University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ALLOCATION OF EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES TO
IMPROVE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
CASE STUDIES OF FOUR CALIFORNIA CHARTER SCHOOLS

by

Ramona Kay Patrick

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

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Ramona Kay Patrick
ii

DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my quirky and marvelous family, the
extraordinary teachers that have shaped me, and all of the students I have ever taught.
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support and influence of
people who have helped me become the person I am today.
A very special thank you goes to my amazingly wonderful husband, Mohamed
Iman, who encouraged me to begin this journey and who has supported me
wholeheartedly through this process. You are my best friend. To my brilliant son, Bashir
Iman, thank you for being my model of perseverance. I am so proud that you never give
up and I learn how to be a better person from you every day. To my late father, Everett
Patrick, who wanted so much for me and was always so proud of me no matter what,
thank you for being my eternal cheerleader.
Lastly, I would not have been such a fervent believer in the power of education
had it not been for my formative JROTC experience. Thank you LTC Roy Yenchesky
and 1SG Don Phillips for teaching me the value of high expectations, goal setting, and
self-discipline. I am forever grateful to you for taking a chance and seeing leadership
potential when I had yet to see it in myself. You changed my life course.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation was made possible through the on-going support of my
dissertation chair, Dr. Lawrence Picus. Thank you for your incredible patience, feedback,
and guidance through this process. I would also like to acknowledge my committee
members, Dr. Guilbert Hentschke and Dr. John Nelson, who have provided valuable
insight and questions to strengthen my thinking. Finally, I would like to recognize the
Orange County cohort of 2008, who supported and challenge me, and with whom I feel
extraordinarily thankful to have shared this experience with.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

Abstract viii

Chapter 1 – Introduction 1
Statement of Problem 6
Research Questions 6
Purpose of the Study 7
Summary of Methodology 8
Limitations 8
Delimitations 9
Assumptions 9
Definitions 9

Chapter 2 – Literature Review 13
California School Resource Allocation 13
Charter School Overview and Funding 21
Adequacy and the Evidenced-Based Approach 29
Effective-Practices for Improving Student Achievement 40
Summary 49

Chapter 3 – Methods 50
Population & Sample 52
Limitations of Sample 55
Instrumentation and Data Collection 55
Analyzing Data 57
Summary 59

Chapter 4 – Findings 60
Summary of Sample Schools’ Characteristics and Performance 60
Achievement Data 64
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Strategies 71
Resource Allocation 96
Impact of Current Funding Crisis 101
Conclusion 101

v

Chapter 5 – Discussion 103
Summary of Findings 104
Limitations of the Study 111
Recommendations for Future Research 111
Conclusion 113

References 115

Appendices
Appendix A – Institutional review Board Approval 121
Appendix B – Document Request List 122
Appendix C – School Visit Interviews 124
Appendix D – List of Documents and ARTIFACTS 125
Appendix E – Data Collection CodeBook 126
Appendix F – Open-ended Data Collection Protocol 137
Appendix G – Data Colleciton Protocol 140
Appendix H – Byron Charter Elementary School 146
Background on School 146
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 150
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 158
Summary and Lessons Learned 161
Future Considerations 162
Appendix I – Timothy Charter Elementary School 163
Background on School 163
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 165
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 173
Summary and Lessons Learned 175
Future Considerations 176
Appendix J – Delano Charter 177
Background on School 177
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 181
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 189
Summary and Lessons Learned 192
Future Considerations 193
Appendix K – Amarado Charter Elementary School 194
Background on School 194
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process 198
Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model 206
Summary and Lessons Learned 208
Future Considerations 209

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.:1 Historical Growth of Charter Schools 23
Table 2.2: Recommendations for Adequate Resources for a Prototypical Elementary 39
Table 3.1: Sample Schools - Enrollment and Percentage SED 53
Table 3.2: Longitudinal API Scores for Schools Above 800 54
Table 3.3: Longitudinal API Scores for Schools Below 750 55
Table 4.1: Characteristics of Sample Schools 61
Table 4.2: Similar School & Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools 66
Table 4.3: 10 Steps for Doubling Student Performance at Four Sample Schools 95
Table 4.4: Class Size of Sample Schools Compared to EBM 96
Table 4.5: Comparison of Resource Allocation to EBM 100
Table H.1: Byron Charter and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 158
Table H.2: Byron Charter and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 160
Table I.1: Timothy Charter and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 172
Table I.2 Timothy Charter and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 174
Table J.1: Delano Charter and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 189
Table J. 2: Delano Charter and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 191
Table K.1: Amarado Charter and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance 205
Table K.2: Amarado Charter and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison 207

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: California’s School Finance System 19
Figure 2.2: The Evidence Based Model 35
Figure 4.1: Ethnic Breakdown of the Sample Schools 62
Figure 4.2: SED and EL Percentage by School 63
Figure 4.3 Annual API Scores for Byron, Delano, and Amarado from 2006-2010 65
Figure 4.4: ELA – Schoolwide Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 68
Figure 4.5: Math – Schoolwide Percent Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced 70
Figure H.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Byron Charter School 147
Figure H.2 Byron Elementary Charter School’s API 148
Figure H.3: Language Arts AYP for Byron Charter School 149
Figure H.4: Math AYP for Byron Charter School 149
Figure I.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Timothy Charter 164
Figure J.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Delano Charter School 178
Figure J.2 Delano Charter School Elementary School’s API 179
Figure J.3: English Language Arts AYP Delano Charter School 180
Figure K.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Amarado Elementary Charter School 195
Figure K.2 Amarado Charter Elementary School’s API 196
Figure K.3: English Language Arts AYP for Amarado Charter Elementary School 197
Figure K.4: Math AYP for Amarado Charter Elementary School 198

viii

ABSTRACT
Charter schools are growing at a rapid pace have significantly more flexibility in their
allocation of resources in comparison to their traditional public school counterparts in
California. Because of this, it is important to study how successful charter schools, with
this increased flexibility, are utilizing their resources to achieve high results with their
students in a time of fiscal constraint. There is a plethora of data and research on effective
school practices to improve student achievement, but a dearth of research on the effective
allocation of resources at charter schools. The purpose of this study is to analyze how
four high performing charter schools, with high percentages of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students in Los Angeles, California, are implementing school
improvement strategies and utilizing resources at their school site to impact student
achievement. The Evidenced-Based Model, (Odden & Picus, 2008) along with Odden
and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance were used as a
lens in this study to compare resource allocation as well as school improvement strategies
to best support student achievement at the schools. This study will describe each schools’
instructional vision and improvement strategy, how resources are utilized to implement
their instructional improvement plan, how the current fiscal crisis is affecting their
allocation of resources, and how actual resource patterns are aligned with the Evidence
Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008).
1

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
In 1983, the National Commission on Teaching Excellence declared that schools
were failing children in the United States. In the report, A Nation at Risk, the stark
consequences of not meeting the educational needs of all students were put on display for
the American public. The report highlighted several issues of systemic failure within the
educational system and made recommendations in five critical areas such as content,
standards and expectations, time, teaching, leadership and fiscal support. This report
became the impetus and one of the primary drivers of educational reform in the last thirty
years. Federal and local governments have devoted considerable resources to education
as part of its effort to address the deficiencies outlined in the report. Changes such as
greater accountability and the standards-based reform movement have ensued. The No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001 embodied many of the current changes seen at schools
and districts today. Continued unsatisfactory performance in schools has also led to calls
for market-oriented reforms, which have spurred educational innovations.
One of the most visible and fastest-growing education innovations is the dramatic
increase in charter schools. (Renzulli & Roscigno, 2005). There are currently forty-one
states, including the District of Columbia, that have charter schools. These schools,
nearly 5,000, serve over 1.5 million students. (EdSource, 2009c) The theory of action
behind charter schools is that through these schools, with more autonomy, the market and
government will provide accountability while charters will promote innovation and
higher student outcomes (Buckley & Schneider, 2007). Charter schools are often defined
2

by site-based autonomy, deregulation, school choice, and high stakes accountability
(Bulkley & Wohlstetter, 2004).
In 1992, California became the second state to pass a charter school law and
currently has the greatest number of charters (EdSource, 2009c). SB 1448 was introduced
by Gary Hart in response for greater school choice and to fend off increasing calls for the
use of vouchers in California. Since the initial Charter School Act of 1992, there have
been numerous legislative bills enacted to add clarification (EdSource, 2009c). Funding
for charter schools was outlined in this act, and charter schools, unlike their traditional
public school counterparts, have significantly more flexibility and less regulation in how
to utilize their funds. In 1999, AB 1115 attempted to clarify funding for charter schools.
Charters are currently funded through a combination of categorical grants, general
purpose grants, state categorical and special purpose programs, the California lottery, and
federal categorical programs (EdSource, 2010b). Charter schools receive funds based on
their average daily attendance and have the choice of how they would like to receive the
funding—through their chartering agency or from the state (EdSource, 2010b).
Over the past two fiscal years, California’s economy has been faltering and has
had a significant and adverse affect on the amount of funds available to school districts.
Voter-approved initiatives such as Proposition 13 and 98 have greatly altered the way
schools are funded and the impact of these decisions is particularly acute given the
current fiscal crisis. Because funding to schools is directly linked to the health of the
economy, the state budget, and intern monies devoted to schools have been continually
reduced in response. Currently, the budget crisis and reduction of funds is on the
3

forefront of school and district agenda. However, funding for schools has long been an
issue of ubiquitous contention. Until the 1970s, local tax revenues mainly funded schools
in California. Serrano v. Priest (1976) was a lawsuit that challenged this practice in
California, based on the inherent disadvantages and inequitable funding in lower property
wealth areas using this method. In the past 15 years, there has been a shift from equity to
adequacy and this has been reflected in the numerous lawsuits around the country, which
are challenging the inadequate funding of schools.
Most recently in California, the plaintiffs in Robles-Wong v. CA (2010) are
asserting that schools are failing to provide adequate funding for education. This lawsuit
is representative of the shift from equity to adequacy and suit follows multiple others in
the United States, in which plaintiffs have won in over twenty-five states by proving that
states and local agencies are not providing the resources necessary for an adequate
education (Rebell, 2007). With states and federal policy makers involved in school
funding, a closer look at not only how much was being spent, but also what impact that
money is having is also under scrutiny and of great interest. Over 30 states have
sponsored adequacy studies to determine what level of funding is needed to produce
results that ensure an equitable education (Rebell, 2007).
The standards-based reform movement has also shifted how policy makers view
school finance (Odden, 2003). No longer were they focused only on how much money
they were spending, but how and what impact that money was having. The standards-
based movement forced educational and policy leaders to focus on the outcomes of
students. Disparities in student achievement have been stark and the consequences of the
4

achievement gap are well documented. The increased focus on outcomes and meeting
high standards prompted a shift from equity to adequacy funding models in school
finance (Clune, 1994). This change represented a significant shift in funding because
minimum outcomes were now being directly linked to the inputs as opposed to focusing
solely on the inputs. There is not one main approach to adequacy. The four methods for
determining adequacy are the professional judgment approach, successful schools
approach, the cost function approach and the evidence-based approach (Hanusheck &
Lindseth, 2009). Brief summaries of each approach are discussed below and will be
expanded upon in Chapter 2.
According to Hanusheck & Lindseth (2009), the professional judgment approach
is the most frequently used method to determining adequacy. This model is defined by
the use of a panel or group of individuals, primarily practitioners such as teachers,
principals or superintendents to discuss best practices that lead to intended outcomes.
From this gathering, a list of suggestions or a model approach is conceived. The final
output from the model is a menagerie of best practices with costs associated, generally
derived from a consultant. One of the drawbacks of such an approach is that educators
may not focus on the minimum needed to produce a result, thus inflating the cost of
achieving adequacy.
Another frequently used method is the successful schools approach. (Hanuscheck
& Lindseth, 2009). In this method, schools and districts that have produced successful
outcomes are studied and the costs associated calculated. Funding for special programs
are subtracted from the final cost to develop a base cost for educating a student who does
5

not have special needs. A critique of this approach is that because it specifically selects
high performing schools and districts, it many times only studies those with higher
socioeconomic status. By doing this, it is difficult to generalize the approach to schools
where students may require special services due to the inherent disadvantages of their
situations.
The third model, the cost function approach, is seen as an alternative to the other
adequacy models, this approach derives data from current spending and outcomes of
schools and school districts to come to a composite or optimum spending (Hanusheck &
Lindseth, 2009). The limitation of using this method is that it is complex—making it
difficult to understand and apply. Additionally, the level of analysis remains at the district
and does not include the specificity needed to evaluate school-level decision-making.
The final method, which will be used as the framework in this study, is the
Evidenced-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). In this model, research is used to
generate best practices that lead to intended outcomes or student achievement. The
model costs out each research-based component. The costs per school are then scaled to a
state level to determine overall funding needed (Hanuscheck & Lindseth, 2009). One
criticism of such approach is that although you can recommend a model, there is no
evidence that implementing it in conjunction will achieve the intended results. This
model, however, is the most appropriate model to use in this study because it is the only
approach that directly links research-based strategies and approaches to resource
allocation. The other models fail to do this and do not provide an appropriate framework
6

for evaluating resource allocation. Finally, it allows the researcher to examine school-site
allocation of resources.
Statement of Problem
The impact of California’s fiscal crisis on educational funding has been
significant. K-12 funding in California represents the largest portion of the state budget
and has been severely impacted by the budget crisis. According to the California
Department of Education, over 18 billion dollars will need to be cut from educational
budgets from 2010-2012. The 2009-2010 education budget has compelled many local
educational agencies to reduce expenditures by reducing staff and eliminating student
services. The 2010-2011 education budget will require further reductions in spending.
While the legislature has increased the flexibility in use of categorical funding, traditional
local educational agencies are still constrained in comparison to the autonomy that many
charter schools have.
This study looked out how successful charter schools (defined by API greater than
800 or other standardized test indicating meeting grade level standards) are absorbing the
reduction in funding and what decisions they are making in the usage of their fiscal
resources.
Research Questions
 What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the charter
schools studied?
 How are resources at the schools used to implement their instructional
improvement plan?
7

