performance
• Accepting that change
is necessary
• Meeting NCLB
accountability
mandates and AYP
• EL populations did not
meet proficiency
targets in ELA or
mathematics
• Increasing number of
students scoring in
FBB and BB
performance bands on
the CSTs
Set and maintain higher
goals
• Regardless of student
population, standards
must be high
• Maintain high standards
to help create a culture
of success
• Student motivation
• HEART conferences
Adopt new curriculum and
improve instructional
practices
• Curriculum must be
aligned to new high
standards
• Most influential
component on student
performance
• Sharing of promising
practices through
teacher collaboration
Using data to drive
instructional decisions
• Use student data to
identify needs and drive
decisions
• Use of appropriate
assessment strategies in
the classroom to
provide appropriate
instruction
• Use of CST data,
common assessment
data, and student
grades to provide
appropriate student
support and
interventions
Ongoing professional
development for teachers
• Training for teachers to
become proficient in
analyzing data to drive
their instructional
practices
• Increasing effectiveness
of teachers
• District training and
support on creating
PLCs

316
Table F12: Continued
Use time more efficiently
• Make use of every
instructional minute
comprising the 180-day
school year
• Increase allocation of
time to core content
areas
• Late start days allow
for teacher
collaboration
• Support and
interventions scheduled
into the students’
school day
Support for struggling
students
• Small class sizes
• Tutoring with
credentialed teacher
• Rigorous curriculum
• High-quality teachers
• HEART conferences
• After school tutoring
• Grade-level
mathematics classes
• CAHSEE prep courses
• Support Services
Specialist
• Independent study class
• SSS administrator
Create professional
learning communities
(PLCs)
• Role of teachers as
instructional leaders
• Collaborative school
culture
• Intense focus on
student learning
• Data-driven decision-
making
• Monthly teacher
collaboration
• District-wide training
by Rick and Rebecca
Dufour
Professional behavior and
promising practices
• Seeking promising
practices in all aspects
of schooling
• Professional behavior
by teachers and staff
members
• Seeking outside
expertise
• Sharing of promising
practices through
teacher collaboration
Human capital
• Finding the right people
to carry out the new
demands of improving
student performance
• Principal and teacher
talent
• Ms. Norwood’s tenure
as principal is currently
in year 22
Source: Odden (2009)

Although Southside has met AYP and has outperformed the statewide API
average every year both measures have been implemented, its small EL population did

317
not meet proficiency targets in ELA or mathematics on the 2009 CSTs. Currently the
group is not large enough to qualify as numerically significant to impact the school’s
AYP or API, but it’s only five students shy of this mark. Additionally, there has been
a slight increase in the number of students falling into the Far Below Basic (FBB) and
Below Basic (BB) performance bands on the CSTs. Ms. Norwood is well aware of
these two scenarios and has taken the appropriate measures (previously addressed) to
ensure the success of her students.
Regarding setting and maintaining higher standards, the school holds Higher
Expectations Academic Resource Team (HEART) conferences with its struggling
students. These conferences are a way to communicate to struggling students that the
school is not going to accept their low performance levels without at least intervening
to provide the appropriate support. Further evidence is found in the fact that these
conferences are held with the student and his or her family. This is an effective way of
getting parents involved in their student’s education at Southside.
The recent budget reductions have prevented the school to adopt new a new
curriculum, however, bimonthly collaboration meetings allow teachers to share
promising practices.
As previously addressed, Southside uses various student data to make
appropriate instructional decisions. This includes CST data, common assessment data
in the core content areas, and student grades.
In 2008 the district hired Rick and Rebecca Dufour (the creators of the PLC
concept) to present to all teachers the concept of professional learning communities.

318
They provided training and since then the district has used the 1.5 days of PD prior to
the start of each school year to offer continued support for teachers.
Southside has found ways to use its time more efficiently. Twice per month
classes start approximately one hour later to allow for teacher collaboration time. To
offer students support, the school has scheduled into struggling students’ day
interventions and even has an administrator (SSS) dedicated to assisting them.
For its struggling students, the school offers after school tutoring, CAHSEE
prep courses, an independent study class, and Student Support Specialists (SSS).
Tutoring is provided by some of the school’s highest performing students and is
facilitated by a credentialed teacher.
Although the school is not a full professional learning community, there are
components of a PLC present. Instructional decisions are based on various forms of
student data, bimonthly collaboration occurs within each department, and all teachers
have received PLC training form the creators of the concept, Rick and Rebecca
Dufour.
Odden’s final step is evidenced at Southside by the fact that the school has had
the same principal for 22 years. Her effectiveness is further evidenced by the school’s
designation as a California Distinguished School and having met AYP every year.
Additionally, Ms. Norwood strongly believes that her staff is the “right one for the
job.”
Every one of the Ten Steps were evidenced at Southside, however, the extent
or effectiveness of each is unclear and is beyond the scope of this study. An argument