 How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response to
the recent budget adjustments including overall funding reductions and changes in
the use of categorical funds?
 How are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with or
different from the resources use strategies used in the Evidence-Based or other
model?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze how charter schools in Los Angeles,
California are utilizing resources at their school site. The Evidence-Based Model (Odden
& Picus, 2008) was used as a lens to compare resource allocation at individual school
sites to evaluate if they are utilizing and aligning their resources to best support student
achievement.
Data collected from this study is useful to educational leaders and policy makers
as they continue to grapple with the issues of how to adequately fund schools. School
budgetary problems are likely to continue in California as long as the current funding
structure is maintained. As California continues to struggle with one of its worst fiscal
crises in its history, funding will continue to be diminished. The consequence of reduced
funding makes the State eager for federal help. With 4.3 billion dollars at stake in Race to
the Top funding and the elimination of restrictions on the number of charter schools
being a requisite to receiving this money, states like California are removing artificial
caps on the number of charter schools. The effect of this action will increase charter
schools and their market share of students. By studying successful charter schools and
8

their decisions during a time of fiscal constraints, a better understanding of successful
resource allocation could emerge which has the potential to have an impact on the
success of all students. Utilizing the Evidence-Based Model approach to adequacy in
studying specific charter schools sheds light on the decisions they are making, given their
inherent flexibility, and what they are doing given the fiscal crisis to ensure that all
students receive an adequate education.
Summary of Methodology
In order to understand how schools are utilizing their funds in a time of constraints, a
mixed method was used with an emphasis in qualitative data. Qualitative data was
gathered through interviews with school leadership regarding their usage of various
resources as well as the instructional focus to improve student performance. From this
data, a narrative in the form of a case study was written to describe how schools are
utilizing their resources. Quantitative data, such as student test scores, number of
teachers, and API was used to analyze a school’s performance and/or resource allocation.
Both quantitative and qualitative data was benchmarked against the Evidenced-Based
Model and Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies to Doubling Student Performance to ascertain
allocation of resources and implementation of instructional improvement strategies.
Limitations
Data was gathered from a purposeful sample of charter schools. The ability to
generalize is limited to charter schools in California that share similar demographics.
Findings from this research can only be generalized towards schools with similar
compositions because charter schools, given their inherent flexibility, operate very
9

differently from one another. Generalizations can only be made if their management and
operating structures are similar.
Delimitations
The delimitations of this study include restricted geographical area and grade span
of the schools studied. The charter schools researched are in Los Angeles County and
span the grades of Kindergarten through second, sixth, or eighth grade depending on the
school’s structure. Furthermore, all principals, who are the primary respondents in this
study, were willing and agreed to be included.
Assumptions
The author assumes that the answers and information derived from participants
and data are true and answered to the best of their ability. Additionally, all data that was
received and analyzed was assumed to be complete and accurate and the methodology
applied to evaluate them done so in a correct and scientifically sound way.
Definitions
1. Academic Performance Index (API): A number used for the purpose of
accountability to report progress on California’s standardized tests. This number
also ranks similar schools as measured by varying factors. California has set a
target score of 800 for all schools to meet, and those that do not achieve a score of
800 are required to meet annual growth targets set forth by the state.

10

2. Accountability: The idea that individuals and organizations are to be held
responsible for closing the achievement gap and improving student achievement.
3. Achievement Gap: A difference in scores on achievement tests among certain
groups of students. For example, there is a strong association between poverty
and students’ lack of achievement.
4. Adequacy: Adequate educational funding is defined as the level of funding that
would allow each LEA to provide a rand of instructional strategies and
educational programs to assist each student in achieving state determined goals.
The amount of funding schools receive should be based on an estimate of the cost
of achieving state goals (EdSource, 2010a).
5. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): As part of NCLB, AYP is a set of academic
performance benchmarks that are reported for significant subgroups at individual
school. Each year, a percent of students tested must perform at or above
proficiency levels for their grade. If those goals are not met, schools could enter
Program Improvement.
6. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): President Obama and
Congress passed the ARRA in response to a struggling economy. The education
portion allotted more than $100 billion for prekindergarten - 12
th
grade schools
for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years. The funds were also intended to
be an incentive for states to improve their schools (EdSource, 2010a).
7. Average Daily Attendance (ADA): Total number of days of student attendance
divided by the total number of days in the school year to help determine funding.
11

8. California Standards Test (CST): Annually administered standardized tests based
on the California state grade level standards. These tests are multiple choice and
given to students in grades 2-11.
9. Categorical Funding: Funds from the state or federal government given to
districts or schools for specific reasons such as: special education, class size
reduction, and students participating in the free and reduced-price lunch program.
This money is in addition to money received for general education programs.
Categorical funds represent about a third of district income (EdSource, 2010a).
10. Charter Schools: tuition-free public schools that operate with funding from the
state and are defined by site-based autonomy
11. Expenditure: Amount of money spent by a school district or state divided by the
number of students educated. In California, the number of students is determined
by the Average Daily Attendance (ADA).
12. Free and Reduced Lunch: Under the Title 1 federal regulations, qualifying
students may receive lunch at a reduced price or for free. Families must reapply
each year as financial status may change.
13. Full-time Equivalent (FTE): The ratio derived by dividing the number of work
hours required in a part-time position by the number of work hours required in a
corresponding full-time position.
14. General Fund: Funding used to offset expenditures and revenues from other
sources specified for specific uses that is not restricted (EdSource, 2010a).
12

15. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A national standardized
assessment administered to randomly selected students in an attempt to measure
and compare student achievement across the nation or against other states
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2010).
16. Program Improvement (PI): Under NCLB, schools receiving Title 1 funds enter
Program Improvement when they don’t meet AYP benchmark goals for the same
subgroups two years in a row. If a school continues to stay in PI, increasingly
serious interventions and sanctions are implemented.
17. Similar Schools: A comparison group of 100 schools of the same type based on
similar demographics. API for the group is ranked into ten categories (deciles) of
equal size, one being the lowest group to ten being the highest group (California
Department of Education, 2009).
18. Single Plan for Student Achievement: All schools that participate in any state or
federal programs, a plan for improved student achievement must be developed by
the school site council.
19. Socioeconomic Status (SES): A measure of an individual or family’s economic
and social ranking (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010).
20. Title 1: Federal program that provides funding to school districts based on the
number of students who qualify for free and reduced lunch.

13

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
Discussion and debate regarding the status of school funding in the United States
has been ubiquitous amongst policy makers and pundits nationally. California is not an
exception to this generalization and provides fodder to this debate due to its lackluster
student achievement, lower per pupil spending, and the composition of its students. The
state has more K-12 students, English language learners, and a continually diversifying
population than any other state and an inadequate education system that is not able to
meet the needs of all students (EdSource, 2008a; 2010d). Additionally, per pupil funding
is below the national average (EdSource, 2008a). These facts, combined with a complex,
and what some would describe as inadequate funding system have resulted in student
achievement that lags behind the majority of states (Kirst, 2006 EdSource, 2008a).
Charter schools, with significantly more flexibility in how they choose to allocate
their resources, are one of the fastest growing education innovations in California and
what some see as a way for students to achieve in California despite the aforementioned
obstacles. This chapter will synthesize literature in regards to the history of California
school funding, charter schools, the shift from equity towards adequacy models of
funding, and finally an overview of best practices within education. This synthesis of
literature will provide the foundation for the study of how charter schools are utilizing
and allocating resources during California’s current economic crisis.
California School Resource Allocation
Funding for public schools has gone through considerable changes due to shifting
priorities of national and local governments. In California specifically, court rulings and
14

voter-approved propositions have greatly impacted how schools are funded. A shift in
educational funding started 30 years ago, when funding moved from a locally generated
and distributed system to a centralized and administrative role by the state (Timar, 2004).
The shift from a locally-based to state controlled was propelled and directly shaped by
Serrano vs. Priest (1976), Proposition 13, and Proposition 98 (Timar, 2004).
Serrano vs. Priest. Serrano vs. Priest (1976) was one of the first lawsuits in the
nation challenging the way schools were locally funded (EdSource, 2010b; 2010d) The
main argument of this case is that by utilizing a system of local funding such as property
taxes, there were inherent inequities and disparities due to the property wealth of the
district. In essence, higher wealth districts had significantly more resources due to their
property wealth than lower-wealth districts that had significantly less. This disparity
created a large difference in funding to the local schools. The California Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs because the current funding systems violated the equal
protection clause (EdSource, 2010d). The Serrano vs. Priest decision required that
funding be equalized among districts (Kirst, 2006; Timar, 2004).The effect of this
decision was the court required that “differences in spending due to local wealth be less
than $100” ($450 adjusted for inflation) (EdSource, 2010d). In order to be in compliance
with the Serrano decision, the legislature passed Assembly Bill 65 a year later, which set
the foundation so that equalization of funding could be achieved and aid could be
redistributed by the state (EdSource, 2010d).
Proposition 13. Less than a year after the Serrano decision, and driven by the
calls of some to relieve high property taxes, voters passed Proposition 13 which set to
15

limit or provide a cap on funding generated through property taxes and further shift
funding of schools (Kirst, 2006; EdSource, 2010c). Approved by voters in 1978, it
limited property tax increases based on the value of the property. These increases were
limited to 2% or the percentage growth as determined by the Consumer Price Index per
year and set a base of 1% of the properties assessed value for home constructed after
1978 (Timar, 2006; EdSource, 2010d). This ballot measure was one of many to shape the
way in which schools are financed and marked a major shift of control to the State (Kirst,
2006). Prior to Proposition 13 being passed, approximately two-thirds of educational
funding came through property taxes (EdSource, 2010d). The effect of Proposition 13
also invalidated much of Assembly Bill 65 by reducing local property tax revenues by half
(EdSource, 2010d; Kirst, 2006). Two years after the passage of Proposition 13,
Proposition 4, the Gann Limit, placed a cap on what school districts and local
governments could spend. Excess revenues, if any, had to be distributed back to the
taxpayer or split between the schools and taxpayers (EdSource, 2010c).
Proposition 13 achieved two things with its passage—first it shifted decision
making from the local sphere to the state and secondly it changed the ability to generate
funds locally through property taxes (Timar, 2004; Kirst, 2006). With the exception of
basic-aid districts, the legislature now determined funding for the districts and what
implications or “strings-attached” came with the money (Timar, p. 5, 2004). Proposition
13, in combination with Serrano, essentially removed local control of school funding to
the state level (EdSource, 2010d; Timar 2004).
16

Proposition 98. Proposition 98, amended by Proposition 111, further changed
the way that districts have been funded. Passed in 1988 by voters and amended in 1990,
the proposition guaranteed a minimum level of funding, approximately 40%, based on the
state budget (Timar, 2004; EdSource, 2010d; Kirst, 2006). The proposition’s intent was
that funding for California schools would grow in proportion to the economy (Timar,
2006; EdSource, 2010c). Proposition 98 has four provisions which are: 1) a minimum
funding guarantee (currently at 40%), 2) redistribution or refund of monies when the state
collects revenue in excess of the Gann limit for two years, 50% of the money is returned
to taxpayer and 50% is given to K-14 education, 3) School Accountability Report Cards
(SARC) are published yearly to hold schools accountable for the utilization of resources,
and finally, 4) a state budget reserve.
There are three tests for Proposition 98 that set the floor for the minimum level of
funding (EdSource, 2010c). There are specific requirements when the tests become
effective. Test one requires that K-14 education receive at a minimum 40% of the
General Fund budget. This test has been only used once and only if tests two and three
provide less money than test one (EdSource, 2010c). Test two requires that K-14
education receive the same level of funding it did in the previous year, taking into
account enrollment and “per capita personal income” (EdSource, p.5 2010c). Test three
allows for changes based on revenues. Essentially, test three requires the same funding as
the previous year plus .5% (EdSource, 2010c). It is important to note that a maintenance
factor comes into play if test three is used, and requires that if funds are reduced, it must
17

be “restored over time to the minimum guarantee level, beginning in the next year”
(EdSource, p.5, 2010c).
A consequence of Proposition 98 has been that categorical funding has grown
exponentially since passage because lawmakers have been reluctant to put money in the
general fund (Timar, 2004). According to the Fiscal Report (2010), due to the current
fiscal crisis and the jeopardy of education funding in general, pressures are mounting to
suspend Proposition 98. The funds received through Proposition 98 are largely
dependent on the health of the state’s economy and can be suspended with two-thirds of
the legislature’s vote (EdSource, 2010c).
Current funding structure. Currently, a district’s income is comprised of
general purpose funding, which includes the per pupil limit multiplied by the average
daily attendance, categorical funding, “miscellaneous” or other local funding, and lottery
funds (EdSource, 2010d). This seemly straightforward formula for a district’s income is
complicated based on the aforementioned propositions. Because funding is largely
dependent upon the health of the economy and directly linked to the state’s budget, the
economic crisis has affected schools particularly hard (EdSource, 2010c).
Funding for schools is comprised of federal, state, property tax, lottery and
miscellaneous sources and is distributed into two distinct segments: general purpose
funding or categorical funding. General purpose funding is a combination of base
revenue limits, revenue limit add-ons, and local property taxes. General purpose funding
fluctuates because, as noted in Proposition 98, it is linked to the economy. General
funding is the largest component of a school’s funding and comprises nearly 70% of the
18

total budget (California Department of Education, 2010). General purpose funding is
most commonly used for facilities, salaries, and supplies/textbooks (Timar, 2004).
Categorical funding represents the second largest portion of funding schools receive and
can be broken down into four distinct realms: entitlement, incentive, discretionary grants,
and mandated cost reimbursement (Timar, 2006). The purpose of these types of funds are
to fund programs or students with an identified need such as a disability or an English
language learner (Timar, 2006). Timar (2006) also noted that the rapid growth of
categorical funding is unlike other states and that it largely has to do with the passage of
Proposition 98. There are currently over 80 categorical funding programs (Timar, 2004)
and many of these categorical programs overlap and force schools to utilize funds in the
manner in which the categorical funding dictates. This has led researchers such as Grubb,
Groe, & Huerta (2004) and Timar (2006) to contend that it is an ineffective use of funds.
Figure 2.1 provides a graphic depiction of school revenue sources and their distribution.

19

Figure 2.1: California’s School Finance System

Note: Adapted from The basics of California’s school finance system by EdSource
2009a, pp. 1. Copyright 2008 by EdSource. Adapted with permission.

Response to fiscal crisis. As the United States continues to face one of the worst
economic crises since the Great Depression, California has been one of the hardest-hit
states (EdSource, 2010c; Kimitto, Parrish & Shambaugh, 2010). However, the situation
in California is not solely a making of recent of events, but rather an accumulation of
ineffective and complicated approaches as described earlier, to addressing educational
funding (EdSource, 2010c). Billions of dollars have been reduced and cut from the
budget and districts intern have been forced to reduce teaching and classified positions,
eliminate programs, mandate furloughs and pay cuts, and reduce classified staff in order
to meet their shrinking budgets (EdSource, 2010c). Even prior to the budget cuts,
California per pupil spending was one of the lowest in the country (EdSource, 2009a). In
20

2009, the legislature had to close a significant budget deficit of over 40 billions dollars,
and because a significant portion of this budget is tied to educational funding, school and
school districts would be affected significantly. In order to ease the impact of this sharp
reduction, the Legislature combined 40 out of 65 categorical funds into a block grant to
allow flexibility.
As of August 2010, the 2010-2011 state budget has yet to be passed although the
deadline has passed. Undoubtedly, there will be continued cuts to make up for the
projected 19 billion dollar deficit that will surely impact local education agencies and will
force districts to scramble to make last-minute adjustments. The current economic crisis
is not expected to diminish soon. The Legislative Analysts Office is forecasting a deficit
of 20 billion for at least the next four years (EdSource, 2010c).
One-time federal stimulus funding has back-filled some of the shortages, but
along with the monies received have come new requirements (EdSource, 2010c).
California continues to seek relief through other funding sources, including Race to the
Top funds, but none of these will serve as long term solutions to California’s deeply
troubled funding system. Due to the current fiscal crisis, the minimum level of funding
has not been met and budget revisions have been implemented mid-year to respond to an
“overly optimistic” budget projection in 2008-2009 (EdSource, p.4, 2009b). Additionally,
cost of living adjustments (COLA) were not given to districts by the legislature.
Given the current economic crisis, schools and districts have been required to
reduce spending significantly, which will have an impact on student achievement.
According to the California Educational Opportunity Report (2010), principals report the
21

following impact on students due to the fiscal crisis: 1) The needs are greater than ever,
but schools are not able to meet them, 2) budget cuts have increased class sizes, 3)
students have even more limited access to learning materials, 4) educational programs
have been eliminated, 5) professional development for teachers reduced, and 6) low-
income schools are being impacted the greatest because their schools are not able to
garner as much outside funding (donations, community support, etc.) as their wealthier
peers. The impact of the economic crisis has not been limited to traditional schools, and
is also having an impact on charter school funding.
Charter School Overview and Funding
Charter schools are being seen as an integral component to improving student
achievement based on recent directives from the Department of Education (EdSource,
2009c). Site-based autonomy, deregulation, school choice and high stakes accountability
are all hallmarks and defining elements of charter schools. A charter school’s flexibility
is not limited to funding. Charter schools exercise significant flexibility over curriculum
decisions as well as human capital (Perez, et. al., 2007; CREDO, 2009; EdSource,
2009c). Loeb, et. al., (2007) points to charter school administrators’ flexibility in being
able to terminate teachers as an advantage that charter school administrators say helps
their schools achieve. California has the highest number of charter schools in the nation,
some of the most rigorous state standards in education, and very low per pupil
expenditures when compared to other states. With the number of charter schools
continuing to increase, it is important to understand how charter schools operate and
utilize their resources.
22

History. The charter schools movement is an offshoot of school reforms such as
privations, school-based management, alternative and magnet schools (Perez, et al.,
2007). The idea of charter schools can be traced back to Ray Budde and the earliest
semblance of a charter school was in Philadelphia when they tried schools within schools
in the 1980s (Perez, et. al., 2007). After Minnesota, California was the second state to
pass legislation to allow for charter schools, and currently has the greatest number of
charters of any state with over 20% of students attending a charter school nationwide in
California (Perez, et. al., 2007). The impetus for charter schools in California was Gary
Hart who introduced Senate Bill 1448 in response to mounting calls for school choice. To
appease advocators of choice and the increasing calls for the use of vouchers in
California, Hart proposed the bill in an effort to stop vouchers. Since the initial Charter
School Act of 1992, there have been numerous legislative bills enacted such as Assembly
Bill 544 (Lempert), Assembly Bill 1137 (Reyes), and Assembly Bill 740 (Huff) to add
clarification to the initially ambiguous act (EdSource, 2010d.).
The underlying purpose of the Charter School Act, according to Education Code
47601, is to improve student achievement, to reach a diverse set and array of students,
encourage innovation, new opportunities for school staff, and finally to provide choice to
parents seeking schools that best meet their child’s need (Perez, et.al., 2007; EdSource,
2009c). Since the Charter School Act of 1992, the number of charter schools has
increased steadily and are bucking the trend of declining enrollment in traditional public
schools (EdSource, 2009b; 2009c; Perez, et. al., 2007). In 2008-2009, approximately
23

4.6% of kindergarten through twelfth grade students were enrolled in charter schools
(EdSource, 2009c). Table 2.1 displays the historical growth of charter schools.
Table 2.1: Historical Growth of Charter Schools
Academic Year Enrollment Percent of State’s Enrollment
1999-00 98,355 1.7%
2001-02 132,486 2.2%
2003-04 167,422 2.7%
2005-06 202,683 3.2%
2007-08 252,645 4.0%
(Reproduced from EdSource, 2009c)
The number of charter schools will continue to increase as states, eager for federal
funding like California, lift artificial caps in order to qualify for Race to the Top and
federal stimulus funding (EdSource, 2009a; 2009c). Additionally, converting existing
schools to charter schools is a significant portion of the Obama administration’s efforts to
turn around failing schools. (EdSource, 2009a; 2009c).
Critique of charters. Despite their rapid growth and embracement by the
Department of Education, charter schools are not without controversy and there is
continued debate regarding their effectiveness (Zimmer, Gill, Booker, et. al., 2009),
which will be discussed in a later section. Opponents argue that charter schools only
select the best students and the students they have do not represent the composition of
neighboring schools in both student demographics and parent education levels (Perez,
et.al., 2007, EdSource, 2004; 2009c). Additionally, others contend that they are not
equipped to meet the needs of students with special needs and effectively provide special
education services (Perez, et.al, 2007). Furthermore, every student that enrolls in a
24

charter schools takes with it the state’s funding and resources that would have gone to a
traditional public school (Perez, et.al., 2007).
Theory of action & management. According to Buckley & Schneider (2007),
the theory of action behind school choice is that market oriented reforms such as
inter/intra district choice, charter schools and vouchers/tax credits foster competition for
students and the funding attached to students. This competition breeds innovation,
accountability, and community engagement. The target end result of these efforts is
increased student achievement, which intern benefits both the public and private sectors
(Bulkley & Wohlstetter, 2004).
Charter schools can be new creations commonly referred to as “start-ups” or they
can conversion charters in which a traditional school converts to a charter school. Locke
High School, which was formally a part of Los Angeles Unified School District, is one of
the well-known examples of conversions. Green Dot Public Schools, petitioned and
successfully took over the school in 2008. As of 2007-2008, 83% of charters were start-
ups and 17% were conversion (EdSource, 2009c). Additionally, approximately 20% of
charter schools are non-classroom based schools (Perez, et. al, 2007; EdSource, 2009c).
Charter schools are either independently managed or managed by charter
management organizations. Charter schools are public schools that are bound by a
contract between those who are running the school and a chartering authority (EdSource,
2010b). Some of the best known charter management organizations (CMO) include
Green Dot Public Schools and the Knowledge is Power Program. In addition to these
CMOs, Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools, Aspire, Inner City Schools
25

Foundation, and Partnerships to Uplift Communities operate charter schools in
California. The growth of charter schools in California can be attributed to these charter
management organizations and play a major role in sustaining and developing these
schools (EdSource, 2009c).
Student performance. Charter schools are producing mixed student achievement
results (Perez, et.al, 2007; EdSource, 2009c). Zimmer, et al., (2009) noted that measuring
student achievement in charter schools in comparison to their traditional public school
counterparts is a complex process. EdSource (2009c) stated that RAND (2003) and
Stanford statistician, Davis Rogosa found in their research that charter schools did better
than some non-charters in certain situations, for example, certain grade level differences
but could not say that overall charter schools did better than their non-charter
counterparts.
There is research also indicating that charter schools have a negative impact on
student achievement. In EdSource’s (2009c) Performance Update, after adjusting for
factors such as parent education levels and student background, found that in many cases
charter schools did not perform as well as their traditional school counterparts. In the
CREDO National Charter School Study (2009), charters were found to have an overall
negative impact on student achievement. The longitudinal study looked at 15 states,
including California, and the District of Columbia and compared a students’ results in the
charter school to what if would have been had they attended their intended traditional
public school. In this study, CREDO (2009) found that in regards to math, 46% of the
charter schools had results that were no different than a traditional public school, 37% of
26

students in charter schools did significantly worse than if they were in a traditional public
school, and only 17% of students would have done better. The report continued to state
that charter school students also showed statistically significant decreases in reading as
well. Also noted in research is that charter schools perform substantially below their
traditional public schools in their first year of existence. According to Perez, et. al (2007),
EdSource, (2009c), and Zimmer, et. al., (2009), new charter schools do not perform as
well as charter schools who have been in existence for at least five years. Zimmer, et al.,
(2009) report showed that after a first year decline in growth, charter schools do better in
their second and third year of existence and increase their impact over time.
There is also research that indicates charters have very little impact or mixed
results. RAND (2009) conducted a study in using student data longitudinally and also
found that of the districts they studied, charter schools had not had a statistically
significant impact on student achievement (Zimmer, et. al., 2009). In the CREDO (2009)
report, concluded that California had mixed results in comparison to their traditional
school peers, which was earlier noted in a study by Budden’s (2005) analysis of the Los
Angeles Unified School District and charter schools.
There is also research stating that charter schools have a positive impact on
students. In a 2010 Mathematica study, KIPP middle schools were shown to have a
statistically significant higher performance than traditional public schools. It also goes on
to state that KIPP, as it continues to make significant gains each year, is reducing the
achievement gap. Solomon, Paark and Garcia (2001), in a study of Arizona charter
schools, noted that students attending a charter school for at least one year had greater
27

achievement than those in traditional public schools. In California, Perez, et. al., (2007)
notes a study by Smith (2003) in which charter schools in California over a five year
period had higher average API scores and have had significant gains in API growth that
exceed their counterparts. In EdSource’s (2009c) Spolight on CMOs, stated that for
elementary schools, CMO charters out performed their non-CMO counterparts. Also
noteworthy is that in the CREDO (2009) study, two groups of students—English
language learners and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds had greater growth
than if they were in traditional public schools.
Funding & resource allocation. Charter schools have significantly more
flexibility and discretion than traditional public schools and are not restricted by many
fiscal constraints and Educational Codes in California (Perez, et. al., 2007; EdSource,
2009c; Loeb. et. al., 2007). Funding for charter schools is similar to traditional schools in
many ways, and although there is significantly more flexibility, charter schools are still
held accountable to their students’ performance and can lose their charter if they do not
meet performance standards.
Similarly to how traditional schools are funded, by state, local, and federal
sources, charter schools receive their money from the same sources but have more
flexibility and discretion (EdSource, 2009b; Perez, et. al., 2007). The funding for schools
can be either general purpose or categorical funding which is distributed through the
chartering agency or state (EdSource, 2010d). The composition of charter school funding
is comprised of general purpose funding (based on revenue limit funding and dependent
upon grade levels), discretionary block grant, discretionary funds for students with
28

special needs such as English language learners, and finally programs that are not
encompassed by the block grant or discretionary fund (EdSource, 2010d; 2009c; Perez,
et. al., 2007). The general purpose block grant is comparable to a traditional school’s
general funding in terms of amount of funds received and how the resources are utilized
(EdSource, 2010d). The other portion of funds charter schools receive come in the form
of a categorical block grant, currently at $500 per student, which combines multiple
categorical programs. Charter schools are not eligible to request individual categorical
funding that are encompassed in the block grant, but can and do request money for
programs not included (EdSource, 2010d; 2009b). Charter schools also receive similar
types of federal funding and the same proportion of lottery funds, and funds for students
with special needs. Charter schools are required to belong to a Special Education Local
Plan Area (SELPA) where special education funds and additional fees (encroachment of
block grant funding) go to cover the full cost of students’ special education needs
(Anand, et al,.2006). Additional funding, instead of EIA funding, is also is derived from
extra general purpose money in which schools receive extra money for students identified
as English language learners or low-income. In 2008-2009, the amount was $319 per
student and doubled if a student falls into both categories (EdSource, 2009b). Charter
schools can receive the funding directly or through their local education agency (Perez,
et.al, 2007). As Anand, et. al., (2006) noted, charter schools should receive generally the
same amount of funding as their traditional public school counterparts, however many
researchers disagree that this occurs and argue that charter schools actually receive less
funding than traditional public schools. Charter schools, like their traditional public
29

school counterparts, were also impacted by the fiscal crisis and have had to make
necessary adjustments to their budgets and allocation of resources. In 2009-2010, charter
schools received 14% less money than the prior year (EdSource, 2010d).
In terms of facilities, charter schools are eligible for loans and state bonds or
rent/lease assistance (EdSource, 2010d; 2009b). Furthermore, Proposition 39 mandated
that charter schools receive the same resources and facilities as traditional schools. This
state ballot measure, passed in 2000 by voters, requires school districts to equitably share
their facilities with charter schools (California, 2008, Perez, et. al., 2007). This was done
in response to the fact that securing facilities was a challenge to start-up charter schools
(Perez, et. al., 2007; EdSource, 2009c).
This study will focus on the decisions that charter schools are making in the
allocation of these resources and how they are shouldering the impact of the financial
crisis. According to Perez, et. al., (2007), there has been a dearth of research in charter
school resource allocation. This study will strive to provide information regarding
adequacy in charter schools.
Adequacy and the Evidenced-Based Approach
As discussed in a prior section, California faces a complex system of funding.
Today, the legislature decides how much and where funds are distributed in a school
finance system that can be best described as complex with no direct tie to utilizing best
approaches or utilizing resources in a manner that would most benefit students (Odden &
Picus, 2008; Kirst, 2006). While there are calls to simply just increase funding overall,
this too would be ineffective—simply providing additional money to schools with no
30

guidance or direction will also fail to improve student achievement, (Loeb &Bryk, 2007;
Odden & Picus, 2008; Hanusheck & Lindseth, 2009). Currently, states and lawmakers are
trying to determine what are the adequate resources necessary to fund schools. A working
definition of adequacy is the amount of resources necessary in order for students to meet
their academic or proficiency targets (Odden & Picus, 2008; Odden, 2003; Baker, 2005;
Clune, 1994).
Before one can describe how adequacy is impacting the way we finance schools,
we must look at the prior approach to school finance and why there has been a shift to
adequacy. Up until approximately 15 years ago, policymakers focused on making sure
that schools received the same amount of money (Clune, 1994). Shifting from an inputs
only focus to a focus on inputs that leads to desired outcomes or achievement has been
the transition from equity to adequacy, which was prompted by the standards-based
reform movement. (Clune, 1994). Because No Child Left Behind (2001) held states
accountable to outcomes and educating all students to a high standard, case law also
began the shift from equity to adequacy (Odden, 2003; Rebell, 2007). As Rebell (2007)
noted, courts and states use the educational standards to determine the resources
necessary to meet these standards at a proficient level. Policy makers, pressured by
greater systems of accountability, have also intern shifted from ensuring schools receive
enough money to are schools utilizing the money they are receiving in a way that allows
students to meet higher educational standards. Results are now being linked directly to
the funding (Baker, Taylor, Vedlitz, 2008; Clune, 1994).
31