319
can be made that a stronger presence of each can have a greater impact on the level of
student achievement.
Additional Resources
When asked about additional resources are needed to continue her school’s
improvement process, Ms. Norwood cited only one: teachers on special assignment
(TOSAs). The district eliminated the position two years ago as a result of budget
reductions. TOSAs are in a sense, instructional facilitators in that they provide support
for teachers in improving their effectiveness in the classroom. TOSAs observe
teachers teaching in the classroom and provide feedback. Additionally, they assist
teachers in keeping a portfolio so they can monitor their own progress.
Additional resources that might prove beneficial to Southside’s students,
although not cited by Ms. Norwood, include support for EL students,
parent/community outreach resources, and teacher training to implement technology in
the classroom
Due to the school’s relatively small EL population (only 95 students, or about
4.6% of the population), there is no systematic support for these students. This
subgroup is only 5 students shy from becoming numerically significant and in 2009
they did not meet proficiency targets in ELA or mathematics. If this group grows to be
numerically significant in the near future, it would behoove the school to be proactive
in preparing these students for high level of achievement.
There was little evidence that the school actively reaches out to its parents, a
strategy that can have a significant impact on the overall level of student achievement,

320
especially for those low performing students. Actively seeking parental involvement at
the school can prove beneficial for its students.
Finally, training for implementing technology in the classroom can prove to be
a valuable resource for Southside. Considering the technology-driven society of
present day, using technology in the classroom can offer a more enriched educational
experience for Southside’s students.

321
Appendix G
Principal Consent Form

May 13, 20XX

UPIRB Chair
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB)
3601 Watt Way – GFS 306
Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695

RE: Antonio Gonzalez
“School-Level Resource Allocation to Improve Student Achievement”

Dear UPIRB Chair:

This letter is to convey that I have reviewed the proposed research study entitled
“School-Level Resource Allocation to Improve Student Achievement” being
conducted by Antonio Gonzalez from the University of Southern California. I
understand that research activities as described in the proposed research study will
occur at XYZ High School. I give permission for the above investigator to conduct his
study at this site. If you have any questions regarding this permission letter, please
contact me at (213) 555-5555.

Sincerely,

Dr. John Doe
Principal, XYZ Park High School

322
Appendix H
Pre-Visit Form

Document Request List

All of these documents should be for the current 2009-10 school year.

1. Staff List (School)

This list will likely include any person who works in the physical space of the school.
It is necessary to understand the full-time equivalent (FTE) status of each employee,
as well as what their job entails (for a principal or classroom teacher, this may be
obvious, for special education staff or student support staff, this is not readily clear).

• Some staff are paid to work less than 1.0 FTE with the school, yet are housed
at the school full-time. Only the portion of the day that the staff person
provides services to the individual school should be recorded.
• Special education and ELL staff, especially, may be dedicated to more than
one project (e.g. 0.5 FTE reading coach, 0.5 FTE resource room).
• Distinguish how special education and ELL staff provide support (e.g. do they
work with an individual child or a classroom, etc.).
• Individuals who serve the school may not be listed and instead are based out of
the district or regional education agency (e.g. speech therapy, visiting coaches)
so you will need to ask them about these people—see below.

2. Staff List (District)

A list of all district employees who do not appear on school staff roster, but who
provide direct services to schools (guidance counselors, psychologists, special
education diagnosticians, etc) and which schools they provide services to, expressed in
FTE units. For instance, a special education diagnostician who works with 3 schools
might be listed three times on this sheet (0.5 FTE, 0.3 FTE, 0.2 FTE) depending upon
the number of days she is allocated to the various schools. Note: You will only be
recording the proportion of FTEs that she spends providing services to the individual
school you are studying.

323

3. School Schedule (School)

It is helpful to have a copy of the bell schedule to talk through the amount of
instructional time for reading, math, etc.

4. Consultants (School, District, and State)

Budgeted dollar amount for all other consultants other than professional development
contracted services.

5. Class Sizes
You want a copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. Make sure to enter the
class size for every class that is taught at the school.

6. Funds for Daily Substitutes

Daily rate for substitute teachers who replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes
who replace teachers who are participating in professional development.)