The melding of policy and finance has led to a plethora of research trying to
determine the resources necessary to meet high minimum outcomes (Baker, et. al, 2008).
The shift to adequacy can be noted in the ever-increasing number of states conducting
studies (Baker, et. al., 2008; Rebell, 2007). By 2007, there were already over 30 states
engaged in adequacy studies (Rebell, 2007). However, even with the increase in studies,
there is no set standard or agreed upon amount or type of funding to achieve adequacy
(Baker, 2005). Rather, school districts, and in the case of California, the legislature is left
to decide what adequate funding is. According to Odden (2003), the legal test to
determine if a state is providing adequate resources is to see if an average school with
average students are meeting standards and students with special needs with additional
resources, meet the same expectations. Approaches to adequacy or costing-out studies are
not without criticism and some legislatures have expressed hesitance. Hanusheck (2006)
states that these studies cannot be scientifically valid because they are inherently flawed
and based on failed and inadequate uses of existing systems within education. Baker
(2005) states that because there is doubt around current methods of adequacy, legislatures
have been unwilling to adopt new ways of funding school systems and rely on current
funding structures.
Four approaches to adequacy. Odden & Picus (2008) contend that the end goal
of No Child Left Behind (2001), standards-based education reform, and court mandated
adequacy is the same—that students achieve and meet high educational standards.
However, as noted earlier, there is not just one approach to determining what resources
are needed to meet those goals and there is debate over what it will take to achieve
32

adequacy (Odden & Picus, 2008; Baker, 2005). As described in Chapter 1, there are
currently four approaches to adequacy—professional judgment approach, successful
district approach, cost function approach, and the evidence-based approach (Odden &
Picus, 2008; Baker, et. al., 2008; Rebell, 2007; Hanuscheck 2006).
As Baker, et al., (2008) has stated, a challenge of moving toward adequacy is
there is no consensus or agreement on the best approach to determining adequacy (Baker,
et. al., 2008). Additionally, Baker, et al., (2008) and Odden (2003) assert that
theoretically all of these approaches should arrive at the same general costs, yet adequate
levels of funding based on these approaches vary greatly. Baker, et. al., (2008) also states
that these differences arise from four factors: 1) the ways costs are measured, 2) differing
definitions of adequacy, 3) variables within school districts and across studies, and 4)
differences between states and the influence of policy. These approaches or studies can
be grouped into either a top-down or a bottom-up approach. In the top-down approach,
districts and schools are analyzed and a cost is derived from what is learned. In the
bottom-up approach, ingredients or strategies for an effective school are combined and a
model is built and a cost is determined (Baker, et al., 2008).
Success school/district approach. An example of a top-down approach is the
success school/district approach (Baker, et. al., 2008). It is also the most frequently used
approach to determining adequacy (Hanusheck & Lindseth (2007). Developed by John
Augenblick and John Myers, its starting point is with data, such as student achievement
results or schools that are deemed to be performing well (Rebell, 2007). From the data,
the researchers then look at the districts or schools that have achieved a level of success
33

as defined by meeting established goals of the states. Once those schools or districts are
identified, the amount of money they spend is averaged to determine an adequate level of
spending (Baker, et. al., 2008; Rebell, 2007). Colorado, Kansas, Illinois, Maryland,
Mississippi and Ohio are states that have utilized this approach (Loeb, 2007; Odden,
2003). A criticism of the successful school/district approach is that it is difficult to
translate or to generalize broadly, particularly when working with an urban or rural
district (Loeb, 2007; Odden, 2003). Many times, the successful schools used in this
approach were comprised of students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds and did
not represent the diversity of most schools and districts and it would be extremely
difficult to cost-out these factors (Hanusheck & Lindseth, 2007).
Cost function approach. Cost function approach is also an example of a top-
down approach (Baker, et. al., 2008). In this approach, data, such as student achievement
is taken and linked to what resources are utilized (Loeb, 2007; Odden, 2003). A
regression analysis is performed with the expenditure per student as the dependent
variable and student and district characteristics, along with target levels of achievement,
as the independent variables (Odden, 2003). This model attempts to determine costs for
student groups and takes into account students with special needs (Rebell, 2007).
Criticism of this approach, along with the successful district approach, is that they do not
identify specific strategies that should be tied to the resources or funding (Odden, 2003).
Additionally, this complex approach can be difficult to understand due to the requirement
of large amounts of data, student characteristics, and school expenditures per-pupil
(Hanushek & Lindseth, 2009; Rebell, 2007).
34

Professional judgment approach. The professional judgment approach was a
outgrowth of the Resource Cost Model developed by Jay Chamber and Thomas Parrish in
the 1980s (Rebell, 2007). The professional judgment approach is an example of a bottom-
up study (Baker, et. al., 2008). In this approach, resources that educational professionals
and policy makers deem as important in educating students are combined to determine a
cost (Baker, et. al., 2008; Rebell, 2007; Odden, 2003). A critique of this approach is that
the strategies that the professionals deem as necessary are many times based on their
opinion and not research. Additionally, the participants involved may overstate the actual
strategies and resources needed and fail to identify the minimum level of funding
required to attain the highest results (Hanuscheck & Lindseth, 2007; Odden, 2003).
Evidenced based approach. The foundation for this study will be in the Evidence-
Based Model. The Evidenced-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) is an example of a
bottom-up study (Baker, et. al., 2008). In this type of study, consultants base a cost by
combining necessary research-based methods of improving student performance and
develop a model to reflect these strategies and practices. This approach combines both
staffing needs and educational strategies to determine an adequate level of funding which
is intern developed into a prototypical or model elementary, middle, and high school
(Odden & Picus, 2008). The research used is derived from scientifically sound studies
using randomized experimental studies, sound controls, and best practice research.
(Odden & Picus, 2008; Rebell, 2007) To determine the adequacy level, a total cost is
determined by assigning a cost to each strategy and then adding the aggregate of those
strategies (Odden, 2003; Odden, et al., 2005). This approach, designed by Odden & Picus
35

(2008), has been used in the states such as Wyoming and Arkansas (Odden, et al., 2007).
Figure 2.2, gives a graphical depiction of the Evidenced-Based Model (Odden & Picus,
2008).
Figure 2.2: The Evidence Based Model

Modified from Picus, L.O., Odden, A., Aportela, A., Mangan, M.T., and Goetz, M.
(2008)
Inst ru c t ion a l
Ma t e r i a l s
Pupil Support :
Pa re nt /Co m m uni t y
Out reac h/
Invol ve m e n t
Gift ed
Tut ors and pupil support :
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
20%
M i ddle
20%
High Sc hool 33%
The Evidence Based Model:
A Research Driven Approach to Linking Resources to Student Performance
K -3: 15 t o 1
4-12: 25 t o 1
St at e and CESAs
Dist ric t Adm in
Sit e-based Leadership
Te a c her
Co m pen sa t i on
ELL
1 per
10 0
Te c h nology
36

Figure 2.2 represents the fundamental components of Odden & Picus’ (2008)
Evidenced-Based Model and each component of this model is research based. The
following will describe the rationale for the core, specialists, extended support,
specialized education, and professional development components and will provide
evidence and research as it relates to the elementary prototype.
Core. At the core of the model is the low student to teacher ratio, which calls for
15 students to one teacher in grades kindergarten through third and 25 students to one
teacher in grades fourth through twelfth. This aspect of the model is the most costly, but
as research has indicated, students in kindergarten through third grade who have a ratio of
15 to 1, have greater achievement in both mathematics and literacy (Odden & Picus,
2008). Additionally, the positive impact of lower class size is magnified when
implemented with students from low-income or minority backgrounds (Odden & Picus,
2008). This assertion was made partly based on Tennessee’s STAR study in which a
randomized experimental design was utilized in testing a student teacher ratio of 15:1.
The study controlled for socioeconomic status, and this lower ratio produced significant
academic results for the students (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Specialists. In order to meet the needs of educating all students and developing
teachers, Odden & Picus (2008) propose an additional 20% of core teachers as specialist
teachers. This equates to 4.8 full time equivalents (FTE) for the prototypical elementary
school. Instructional trainers and coaches are built into the model at one coach for every
200 students and they would develop and implement the instructional program and
support teachers in their continual development (Odden & Picus. (2008).
37

Specialized education & extended support. Furthermore, the Evidenced-Based
Model takes into account students from diverse backgrounds with special learning needs.
For the students who need additional support, they provide tutoring, instruction for
English language learners, an extended or longer day, summer school, and a different and
new approach to funding special education (Odden & Picus, 2008). The model calls for
extended support, summer school, extended day, one ELL support provider for every 100
students, and one tutor or pupil support per 100 students at risk. Supported by research,
the model also places a special focus on one-on-one tutoring delivered by a highly trained
teacher (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Professional development. Collaboration and time for planning are also built
into the model. Odden & Picus (2008) cite a large amount of research that justifies why
100-200 hours of professional development should be included, which would encompass
activates such as coaching, planning, and content and curriculum development. The
coaches, described earlier, will support and be the drivers of the school’s professional
development. Systematic professional development embedded within the school day is a
key lever to improving instructional practices (Odden, 2008).
Prototypical elementary school. It is important to note that when using the evidenced-
based approach, one should not solely focus on the inputs, but rather how the inputs are
being utilized and their impact. Odden & Picus (2008) state that there needs to be
monitoring and accountability and that simply gathering the resources will not suffice.
The table below demonstrates what a prototypical or model elementary would look like
utilizing the Evidenced-Based Model and reflects a small ideal school size and full day
38

kindergarten. School size research indicates that schools with between 400-600 students
are the most effective (Odden & Picus, 2008). Full day kindergarten and early childhood
education also have well-documented positive effects on student achievement. The
National Center for Education Research (Denton, West & Walston, 2003), found this
particularly true for students with lower socioeconomic status. The positive impact of
kindergarten carries through the primary grades (Odden & Picus, 2008). The return on
investment for preschool is approximately eight to ten dollars for every dollar spent
(Odden & Picus, 2008).
Each recommendation in the evidenced-based model is grounded in research-based
effective practices. Table 2.2 reflects the research of Odden & Picus, (2008) and gives
FTEs in order to implement the program described above.

39

Table 2.2: Recommendations for Adequate Resources for a Prototypical Elementary
School Element Evidence-Based Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students
Class Size K-3: 15; 4-5: 25
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for intensive PD training
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten
Administrative Support
Principal 1.0 FTE
School Site Secretary 1.0 Secretary and 1.0 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers
Instructional Facilitators/Mentors 2.2 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100 poverty students
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE for every 100 EL students
Extended Day 1.8 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled students Additional 3.0 professional teacher positions
Severely disabled students 100% state reimbursement minus federal funds
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
Pupil support staff 1.0 FTE for every 100 poverty students
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student
Technology $250 per pupil
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil
Student Activities $200 per pupil
Professional Development
$100 per pupil for other PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc. not included above
(Modified from Odden & Picus, 2008)
40

Rational for using the evidence based model. The Evidenced-Based approach
(Odden & Picus, 2008) will be utilized in this study because it is the only approach based
on research and proven strategies to increase student performance. As Loeb, Bryke, &
Hanuscheck (2007) have asserted, the most important factor is how the money will be
utilized. Although there are distracters such as Hanusheck & Lindseth (2007), who state
that it is it is impossible to assume that this model would work because there is no
guarantee that implementing all of these strategies would lead to results. A counter
argument to this would be that there are no other models in which specific research-based
strategies are the foundation of the study. Additionally, the richness of the research that
supports the strategies linked to this method is well documented. The next section will
further support this approach by discussing the literature supporting the effective
practices of improving student achievement.
Effective-Practices for Improving Student Achievement
Improving student performance is the primary focus of schools in California.
This focus has been driven by The No Child Left Behind Act (2001), which increased
systems of accountability, and has placed pressure on utilizing best practices that work
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Despite the increased level of accountability, students in
California and the nation are failing to succeed (Hanusheck, 2006). According to Loeb, et
al., (2007), California continues to not achieve at the same levels as other states and
according to National Assessment of Education Progress, the state ranks seventh lowest
in math, third lowest in reading, and second lowest in science. (p.1). However, there are
41

islands of excellence that demonstrate all students can learn and there has been plethora
of research conducted on what works in schools.
The best way to achieve this goal is to implement proven, research-based
practices. This study will utilize Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance as a framework for examining and comparing how
schools are implementing effective resource allocation. A brief description of each
strategy will be described below. Additionally, The literature reviewed in this section will
support these best practices and contain a broad overview of research in best practices
such as setting high expectations for student learning, data-based decision making,
professional development, effective instruction, extended learning opportunities for
struggling learners, and collaborative and distributive leadership.
Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance. The following is an
overview of Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student
Performance and will be used as a framework for evaluating and understanding best
practices at each school site.
1. Understanding the performance challenge. Odden & Archibald (2009) state that
the drive towards student performance is driven by five elements: NCLB,
standards-based reform movement, expectations of the business community, the
“moral” drive of educators, and competition.
2. Setting high and ambitious goals. Odden & Archibald (2009) contends that
educators must set high and ambitious goals in order to drive “quantum
improvements.” This must be done irrespective of students’ current aptitude, level
42

of performance, or demographics. Finally, even if the schools or districts do not
reach their very ambitious goals, they still have made considerable progress that
drives them to the ultimate goal of ensuring all students are making significant
gains.
3. Effective curriculum and instructional program. Odden & Archibald (2009)
suggest that that districts adopt a new and effective curriculum citing that of the
districts studied, none made improvements simply by “working harder” at their
current curriculum and instruction. Once the new curriculum and instructional
program has been developed, schools must support collaborative development
amongst its teachers in its implementation through continual professional
development. By ensuring that the curriculum is systemic, schools and districts
can best support teachers in their instructional program.
4. Effective use of data and continual improvement. Odden & Archibald (2009)
stress the importance of utilizing benchmark and formative assessments and data-
based decision making because it is at the core of continual improvement. These
assessments guide a teachers’ instruction and add additional information about the
student, which allow teachers and schools to target their needs.
5. Ongoing and intensive professional development. The key resources required in
order to have an effective and ongoing professional development program include
pupil-free days, training funds, instructional coaches, and collaborative time
embedded into the school day (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
43

6. Effective and efficient use of time. In terms of elementary schools, there are
two key approaches to using time more efficiently and effectively. First, there are
benefits to extending the school year and day, and secondly, time for core subjects
must be protected and in some cases, provide extended time in math and reading
(Odden & Archibald, 2009).
7. Extended learning time for students. When students struggle to learn concepts,
it is important to offer them extended opportunities and learning times. Odden &
Archibald (2009) offer suggestions such as double periods, tutoring, extended day
and summer school programs in core areas to provide the much needed “extra
help” (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
8. Collaborative cultures and distributed leadership. Professional learning
communities or teacher teachers are an important component of collaborative
cultures and distributed leadership. A collaborative culture is one where all
teachers work together to improve instruction and distributed leadership involves
multiple stakeholders at a school site driving the professional development and
improvement of the school (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
9. Professional and best practices. Professional and best practices involves using
research and engaging in it to drive professional practice, seeking out best
practices, reaching out for advice from knowledgeable organizations and
individuals, and finally not working in isolation to improve practices (Odden &
Archibald, 2009).
44

10. Human capital. At the heart of school improvements is the human capital
component that involves principal and teacher talent. This involves not only
securing the best talent, but also managing and training those individuals (Odden
& Archibald, 2009).
All ten of these strategies are supported by research and studies done on
successful schools that have made significant improvement. The sections below will
provide additional insight and support for these research-based best practices.
Setting High Expectations. Odden & Archibald (2009) state that it is essential to
set very high and ambitious goals, and to actively strive to reach these goals. Setting high
expectations or goal setting can be done at various levels. At the school level it can
encompass API goals and at the classroom level it can be individual learning and
classroom achievement objectives that are clearly communicated to the students.
Regardless of the level, research has shown that all students can learn and a teacher or
parents’ expectations of a child can greatly affect their performance (Resnick, 2005;
Marzano, 2003, Odden, Borman, & Fermanich, 2004). In research that has been
conducted, the act of merely setting a goal leads to statistically significant results
(Wilson, 2003). Additionally, there is scientific basis and support for the theory of
malleable intelligence, in which a students’ intelligence can be affected positively
through challenging interactions with instruction (Horn & Cattell, 1966; Marzano, 2003).
However, setting high expectations and achieving those expectations require monitoring
and giving feedback to students in regards to what extent they are meeting those
challenging goals. Although goal setting may seem like a fairly straightforward extension
45

of setting high expectations, it is not readily implemented (Mac Iver & Farley, 2003,
Datnow, 2005). In order for this approach to be engrained in the school community, it
must be a part of a greater effort of improving student performance. Data-based decision
making is a critical component to helping schools reach the high expectations they have
set for their students.
Data-Based Decision Making. After high expectations are solidified and goals
are set, data-based decision making becomes a key lever to meeting hose high
expectations. Johnson (2002), Weiss (2007), Boudett & Steele (2007), Datnow, Park, and
Wohlstetter (2006), and EdSource (2006) state that when teachers use data to inform
instruction, considerable improvements in student results are evident. Weiss (2007) and
Datnow, et. al., (2006) state that before data can be utilized, a foundation for effective use
must be established which includes a culture of open data use and continuous
improvement, investment in data storage systems, utilizing the correct data, building the
ability and capacity for data to be used at the school site, and finally acting upon and
driving instruction based on the data. Fisher & Frey (2007) stress the importance of
systematic formative assessments to collect data on student achievement and to guide
instruction. These authors contend that using data goes beyond state standardized test
results, and that teachers must continually check for understanding during the school
year. Johnson (2002) recommends having leadership and data teams to lead a school-
wide effort in using data in every aspect of instructional practice—this can be data from
formative and summative classroom assessments to state-wide standardized assessments.
46

Data-based decision making essentially sets the stage for the cycle of continuous
improvement. Data is used to drive instruction, data post-instruction is then examined to
see if instruction was effective, professional development provided to the teacher if it is
not, and adjustments made to instruction to continue the cycle of continuous
improvement.
Effective Instruction. Once teachers are equipped with the data and have
analyzed it effectively, the next step is to provide effective instruction to address any
gaps in learning (Weiss, 2007). Marzano (2003) listed ten research-based strategies in his
book, Classroom Instruction that Works, which include: 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, and finally cues,
questions and advance organizers. According to Marzano (2003), these strategies were
selected based on a meta-analysis and the aforementioned strategies had the greatest
effect size. Furthermore, the method called direct instruction (also referred to as gradual
release of responsibility) to implement these strategies is the most effective in instructing
students who are struggling (Fisher & Frey, 2007). Just as important as the strategies, is
the content, and Odden et. al., (2004) asserts that there must be a high cognitive demand
in the content as well as rigor. Additionally, for students who are struggling, there must
be a focus on core subject areas such as mathematics and English (Odden & Picus, 2008).
All of the strategies mentioned above are research based, but the largest impact is
not the implementation in a couple of classrooms, but rather the systematic professional
47

development, support, and implementation of these practices (Elmore, 2003; Marzano,
2003). Collaborative and distributive leadership allow for the development, support, and
implementation of these practices on a school-wide scale.
Extended Learning Opportunities. Even with the most effective strategies being
implemented, there are students who will not grasp the material the first time given the
degree of prior knowledge and special needs. Because of this, students must be given
multiple opportunities to master the material (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Students in
California come from a variety of backgrounds and many have special needs and may be
English language learners or at-risk based on their socioeconomic status. Many times,
these students are not achieving at grade level and need not only additional support
structures but many times, a longer day and longer school year. Research has indicated
that if additional time is spent ensuring that students reach mastery it impacts students
positively (Silva, 2007; Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999). Extended day or year
programs, as implemented by some charter schools in Los Angeles, are reflective of an
extended opportunity. Other ways of extending learning opportunities include tutoring
and summer school. However, these opportunities must be implemented in a systematic
way with a focus on academic instruction in order for it to be effective (Odden & Picus,
2008).
Collaborative and Distributive Leadership. In order to effectively implement
the aforementioned strategies, collaborative and distributive leadership is essential to
ensuring that improvements made are durable and school-wide. Elmore (2000), Odden.
et. al., (2004), Abbot & McNight, (2010) and Bolman & Deal, (1994, 2003) have stated
48

that the days of a principal being the top-down manager of the school should and are
giving way to a principal that is an instructional leader who embraces collaborative and
distributive leadership. However, the principal as the sole instructional leader does not
invest teachers in the process of collaboratively improving student outcomes (Abbott &
McNight, 2010). It is vitally important to invest teachers in their own learning because it
enhances their effectives as well as develops them as teachers. This is crucial because
teachers are the great lever in student achievement (Birman, et al., 2000). There are
several approaches to developing this collaborative partnership, but one of the most well-
known is the professional learning community (Dufour, et al., 2006). This type of
professional development, meets the six criteria that Garet, et al. (2001) uses to evaluate a
high quality professional development program, especially in regards to duration, focus
on content, ability to promote coherence, and the provision of active learning
opportunities. Additionally, research has shown that if teachers and school leadership are
provided with a systematic way of working together with agreed upon structures to
collaborate, use inquiry, and be coached by peer facilitators, there is a demonstrated and
significant impact on student achievement (Abbott & McNight, 2010). Collaborative and
distributive leadership are key components to ensuring the success of and fostering
school-wide high expectations, setting ambitious goals, utilizing data, and guaranteeing
effective instructional practices are supported and coached (Dufour, et. al., 2006; Abbott
& McNight, 2010).

49

Summary
The 2009-2010 budget provides 56.7 billion for education and is the state’s
largest expenditure. However, the source of these funds and the distribution are quite
complex and have been shaped by legislative and court efforts such as Serrano,
Proposition 13, and Proposition 98. The literature reviewed in this section has explored
how California schools have been affected by court decisions and propositions, the
impact of the current fiscal crisis, as well as described the evolution of charter schools in
California. Furthermore, a review of literature in regards to adequacy supported the
study’s use of the Evidenced-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and an overview of
best practices was presented which were used as a framework to analyze and report the
study’s results. This literature has provided the foundation and support to guide the
purpose of this study, which is to analyze how four charter schools in Los Angeles,
California are utilizing resources at their school site.

50

CHAPTER 3 – METHODS
This chapter will describe how the study analyzed charter school expenditures
during a time of fiscal constraint. Specifically, the methodology will be outlined and the
following will be described: how the sample and population were chosen; the
instrumentation used to collect data; procedures for data collection; and how data was
analyzed.
Charter schools have significant flexibility in how they choose to allocate their
resources. This study originally proposed to look out how successful schools and less
successful charter schools were absorbing the reduction in funding described in Chapters
1 and 2, and what decisions they are making in the usage of their fiscal resources.
Specifically, the decisions and their effect on student outcomes of these high performing
charter schools was going to be compared to less successful charter schools to see if there
was a difference in decision-making and resource allocation. However, five, mostly lower
performing schools either submitted incomplete information or did not respond to
requests to participate. Because of this, the study evolved to become an examination of
four high performing charter schools with high percentages of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students.
The Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) and Ten Strategies for
Doubling Student Performance (Odden & Archibald, 2009) was used as a framework for
analyzing resource allocation and best practices implemented at these charter school sites.

51

The questions that guided this research included:
 What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the charter
schools studied?
 How are resources at the schools used to implement their instructional
improvement plan?
 How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response to
the recent budget adjustments including overall funding reductions and changes in
the use of categorical funds?
 To what extent are the actual resource use patterns at the school sites aligned with
or different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based or other
model?
In order to understand how schools utilized their funds in a time of fiscal constraints,
a mixed method was used with an emphasis in qualitative data. Qualitative data was
gathered through interviews with school leadership regarding their usage of various
resources as well as the instructional focus to improve student performance. Interviews
with the principal, who served as the primary informant regarding these qualitative
measures, were semi-structured to allow for follow-up and clarifying questions, and
covered topics such as, resource allocation, instructional leadership, and accountability.
Quantitative data, such as student test scores, number of teachers, and API was also
collected. This data was compiled and analyzed in conjunction, and a narrative in the
form of a case study was written to describe how schools were utilizing their resources.
Utilizing a mixed method approach, such as the one described above, allowed the
52

researcher to interpret the data in context and allowed the researcher to understand how
each individual charter school managed its limited resources (Creswell, 2009).
Population & Sample
The original focus of this research was to study eight elementary charter schools in
the Los Angeles area using purposeful sampling. The schools were chosen based on their
2008-2009 API scores or other standardized achievement results, percentage of free and
reduced lunch, school size, and method of delivering instruction according to the
following criteria:
(1) Half of the schools in the sample must have earned an API below 750 or have
standardized achievement results that demonstrated performance not meeting
standards in the 2008-2009 school year.
(2) Half of the schools in the sample must have earned an API higher than 800 or
have standardized achievement results that demonstrated performance meeting
standards in the 2008-2009 school year
(3) All schools must have at least 50% of their students classified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged.
(4) The schools must have an enrollment of at least 100 students and instruction must
be primarily delivered through the classroom (not online-based learning).
These schools were identified through two sources—The Center on Educational
Governance’s 2009 Charter School Indicators and the California Department of
Education’s website. Using the criteria listed above, eight schools were initially identified
53

and a ninth school, was added later in the study. Table 3.1 displays the sample school’s
enrollment and percentage of socioeconomically disadvantaged.
Table 3.1: Sample Schools - Enrollment and Percentage SED

Source: California Department of Education (2010).
a
All school names are pseudonyms.
b
Timothy was not part of the original sample population, but was added
to ensure a minimum of four participating schools.

Four of the sample schools Delano, Byron, Amarado, and West, had 800 or above
API scores for the 2008-2009 school year. However, the progress toward or maintenance
of that goal is very different. Delano showed consistent and demonstrated growth from
2004-2009, and the 2008-2009 school year was the first year that it reached an API of
800. Whereas charter schools Byron, Amarado, and West have had fluctuating
performance levels all five years, but have remained above an API of 800. Overall, only
Delano has demonstrated consistent growth every year. Additionally, with the exception
of Delano, all of the schools in this grouping have had API scores above 800 since 2004-
School
1
Total Enrollment Socioeconomically Disadvantaged
Oliver 667 89%
Delano 530 98%
Byron 353 98%
Amarado 276 87%
Tyler 277 83%
Kellogg 204 97%
Ridge 302 92%
West 270 50%
Timothy
b
306 91%
54

2005. Timothy, which does not have API scores due its new status, scored well above
grade level expectations on the Stanford Achievement Test. Table 3.2 displays the
longitudinal API scores for the four highest performing sample schools with API scores
in 2008-2009.
Table 3.2: Longitudinal API Scores for Schools Above 800
School
a

2004-2005
API
2005-2006
API
2006-2007
API
2007-2008
API
2008-2009
API
Delano 651 697 740 779 817
Amarado n/a
b
854
c
814
c
808 852
Byron 789 801 819 825 813
West 822 810 788 813 853

Source: California Department of Education (2010).
a
Timothy not included in chart due to lack of API
score.
b
No data available for the year.
c
Amarado was considered a small school in these years as defined by
the California Department of Education and therefore these API scores are less reliable.

Four of the proposed sample schools, Oliver, Kellogg, Tyler, and Ridge had less than
an 750 API for the 2008-2009 school year. Like many of the higher performing schools
discussed earlier, these schools had fluctuations in their API scores. Oliver had been
relatively stagnant from 2004-2009, with scores that oscillated up and down nearly every
year, and overall decreased its API by one point during this time period. Kellogg had
steady growth for most years, and an 81 point growth spike in 2007-2008 and a 24 point
drop in 2008-2009. Tyler has had a steady growth every year but a drop in 2009. Finally,
Ridge’s scores have gone up and down nearly every year, but from 2004-2009 have
grown by 88 points. Table 3.3 displays longitudinal API scores from 2004-2009 for the
four proposed school who had below a 750 API in the 2008-2009 school year.

55

Table 3.3: Longitudinal API Scores for Schools Below 750
School
2004-2005
API
2005-2006
API
2006-2007
API
2007-2008
API
2008-2009
API
Oliver 702 679 715 713 701
Kellogg 577 585 620 701 677
Tyler 554 651 674 735 702
Ridge 597 674 653 643 685
Source: California Department of Education (2010).