7. Professional Development Budget

• Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount for substitutes and
stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
• Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services.
• Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
• 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.
• Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
• Other Professional Development: Dollar amount for other professional
development staff or costs.

324
Appendix I
Data Collection Protocol
School Profile
School Name School’s State ID
Number

Address

City State Zip

Phone Fax

Website

NOTES:

School Contact (1)
Title
Principal
Honorific First Name Last
Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment

Grade Span

Number of At-Risk Students*
*Collect from district
Number of ELL/Bilingual Students

325
Number of High Mobility Students*
*Collect from district
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:

Core academic teachers
(Self-contained Regular
Education)
FTEs

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

English/Reading/L.A.

History/Soc. Studies

Math

326

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

327
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 Teachers Funded with Federal
Dollars:
Other Extra Help Classified Staff

Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with Federal
Dollars:
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

328
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 ($)
Consultants
(other than pd contracted services)
$
Building substitutes and other substitutes

Other Teachers

Other Instructional Aides

329

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

330
Speech/O.T./P.T.

Health Asst.

Non-teaching aides

Other Student Services

Description Of Other Student Services
Staff:

NOTES:

Administration FTEs
Principal

Assistant principal

Other Administrator

Description of Other Administrator:

Secretary

Clerical staff

Technology Coordinator/ I.T.

Security

Custodians

NOTES:

331
Appendix J
Open-Ended Interview Protocol

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. Has your school defined essential skills or done curriculum mapping? Please
describe.

a. Is your school’s version different from what is done (if it is done) at the
district level? If so, why?

6. How does this school approach instruction?

a. Is there a school vision of effective instruction?

b. If so, what is it?

c. How was it developed?

d. Do you believe it has made a difference?

7. Please describe how you use student assessment data at this school.

a. Do you also use other forms of testing at this school (common
formative assessments, common end of curriculum unit assessments,
etc.)?

b. What do you and your staff do with the data from these
assessments/how do you use them? (Do they impact instructional
practices?)

8. 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?

332

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
(content focus, pedagogy focus, how many hours/days, whether the
entire staff attends, time for practice in one’s own classroom, etc.)

9. How is collaboration time used within the school day?

a. Do you feel you need to monitor this time to ensure it is effective, or
have someone else monitor it (and if so, whom)?

10. 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?

11. How do you view the role of the coach(es)/instructional facilitator(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?

12. 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?

333

c. What if they still don’t understand the material they need to master?

13. Do you have the following?

a. Tutoring/small group support

b. Parental liaison/support

c. EL support

d. Extended day

e. Summer school

14. Who qualifies for these programs? How do you decide? How often do you
reassess? What is the basis for reassessment?

15. 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?

16. 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?

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?

17. How would you characterize the leadership provided by your superintendent?

a. What about other district administrators?

18. Would you consider your school to be in the midst of an improvement process?
If so, what was the catalyst?

334
a. Can you provide a chronological order of the key elements?

19. Is there anything else you’d like to add about the following?

a. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at
the school level?

b. How are resources used to implement the school’s instructional
improvement plan?

c. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the
recent budget reductions?

20. Is there any evidence of Odden’s Ten Steps at your school?

21. What resources or support would be needed to continue and/or expand your
efforts to improve student performance?

22. What are some of the rewards or recognition your school has received?

23. Is there anything else you’d like to add that I have not addressed?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract One of the most important decisions made by school leaders is deciding how to allocate their limited resources to educate students to high standards. In an era when schools are faced with severe budget reductions and greater accountability for student performance under the No Child Left Behind Act, it is perhaps even more important than ever before that their decisions yield the greatest impact on student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of six California schools within two school districts

PDF

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

PDF

School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

Where does the money go?: an analysis of student level resource allocation at the school level

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of five California schools

PDF

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

Better is as better does: resource allocation in high performing schools

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of resources and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California Title I Program Improvement middle schools

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: Case studies of school level resource use in California middle schools

PDF

The open enrollment of advanced placement classes as a means for increasing student achievement at the high school level

PDF

Allocation of resources to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California with budget reductions

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Gonzalez, Antonio (author)

Core Title School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/31/2010

Defense Date 03/04/2010

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation,school improvement,student achievement

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 gonza28@usc.edu,gonzalezmath@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2884

Unique identifier UC1420195

Identifier etd-Gonzalez-3524 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-298985 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2884 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Gonzalez-3524.pdf

Dmrecord 298985

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Gonzalez, Antonio

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