From the initial sample of eight schools, four schools, Delano, Byron, Amarado
and Oliver initially agreed to participate. Although Oliver agreed to participate and was
interviewed, the school did not provide quantitative data and was eliminated from the
study. To ensure there were at least four sample schools, one additional school that met
the criteria, Timothy, was contacted and agreed to participate.
Limitations of Sample
The charter schools studied had varying degrees of growth. This sample was
comprised of schools managed by charter management organizations (CMO) and
independent charters. The ability to make generalizations based on the data and the case
studies is limited to schools with similar demographics as well as management structures.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
In order to complete a valid and reliable study, training on the use of the
instruments and questions was conducted in March of 2010. The instrumentation and
questions were developed by Lawrence O. Picus and Associates and contains a data
56

collection protocol. The data collected was compared against the Evidenced-Based
Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) to evaluate actual school spending. Training for the use of
the instrumentation covered the data collection protocol, the entry of the data into a
secure online database, and field note taking.
Charter schools were contacted by phone and email, given a brief description of
the study and the level of participation required at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school
year to participate. Data collection occurred in December of 2010 and January of 2011.
Data collection was focused on staffing resource, professional development
expenditures, and efforts to improve the school’s instructional practices. Principals of the
school sites were the primary respondents, and data gathered from them was in the form
of an in person interview that lasted up to two hours. Additionally, information regarding
the school was requested prior to the visit to guide questions . Prior to visiting a school
site, the researcher shared the framework and the interview protocol with the interviewee
as well as requested the following documents from the school support staff: SARC,
master schedule, staff list for the school and district, school schedule, information
regarding consultants, class size information, funds for daily substitutes, information
related to budgetary reductions, school budget and general approach to allocating school
funds and budget for professional development. Interviews with the school leader focused
on the improvement process and the devotion of resources to this process. Structured
predetermined questions were asked in the interview. Additionally, probing and
clarifying questions were utilized as necessary. No student names were recorded and no
observations were made of instructional practices.
57

Following the interview, data collected from the visit was entered into an online
database. A draft of the case study was sent to the principal to ensure that information
was accurately captured and represented.
Analyzing Data
Once data collection was complete, quantitative data was compared to the
Evidenced-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) for each site. The Evidence Based
Model was used as a point of comparison to examine resource allocation to determine if
schools were meeting adequacy standards. The model takes into account both the school
profile and resources. The data collected was compared to the Evidenced-Based Model’s
prototypical school. The Evidence-Based Model provides guidelines for the school’s
profile in the following areas: school configuration, enrollment, class size for
kindergarten through third grade and fourth through eighth grade, availability of full day
kindergarten, number of teacher work days, number of students with disabilities, number
of students in poverty, English language students, and minority students. The model
compares resource allocation using these indicators: number of core and specialist
teachers, instructional facilitators and/or mentors, tutors, teachers designated specifically
for English learners, extended days, summer school, teachers for learning disabled
students, substitutes, pupil support, non instructional aids, librarians, principals and
school site secretaries. Additionally, funds directed toward GATE students, professional
development, technology, instructional materials, and student activities were examined.
58

Qualitative data regarding school practices was compared against Odden &
Archibald’s (2009) strategies for increasing student performance. These strategies, which
were described in Chapter 2, are:
1. Understanding the performance problem and challenge
2. Setting ambitious goals
3. Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
4. Formative assessments and data-based decision making
5. Ongoing, intensive professional development
6. Using time efficiently and effectively
7. Extending learning time for struggling students
8. Collaborative, professional culture
9. Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
10. Professional and best practices
The data was evaluated using the aforementioned frameworks, and a case study of
each individual site was prepared. Each case study included a background on the school
and its charter management organization if applicable and standardized test results such
as longitudinal API scores, STAR results or Stanford Achievement Test results.
Additionally, recently released 2009-2010 data was included. These case studies also
describe core elements of the improvement process engaged by the school and gave a
holistic understanding of what is occurring at each school side and the student outcomes
linked to these practices. Specifically, key elements of the improvement process was
outlined to identify themes of the improvement process using Odden & Archibald’s
59

(2009) strategies, and a comparison of actual resource use to the Evidenced-Based
Model (Odden & Picus, 2008). Furthermore, the researcher included a synopsis of the
school in the form of lessons learned and future considerations. Finally, data from all
schools were aggregated to identify potential themes in school resource usage,
differences in decision-making, and what, if any, impact the budget reductions have had.
This cross site analysis allowed the researcher to identify themes such as what strategies
and decisions are allowing schools to make continual progress and improvement in their
API scores.
Summary
This chapter described the methodology that was utilized in order to answer the
four research questions. Specifically, this chapter described the population and sample of
charter schools, instrumentation and data collection tool utilized during the research, and
a data analysis protocol. The following chapter will address the findings from the site
visits and data collections of the four schools studied to determine how their resources are
being allocated to improve student achievement using Odden & Archibald’s (2009) Ten
Strategies for Doubling Student Performance, and if resource alignment is in line with
research based practices using the Evidenced Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008).

60

CHAPTER 4 – FINDINGS
The purpose of this study is to analyze how four charter schools in Los Angeles,
California were implementing school improvement strategies and utilizing resources at
their school site to impact student achievement. This chapter will present the findings for
each of the research questions outlined in Chapter 3. The findings will describe each
schools’ instructional vision and improvement strategy, how resources are utilized to
implement their instructional improvement plan, how the current fiscal crisis is affecting
their allocation of resources, and how actual resource patterns are aligned with the
Evidence Based Model (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008).
The schools sampled to answer these research questions were all public
elementary charter schools located in areas of high poverty in Los Angeles, all of whom
had high levels of student achievement as measured by standardized student test results.
Detailed case studies of each school can be found in appendices H through K.
Summary of Sample Schools’ Characteristics and Performance
In selecting schools for the study, school size, percentage of socioeconomically
disadvantage students, and primary method of instruction were utilized as criteria. The
schools’ studied served students ranging in grades prekindergarten to eighth grade.
Enrollment for the schools also ranged from 201 to 650 students. All of the schools
studied had high percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged students, which ranged
from 89% to 98% of the total student population. The instruction provided by the schools
was in person and not online based. Two of the schools studied, Byron and Amarado, are
independent charter schools and the other two, Timothy and Delano, are managed by a
61

charter management organization. Figure 4.1 shows the characteristics of the sample
schools selected for this study.
Table 4.1: Characteristics of Sample Schools

School Grades Enrollment % Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged
Byron K-6 335 91%
Timothy
1
K-1 201 91%
Delano PreK-8 650 98%
Amarado K-6
2
276 89%

1
Has expanded to a K-2 school, and eventually K-4.
2
Has expanded to a K-7 school and
eventually K-8

The schools varied in ethnic composition, but each had a majority minority
population. Timothy and Delano elementary schools each had over a 97% Latino student
population with the remainder African American. Byron’s student population is 92%
African American and 8% Latino. Amarado had the most diverse school studied with
81% of the students Latino, 8.6% Asian, 3.4% African American, 3% White and .3%
Filipino. Figure 4.1 shows the ethnic breakdown of the sample schools.

62

Figure 4.1: Ethnic Breakdown of the Sample Schools

All of the schools studied had very high numbers of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students, ranging from 87-98% of the total student population and at all
but one school, Byron, over 48% of the students were English language learners. The
students at Byron, although not traditional English language learners, are provided
instructional support in developing standard academic English. The school provides
services to these students because the English they speak is considered linguistically
different than the standard English that is spoken in schools. Figure 4.2 displays the
percentage of socioeconomically disadvantaged and English learners at each school site
and a comparison to the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008).

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Byron Timothy Delano Amarado
Percentage
Unknown
White
Filipino
Asian
African American
Latino
63

Figure 4.2: SED and EL Percentage by School

In comparison to the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008), which does not recommend
school characteristics or school size, but is based on a prototypical school of 50%
socioeconomically disadvantaged and 10% English language learners in which the
school’s recommended staffing and resource allocation is derived, the schools in the
study had higher needs than the protyptical school with a much higher percentage of
English learners and socioeconomically diadvantaged students. This is significant
because schools with such large percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged and
ELL students may have more complex and difficult education needs than the more
average prototypical schools used as examples in the development and description of the
EBM.

92
91
98
87
50
4
68
52
48
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Byron Timothy Delano Amarado EBM School
Percentage
SED
EL
64

Achievement Data
Standardized Test Results. All of the sample schools studied had a high level of
achievement as measured by standardized tests. Byron, Delano and Amarado student
achievement was analyzed based on their Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
results that are given to students in grades two and above. Timothy, because it is a new
school and only served students in kindergarten and first grade in the 2009-2010 school
year, does not have STAR results and therefore does not have an Academic Performance
Index (API) or simliar schools ranking. Timothy, however, did independently adminster
the Stanford Achievement Test 10 (SAT 10) which will be discussed at the end of this
section.
Byron, Delano, and Amarado all demonstrated growth from 2006-2010 based on
their API scores which are directly calculated from STAR results. The API range is 200-
1,000 with the state goal of 800. According to the California Department of Education
(CDE), only 51% of elementary schools had APIs at or above 800 in 2010. The 2010 API
for Byron, Delano and Amarado were 860, 859, and 874 respectively. From 2006-2010,
Byron grew by 59 points, Delano by 162 points, and Amarado by 20 points. For
Amarado, it is important to note that according to the CDE, because the school was
identified as a small school (having between 11 and 99 valid STAR program test scores
in 2006 and 2007), these numbers are not as reliable as APIs calculated with a larger
student body and should be carefully interpreted. If using API scores for Amarado from
2008-2010, the school demonstrated a gain of 66 points. Figure 4.3 displays the three
schools’ API from 2006-2010.
65

Figure 4.3: Annual API Scores for Byron, Delano, and Amarado from 2006-2010

School rankings. California calculates the simliar schools ranking utilizing a
school characteristics index and takes into account factors such as parent education,
percent of students participating in free or reduced lunch and teacher characteristics.
California takes these characteristics and student achievement results and then places the
school into a decile. A ranking of 10 indicates it is in the top 10% of all schools with
similar characteristics and a ranking of one would mean it is in the bottom 10% of all
schools with simliar characteristics. The state-wide decile ranking is a comparison of how
a school compares to all schools within California.
In 2010, the similar schools ranking for all three schools was a 10, with a state-
wide ranking of six for Byron, seven for Delano, and eight for Amarado. Between 2006-
2010, Byron’s state-wide ranking decreased from a seven to a six, but its similar schools
ranking remained the same at 10. Delano’s statewide ranking increased from a two to
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Byron Delano Amarado
Academic Performance Index
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
66

seven during this same period, and its simliar schools ranking increased from four to 10.
Because Amarado was a new school in 2005, there is not a similar school or state-wide
ranking in 2006 available. Its current state-wide ranking is an eight and simliar schools
ranking a 10. Table 4.2 displays both the state-wide and similar schools ranking for
Byron, Delano, and Amarado.
Table 4.2: Similar School & Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools
School Byron Delano Amarado
Year 2006 2010 2006 2010 2006 2010
State-wide
Ranking
7 6 2 7 N/A 8
Similar
Schools
Ranking
10 10 4 10 N/A 10

Adequate yearly progress. The goal of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is that by
2013-2014, all students will have 100% proficiency in mathematics and English
language arts. States must meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward this goal.
California has set benchmarks toward meeting this goal and in order to meet the federal
law’s requirement of AYP, students must meet Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO)
which are derived from STAR results. The 2009-2010 targets were 56.8% proficient or
advanced in English and 58% proficient or advanced in mathematics. Byron, Delano, and
Amarado met the statewide target in both English language arts and mathematics based
on schoolwide percent of students scoring proficient or advanced. In all three of these
schools, the students were either overhwelming African American or Latino. The
significant subgroups, 15% of the student population as defined by the CDE, at these
schools were either socioeconomically disadvataged, English language learners or both.
67

When available, the performance of each ethnic or racial grouping of students was
examined, as well as socioeconomic status and English language learner designation. In
all three of the schools, the performance of these subgroups mirrored the school-wide
performance. Because of this, the school-wide AYP will be used to discuss student
performance at these three schools.
Byron’s 2006-2010 growth in English language arts was 10 percentage points.
The growth at Byron is not consistent, and the school has experienced declines between
years of growth. In 2006, 55.1% students were proficient or advanced, in 2007 it declined
to 49.4%, rose in 2008 to 54%, declined in 2009 to 48.9%, and surged in 2010 to 56.8%.
Delano has experineced continous growth from 2006-2010 and increased the
number of students proficient or advanced in English language arts by 35.8 percentage
points during this period. The growth has been steady and incremental. In 2006, only
26.5% of students were proficient or advanced, but it grew by 10 points to 36.9% in
2007, another 8 points in 2008 to 45.1%, and continued growing to 53.1% and then
62.3% in 2009 and 2010 respectively.
Amarado, like Byron, has experienced periods of decline between periods of
growth in English language arts. It is important to note that since Amarado was
considered a small school in 2006 and 2007, as defined by the CDE, its API is not as
reliable as those APIs calculated on based on larger populations. Because of this, the
schoolwide percentage of students scoring advanced or proficient in English language
arts in 2006 is based on a much smaller population than the number of students scoring in
these bands in 2010. During this period, the school grew 1.3%. In 2006, the first year in
68

which the school had student achievement results, 61.1% of students scored proficient
or advanced. This number declined to 55.9% in 2007, rose to 61.1% in 2008, declined
slightly to 59.3% and rose again to 62.4% in in 2010.
From 2006-2010, each of the aforementioned schools grew in English language
arts, but in different patterns. Two of the schools, Byron and Amarado, had both periods
of decline and growth. Delano was the only school that grew every year. All schools
exceeded the AYP targets for every year from 2006-2010. Currently, all schools are
achieving similarly in English language arts with 65.2% of Byron, 62.3% of Delano, and
62.4% of Amarado students scoring proficient or advanced. Figure 4.4 compares the
2006-2010 schoolwide percent of students scoring proficient or advanced at each of these
three schools to the AYP target set by the state.
Figure 4.4: ELA – Schoolwide Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

In mathematics, the overall performance of these three schools was higher than in
English language arts. From 2006-2010, Byron and Delano demonstrated growth and
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Percentage Proficient or Advanced
AYP Target
Byron
Delano
Amarado
69

Amarado a slight decline. Currently, the school’s achievement results are within five
percentage points of each other with 75.5%, 80%, and 79.1% of students scoring
proficient or advanced at Byron, Delano, and Amarado respectively.
Byron’s growth in mathematics from 2006-2010 was 7.5%. From 2006 to 2007,
the school grew from 61.1% to 70% and then held steady at 70.2% in 2008. The school
then experienced a slight decline in 2009 to 68.6% and then increased by 8.9% to 77.5%
in 2010.
Delano’s growth in mathematics is similar to their growth in English language
arts. From 2006-2010, the school has grown by 36.7% and demonstrated growth in each
year. In 2006, the school’s percentage of proficient or advanced students in mathematics
was 43.3%, and increased to 52%, 56.7%, 67.5% each year thereafter and surged in 2010
to 80%.
Amarado has experienced a 4.7% decline in the percentage of students scoring
proficient or advanced in mathematics and currently 79.1% of students are proficient or
advanced. As mentioned previously, the school was considered a small school in 2006
and 2007, and the number of students tested during this period is much lower than the
number of students tested in 2010. In 2006, 83.8% scored proficient or advanced, this
number declined sharply in 2007 to 63.3%, increased in 2008 to 80.7%, and increased
again in 2009 to 85.2%. The school experienced a slight decline in 2010, with 79.1% of
students being proficient or advanced in mathematics.
Similar to English language arts, both Byron and Delano had periods of growth
and decline, but Amarado grew consistently. Amarado also started much lower than the
70

other two schools and has had the greatest amount of growth during this period. All three
schools have consistently exceeded the AYP targets from 2006-2010. Figure 4.5 displays
all three schools’ performance in mathematics from 2006-2010 as well as the AYP target
during this period.
Figure 4.5: Math – Schoolwide Percent Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced

Stanford Achievement Test. Because 2010-2011 will be the first year that
Timothy will have a class of second grade students, there will not be STAR data until the
summer of 2011. Consequently, there are no API or AYP results. However, the school
had independently administered standardized tests, namely the SAT-10 subject test to its
kindergarten and first grade students and the results in both mathematics and reading
have been significant. Measured against first grade standards, 69% of kindergarten
students scored at or above the national average in mathematics and 93% at or above the
national average in reading. At the end of first grade, high results continued with 88%
scoring at or above the national average in math and 95% for reading. Furthermore,
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Percentage Proficient or Advanced
AYP Target
Byron
Delano
Amarado
71

Timothy’s grade level equivalents were also impressive with kindergarten students
ending their kindergarten year at a first grade equivalent in math and a 1.4 grade level
equivalent in reading. By the end of first grade, the students were performing at a 2.5
grade level equivalent in mathematics and 2.8 grade level in reading.
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Strategies
All four of the schools studied were high achieving and had clear visions and
strategies for continued achievement. The schools varied in their methods to achieving
high results for their students, but there were several commonalities in the ways in which
they approached increasing student achievement at each of the school sites. The
following section will compare each school’s approach to Odden and Archibald’s (2009)
Ten Steps for Doubling Student Achievement as well as an analysis of the degree to how
each strategy is being implemented.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. Understanding the
performance problem and challenge, as described by Odden and Archibald (2009),
requires that the schools engage in an analysis of their current performance against the
goals and have a sense of urgency that motivates them to achieve. In all four of the
schools studied, the principals of each of the schools had a background in working in
under resourced schools, and a personal track record of achievement in under resourced
schools as a classroom teacher or principal. This background has enabled these school
leaders to use their experience to positively impact their current school sites.
Additionally, all of the principals recognized the unique situations they were in,
whether it was starting a new charter school or addressing problems at a school that was
72

underperforming, they each had a very strong sense of urgency to address the problem
based on moral drive or pressure from NCLB, used student data as a starting point, and
finally, delved into their curriculum to see if it was meeting the needs of its students.
At Byron, the founders and the principal of the school deeply understand the
challenges that face students in under resourced areas and strived to create a school from
scratch that directly addressed the special needs and consideration of students in south
Los Angeles. The principal stated that she expects the education that is provided at
Timothy be at a level where any of her students would be able to attend a school such as
Marlborough or Harvard Westlake in seventh grade.
When the principal began her first year at the school, she was given the charge to
reach an API of 800. At that point, the API was 789 with a growth target of one point.
To achieve the goal of 800 API, the school focused on mathematics. They examined
student data, looked at the pacing, key standards, and the blue print of released questions.
The school created alignment between all of those components and prepared their
students similarly to what she described as endurance athletes. Additionally, they
invested heavily in developing their teachers, acknowledging the challenges of teaching
students who may not come prepared or on grade level.
Timothy strives to ensure that all of its students will “never face the achievement
gap.” This network of charter schools, whose original focus was middle schools, began
serving elementary students primarily because it made sense to prevent the achievement
gap. The regional CMO’s website states that in south and east Los Angeles, only 10% of
those who enter high school will attend college and a fraction of those, 4% will earn a
73

college degree. The CMO estimates that they will increase the annual college going rate
by 50% when its middle school alumni reach college. Timothy Charter Elementary
School is built around the principle of a results-driven education.
The organization that founded Delano is based on the premise that community
members’ needs were not being met and one of those needs is education. The school was
founded with the mindset that to overcome the reality of severe social and economic
issues that plague communities in poverty, community based services must be created to
meet the immense needs of its residents. This community empowerment approach is
reflected by the actions of the school and is seen in their decision-making processes. With
this type of founding ideology, the school understands and recognizes that its scope must
be broader than traditional schools and that it must take numerous steps to continually
address the needs of students and their families.
Amarado, which is located in a diverse community, understands the challenges of
serving a highly diverse population of students in which the majority are English
language learners and socioeconomically disadvantaged. In addition to this inherent
challenge, the school has the additional task of growing at a rapid pace, and is keenly
aware of the challenges of not only maintaining student performance but also increasing
it. As discussed in a previous section, the school has consistently scored above 800 API
since its founding. With the addition of upper grades, and the increase in class sizes for
the upper grades, new students have entered the school. Of the new students entering fifth
and sixth grade, many are behind two to three grade levels. Because of this, the school’s
administration knows that it must not only continue to challenge its current students, but
74

also provide for the needs and services of its incoming students at the upper grade levels.
In addition to the increased number of students, the school will also add more staff. The
school recognizes this challenge and is placing a significant amount of resources into
culture building and ensuring both new students and teachers reflect its high standards for
academic achievement.
Set ambitious goals. The strategy of setting very high and ambitious goals was
seen at all four charter schools studied. The goals at Byron, Timothy, and Delano
exceeded anything considered marginal or incremental improvements, and none of the
schools expressed that meeting their AYP was a goal, but rather they strived to be the
very best schools in Los Angeles. At Byron, Timothy, and Delano, specific numeric goals
were set and the staff was deeply invested in meeting those goals. Specific API goals at
the schools include 900 for Byron and Timothy, and 870 for Delano.
At Byron, the school has extremely high performance standards for their students,
where students’ work is scaled and a three out of four is considered 80% (bare minimum
to pass) and a four is 93%, which they consider mastery of grade level materials.
Children who are not proficient by the end of first grade are retained. This similar high
expectation is at Byron, where the expectation is that all students are proficient and that
the teachers and the school do whatever it takes to ensure that the student reaches this
level.
At Delano, they celebrate their goals very publicly with posters displayed
throughout the school and on the doors. These posters, displayed as School Wide
Academic Achievement Goals, show targets such as increasing the percentage of students
75

who are proficient or advanced in mathematics from 81% to 85% and increasing the level
in English language arts from 55% to 67%. The posers also display an API growth target
from 851 to 870 and also a one and a half grade level growth in reading. The
administration, teachers, and students all understand and internalize the ambitious goals
being set for achievement.
In addition to numeric goals, there are goals for the quality of education that is
delivered. At Timothy, the principal demands excellence from everyone and strives for
Timothy to be the best elementary school in the city—one that all should be proud to
send their children to. Timothy also has long term goals for its students—that 100% of its
students will graduate from college.
At Amarado, there was not a specific numeric goal given, rather the school has the
ambitious goal of continuing an upward API trajectory while also nearly doubling the
number of students it serves. This is particularly ambitious since many of the new
students to the school are behind several grade levels. The school expressly states that its
expectations are that its students should perform comparably to their more
socioeconomically advantaged peers.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision. In all
four of the schools studied, the school changed curriculum or teaching approach, without
hesitation, to meet the needs of the students. These schools also developed a vision
regarding quality instruction and instructional practices. A commonality at all of the
schools studied is that the school responded to the teachers’ feedback as well as student
performance in changing and supplementing the curriculum.
76

Teachers at Timothy are given the autonomy to create and implement a curriculum
that will allow their students to succeed. Open Court Reading was the school’s adopted
English language arts curriculum, but after feedback from the teachers, only the most
effective parts of the program are utilized and it is accelerated and condensed in order to
meet the pacing required to ensure their students meet the school’s high expectations.
Another example of changing the curriculum at Timothy is evident in
mathematics. During the school’s first year, California Math was used, but during the
second year the school switched to Envision math and supplemented it with the research
and work of Kathy Richardson. Again, the teachers are given a great deal of autonomy to
make instructional decisions in the best interests of their students and the curriculum is
only used as a base and is heavily supplemented. Even though teachers are given a
significant amount of leeway to design and create their lessons, there is also a high level
of accountability. Lessons created are not only peer evaluated, they must show all eight
steps of a lesson plan, and are continually and regularly evaluated by the principal.
At Amarado, Houghton Mifflin, Harcourt Brace and FOSS science kits were used
as the curriculum/publishers. However, teachers have been given autonomy to utilize the
curriculum to best meet the needs of their students. Because of this, English language arts
has evolved and the school, like Byron, utilizes Lucy Caulkins’ writer’s workshop model.
Additionally, the school reached a very high level of math proficiency and desired a more
rigorous curriculum and has now transitioned to Singapore math.
At Byron, the overall instructional vision of the school is that a teacher starts from
the standards and then builds from them as opposed to teaching a set publisher’s
77

curriculum blindly and hoping to cover the standards. In terms of the curriculum, the
initial focus on improvement was mathematics. The school has done well in mathematics
instruction, which is now in a refinement phase. The school initially used Harcourt Brace,
but like Amarado and Delano, has transitioned to Singapore math, where the focus has
been in developing a student’s mathematical abilities through incremental steps
(concrete, pictorial, and finally abstract). The current focus has been directed toward
improving language arts and writing. The school uses state-adopted textbooks in both
mathematics and language arts but the principal has been deliberate in framing how she
expects the teachers to use the textbooks and curriculum. According to the principal, the
teachers use to say, “I teach Open Court Reading.” Now they say, “I teach the standards.”
The curriculum has become the base of what they teach, but they are encouraged,
allowed, and receive professional development in making instructional decisions to
ensure that the students are able to master the standards. The teachers are regularly
trained and developed in using thinking maps, brain-based research, and a deep analysis
of the standards—they are no longer just teaching a set curriculum, but are required to
think about them and make the needed adjustments to integrate content and to
differentiate effectively.
At Delano, the school changed its curriculum to better meet the needs of a dual
immersion school with a high percentage of English learners. The principal clearly
understood this challenge and made several changes to the instructional program to best
meet the needs of students at her school site.
78

The focus of the school has been to build a strong literacy foundation—especially
for English language learners, which constitute the majority of its population. Although
most of the instruction is in Spanish during the early years, not all of its students come
with a formal background in Spanish language acquisition and the school has placed an
emphasis on developing Spanish for those students as well as developing their English
skills in later years. The school uses the work of Susana Dutro who created E.L. Achieve
for a focused approach to English language instruction through a systematic ELD
framework. In English language arts, as opposed to relying on a publisher’s curriculum,
the school has instead focused on developing the pedagogy of teachers. The English
curriculum is teacher designed and based on Dr. Patricia Cunningham’s Four Blocks
literacy model, which includes guided reading, self-selected reading, writing, and
working with words.
Although Delano has been historically strong in mathematics, the teachers lacked
the conceptual piece of mathematical development in their instruction and desired a more
rigorous and authentic math program. Additionally, the teachers said that due to the
immersion program, Houghton Mifflin was not meeting the needs of their students and
was thus supplanted by Singapore math.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. According to Odden
& Archibald (2009), schools that are able to dramatically improve student performance
regularly engage in analyzing data and use it to guide instruction and decision making.
For example, the schools should not just use results from STAR testing, but have multiple
points of data from multiple assessments and use it regularly to assess their progress and
79

student achievement. In all four of the charter schools studied, multiple assessments and
data derived from assessments were part of a continuous cycle of improvement for a
teacher’s professional development. Information from these assessments directly
impacted and guided the way instruction was delivered to students as well as intervention
services provided. In all of the schools studied, not one specific formative or ongoing
assessment was given. What was common was that assessments were given frequently,
instruction was changed based on assessments, interventions were created for students
whose assessment results indicated additional support was needed, and teachers were
continually developed to become even stronger educators.
At Byron, the school’s continual development is driven by ongoing assessments.
Students who enter during the kindergarten year are given formative assessments starting
in the summer. All students are assessed every Friday through school-wide teacher
created benchmarks. Additionally, after the end of every unit (approximately four to six
weeks), students are given end of unit assessments. The weekly and unit results are
shared with the principal and the data is analyzed through Data Director, an online data
tracking system. The data is then used to directly guide the instruction in the classroom.
Furthermore, students are divided into tiers and teachers are doing instructionally
different things at each tier to differentiate the curriculum. Students who are not
achieving proficiency receive special interventions.
The assessments are also regularly communicated to parents at Byron. Using the
assessment results, goals are set with the students (less formally in kindergarten). By first
80

grade, students know how they are doing in relation to their goal and are expected to take
ownership and talk with their parent about a plan for improvement
At Timothy, teachers continually use assessments to guide their practice and the
school’s administration monitors the assessment results very closely. To ensure
alignment and high quality assessments, masters of the assessments are due to the
principal the Tuesday prior to the exam. Every Friday, assessments created by staff are
administered to their students. The principal and the dean review the test results and are
very transparent with the assessment results and disseminate the results to the entire staff.
The result of a child’s individual performance is communicated to the parents regularly.
If students at Timothy are not proficient on their Friday assessment, they are
given intervention in small groups by their primary and intervention teacher and then
reassessed. A student’s primary teacher works directly with the intervention teacher to
ensure that there is alignment in instruction and that the intervention is very purposeful.
At Delano, formative assessments are administered at the beginning of the year to
all students and benchmarks are given to all students three times a year. These
benchmarks drive the assessment across the organization and measure standards mastery.
The benchmarks are aligned to the multi-year pacing plan in which teachers then create
their own pacing plans and assessments to meet the needs of their students. Teachers
design interventions and adjust instruction following each benchmark, where they have a
professional development day devoted to collaboratively analyzing the data, engaging in
peer collaboration, and discussing their instructional practices.
81

At Amarado, the CORE assessments are given as formative assessments in grades
kindergarten through second and in third and fourth on as needed basis. Fountas and
Pinnell level reading assessments are also given to students at the beginning of the year.
Additionally, teachers give quarterly assessments such as fluency tests as well as teacher-
designed tests that are reviewed by the administration. In grades five, six, and seven,
Measures of Academic Progress are given two times a year.
Based on data from the beginning of the year assessments and quarterly
assessments, teachers create individual intervention plans, adjust their long term plans,
and plan for future units. This cycle of adjusting instruction and developing intervention
plans occurs quarterly. The director of intervention and assessment reviews the
assessment results and follows-up with teachers to offer support and training to develop
the intervention plans. This director also coaches the instructional aides as well as works
with teachers who have students participating in the student success team (SST).
Ongoing, intensive professional development. As discussed in the previous
section, the data that is generated from formative, summative, and benchmark
assessments at all four of the charter schools are used to drive professional development.
All of the schools approached professional development in different ways, but there are
commonalities in achieving ongoing, intensive professional development. At each of the
schools, there were people who acted in the capacity of an instructional coach. At some
schools, this was a consultant and at others, it was an assisted principal. At each of the
schools, collaborative time during the school day and pupil-free days were a part of the
calendar.
82

At Byron, professional development is provided through school instructional
coaches. There are two coaches, one in language arts and one in mathematics. These
coaches have worked with the school extensively and are continually refining their focus.
For example, after determining that the current reading program was not meeting the
needs of all students, the literacy coach developed “literacy connection” which wove 10
standards into one daily activity.
Currently, the focus is on writing improvement, and teachers are receiving
support from the mathematics coach in how to integrate writing into the mathematics
curriculum. The principal stated that the teachers have become experts in understanding
writing and integrating writing into all aspects of the curriculum through coaching. There
is also collaborative time planned into the school day. Finally, a week prior to school
starting is devoted to professional development based on the focus of improvement.
At Timothy, professional development is differentiated to meet the needs of the
teacher. New teachers to the school and apprentice teachers, receive one additional week
of professional development prior to the beginning of school, and returning teachers
receive two weeks of development prior to the beginning of the year. Staff development
for all occurs weekly and teachers requesting to observe other teachers are arranged
frequently. Apprentice teachers, who do not have their own classes initially, spend the
first part of the year observing, working with other teachers, and teaching small groups or
specific classes.
At Delano, the professional development is directly linked to the curriculum and
instructional vision being implemented. The principal creates the professional
83

development calendar over the summer based on these four strands: literacy, English
learner achievement, Singapore math, and issues affecting the whole child such as
poverty, race, and ethnicity.
As recently as 2006, there was a large variance in teacher quality at Delano. To
address this, the school has implemented a coaching model as well as focused
professional development throughout the year. Teachers spend a significant amount of
time unpacking the standards and developing a better understanding of effective
pedagogical practices both collaboratively with their peers as well as with the guidance of
administrative coaches. Currently, the school’s two assistant principals primarily focus on
coaching, developing, and evaluating teachers. The degree that the school has taken in
investment of using coaches is reflected in the significant amount of time that has been
devoted to developing the skills of the administrators who act as coaches to ensure a
positive coaching culture.
In addition to coaching at Delano, there is also ongoing professional development
directly inline with the area of focus throughout the year. Every Thursday morning from
7:45-9:45, the teachers are led in professional development in the school’s focus area
(which is ELD this year). Additionally, three times a year the teachers have one-on-one
meetings with the principal to discuss their teaching practices and philosophy. In total,
teachers receive five days for professional development during the year—two prior to the
beginning of the school year and one after each benchmark in addition to meeting every
Thursday morning.
84

At Amarado, the focus of the professional development includes culture building
as well as instructional development. Because instruction is not tied solely to a
publisher’s curriculum, but rather research-based best practices, significant professional
develop is in place to support the teachers’ development. For example, this year is the
first year of reader’s workshop and the school sent one teacher to a professional
development session in New York, who will then intern lead the staff in the development
of reader’s workshop at the site.
During the summer, there are five days devoted to professional development that
are dependent on the school’s year plan. During the school year, teachers are given two
professional development days. Additionally, teachers have planning and professional
development time weekly and are able to attend seminars and conferences on a case by
case basis. The teachers also engage in classroom walks and visits to observe their peers.
Continuous professional development is offered through classroom observations
and feedback regarding lesson and unit plans. The principal also meets with each teacher
bi-weekly to review instructional plans as well as to check-in on the well-being of the
teacher.
Using time efficiently and effectively. As Odden and Archibald (2008) have
stated, time is a fixed resource, but what differentiates schools that achieve is how they
use the fixed time. At the charter schools studied, all focused their attention on the core
curriculum, and extending time for subjects such as English language arts and
mathematics. The schools also either offered an extended school year or extended day for
all of its students and all offered a full day kindergarten.
85

At Byron, The two areas of priority for the school are mathematics and language
arts and there is extended learning time in both of these subjects. As such, they devoted
the great majority of the day to these areas with content from science and social studies
integrated into the subject matter. Most recently, science is becoming a focus and time is
being allotted in some grades so that students can receive specific instruction in this area.
Extra curricular activities are reserved for the structured after school program at
Byron. Additionally, the school has structured their time so that planning and preparation
time for grade levels is done during each grade level’s physical education. The school
day itself is also 30 minutes longer than a traditional public school.
At Timothy, the day is significantly longer than a traditional public school day.
The school day runs from 8:00 until 4:30 for all students (kindergarten students receive a
rest period of 50 minutes from September until January). Every student attends summer
school for two weeks during the year. Additionally, time during the school day is focused
on the core subject areas with up to three and half hours devoted to English language arts,
over and hour to mathematics instruction, and daily instruction of science and social
studies for 45 and 30 minutes respectively.
At Delano, there is an extended school year with 195 instructional days for
students in kindergarten through eighth grade. Since 2006, the school has had a full day
kindergarten. The school day itself is also longer than traditional public schools with the
school day starting at 8:00 and ending at 3:00. The school day is focused on core subject
areas with emphasis in instructing English language learners.
86

Amarado operates from 8:00-3:30 on a traditional 180 day calendar. The school
day is one hour longer than the traditional school day and this additional hour is devoted
to dance instruction. The remainder of the time is focused on the core curriculum where
teachers try to bring in and integrate movement into their everyday instruction. The
majority of the day is focused on English language arts, where 90-150 instructional
minutes occur daily, and mathematics, where 60-90 instructional minutes take place
daily. Less than 60 minutes daily are spent in each of the two remaining subject areas,
science and social studies
Extending learning time for struggling students. Extended learning time for
struggling students means providing extra help, whether it is through before or after
school, summer school, or intensive support during the day through tutoring students, to
learn the curriculum and to achieve at high standards. All of the schools studied provided
a variation of support mechanisms for the struggling leaner, and all provided extended
learning time.
At Byron, the school utilizes weekly assessments to determine the lowest
performing students in English language arts who are pulled two times a week during non
core instructional periods in grades first through fifth to work on word analysis and
fluency. Additionally, for students not doing well, the school institutes Student Success
Teams to help students and hold parents accountable. Furthermore, during the winter
break, students who are not on grade level attend winter school for one week and starting
in January through the end of May, they attend Saturday school. During the summer, the
students attend a six week long summer school, Monday through Friday for four hours
87

each day. On Friday, students go on an academic field trip if they attended every day of
that week. The school also employs the Science Theater Art Recreation (STAR) program,
which is a grant, for three hours after school. The program offers enrichment class in a
secondary language as well as support for instruction during the day. The STAR director
and the principal have daily talks to ensure that the curriculum is in alignment with the
school’s priorities.
Timothy, in addition to the significantly longer school year and day, provides
students not meeting expectations with an intervention teacher on the specific area of
need and every classroom has an instructional aide whose main priority is working with
students in small groups.
At Delano, the school has before and after school tutoring for supplemental
support. These tutors are hired from the outside the school and tutor one hour before and
up to two hours after school. The focus of tutors has shifted from remedial support to
front loading and targeting students who are identified as basic on the California
Standards Test. An assistant principal manages the tutors. The tutor’s focus is in direct
alignment with the school’s priorities and they concurrently implement practices such as
the Four Blocks literacy frame. The challenge, as indicated by the principal, is that the
tutors are hired form the outside and that it can be difficult to find the highest quality
tutors who are able to work non standard hours. Although using teachers is an option, the
school wants to maintain work and life balance for the teachers in order for them to be
able to sustain their current rigorous workload.
88

Delano also offers summer school in which approximately 50 students attend
half-day from 8-12:30 for six weeks. The summer school is taught by both school staff
and outside instructors. The students targeted for summer school are those students who
are struggling with academic achievement, students who may regress during the summer,
and newcomers.
At Amarado, in kindergarten and first grade, there are instructional aides, many of
whom have a full teaching credential. The school has a guideline that the teacher must
also submit plans for the aides and that the majority of their time must be spent
instructing students (up to 15 minutes are allowed for clerical duties). There is also
tutoring before and after school three days a week for students who have been referred by
their teacher. These students work in small groups of approximately four to five students.
Furthermore, there is summer school for recommended students who are struggling
academically. Two regular teachers and two intervention teachers teach the summer
school; all are fully credentialed.
Collaborative, professional culture. Developing a collaborative professional
culture is something that is cultivated and developed within the school. At each of the
schools, a deliberate effort has been made to ensure that the teachers do not work in
isolation, but instead encourage and support each other’s develop while simultaneously
working towards student achievement goals.
At Byron, the professional culture at the school is that all teachers must be willing
to do whatever it takes to help students succeed. When interviewing potential teachers,
89

the principal looks for teachers who embody this and who are willing to have extremely
high expectations for students.
The school also works collaboratively. Instructional coaches are an important
part of the school culture and work directly with teachers individually and in groups in
mathematics and language arts. One time a week, the grade level meets during a joint
physical education time to plan collaboratively and respond to their student’s needs based
on weekly benchmark assessments.
A defining factor at Byron is that that they make parents and community a core
part of the students’ success. The school provides tools for parents, and even a parent
empowerment coordinator. An example of this tool is the Reading A-Z program as well
as workshops for parents to learn how to use the program in addition to other literacy
skills. The school also has foster grandparents who are from the Senior Corps, an
AmeriCorps program. These seniors reside in the community and work with the students
on literacy.
At Timothy, teachers give each other feedback on instruction and peer feedback
is an important component of their development. Teachers share the lesson plans they
develop and receive feedback from their peers. In addition to a cycle of feedback from
their peers, teachers spend a significant amount of time reflecting on their practice.
Teachers are also on instructional committees based on content areas where they work
together to develop curriculum. There are committees for mathematics and reading as
well as cross content committees that focus on vertical articulation for grades
kindergarten through second. The principal provides teachers with significant amounts of
90

planning time during the school day. While apprentice teachers are honing their skills
teaching students, the other teachers are refining their teaching units, developing
interventions, and analyzing data.
At Delano, teachers regularly plan collaboratively. The teachers have embraced a
shared commitment towards common goals and the school’s administration has
implemented Rick Dufour’s work to increasing the effectiveness of teacher collaboration.
Also, the coaching model that is being implemented reflects appreciative coaching
practices where the teacher is a vital component of his or her professional development.
At Amarado, team teaching at the school site defines the schools collaborative
and professional culture. Teachers team teach starting in first grade where subject matter
is divided—one teacher focuses on writing and social studies and the other teacher
teaches math and science. Teachers instruct their own literacy block. This model is
continually evolving and as additional classes are added, will continue to be adjusted to
meet the needs of students. Additionally, teachers are supported in bringing and
integrating movement into the classroom. The school’s dance educator coordinates the
professional development in this area. The school has also set aside common planning
time each day by scheduling dance at the same time for each grade level.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership. According to Odden and
Archibald (2009), leadership must be distributed amongst the stakeholders at the school
and the district. That is, instructional decisions and initiatives are not solely generated
and implemented by the principal, but rather systems and a culture is in place so that
91

school improvement efforts are both widely distributed and implemented. At all of the
schools studied, there was widespread and distributed instructional leadership.
At Byron, the principal is very clear in setting and creating the vision for the
school, but teachers are given the authority to make decisions and to propose solutions in
the best interests of their students. For example, it was the teachers who indicated they
were not satisfied with the writing program relative to other components of Open Court
Reading and took it upon themselves to design, develop, and seek out professional
development with the help of the principal. Teachers have also taken the lead, with the
principal’s support, for doing an early adoption of Singapore math. Originally, the school
utilized Harcourt Brace and was rolling out Singapore math by grade levels starting with
kindergarten and first grade. Teachers wanted to utilize the program because of its
effectiveness and rolled out second and third grade simultaneously and have committed
to the professional development necessary to adding Singapore math early. This example
highlights that teachers are leaders within the classroom and are empowered to make the
decisions in the best interests of students. They are continuously encouraged to utilize
every tool to help their students and the expectation is that they are not required to follow
a textbook curriculum with fidelity. Teachers are trained to become pedagogical experts
through coaches, their peers, and are expected to use that knowledge to deliver effective
standards based instruction.
At Timothy, the principal stated that she gives the teachers freedom and
flexibility, but with accountability. The school takes significant steps to successfully
onboard their staff so that the teachers can take on instructional leadership roles. As
92

mentioned earlier, new staff, including apprentice teachers, start one week prior to the
rest of the staff and this time is focused on ensuring that they have a good command of
the eight step lesson plan, understand the school’s mission and learn how to embody and
teach students the five pillars.
Teachers at Timothy are also encouraged to observe other teachers to develop
their own proficiency. Teachers are on instructional committees that directly impact
what they are teaching and frequently engage in peer observations. The expectation is
that if a teacher observes another teacher, they are expected to email their notes to the
teacher they observed, the dean, and the principal. From those notes, the dean identifies
trends and teachers’ areas of strengths so that future recommendations for observation
opportunities can me made.
At Delano, staff morale was low when the current principal entered her position
and one of her first priorities was developing and leading the culture building at her
school site. The principal has placed a significant amount of resources into the capacity
building of her staff. She has created an instructional leadership cadre of the best teachers
at her school site who meet three hours a week to engage each other in professional
development. These teachers then go back to their fellow teachers in their grade level and
develop them. The staff also engages in 360 degree feedback, where they not only receive
feedback from their administrators, but they also give feedback to their administrators.
At Amarado, teachers at the school site act as instructional leaders for fellow
teachers and there is widespread and distributed instructional leadership. The distributed
leadership is best represented in what the school calls pods. The pods are groupings of
93

teachers who set goals, observe each other, hold each other accountable, and engage in a
cycle of continuous improvement. Pods meet for approximately two hours weekly. Each
pod focuses on a specific content area such as math and science or English language arts
and comprehension. The school’s leadership team works together to guide pods. Each
pod is led by a teacher leader who has additional time set aside each month for planning
and organizing the group’s activities.
Professional and best practices. In all of the strategies discussed above, what
the school engages in must be grounded in professional and best practices. As noted in
Odden and Archibald (2009), schools did not improve based solely on their own
experience or knowledge, but actively sought other schools’ best practices, current
research, and continuously engaged the educational community.
One area that stood out at all of the schools were the efforts to involve parents.
These schools not only wanted parental involvement, but also provided a myriad of ways
to engage, support, and develop parental participation. Additionally, all schools
incorporated research-based best practices into their school improvement strategies.
At Byron, the school is continually looking for the best method to increase student
performance based on research. Instead of investing heavily on implementing a
curriculum with fidelity, they have invested their teachers’ professional development on
learning how to become effective teachers based on research. The school has delved into
brain-based research, effective ways of instructing math, and most recently is attending
seminars in writing, their current area of focus, to learn the best research-based practices
for instructing their students. Furthermore, the principal has sought out advice from other
94

leaders who have been successful at their school. When initially deciding to improve the
English language arts curriculum, the principal consulted with a nationally recognized
turnaround school principal who had extensive experience and success working with a
similar population.
At Timothy, the curriculum decisions and staff development all are based on the
foremost thinkers in teaching pedagogy. The school looks at what is working and strives
to not only replicate it, but make it better. New teachers are referred to as apprentice
teachers and are given the time to develop their pedagogical skills prior to having their
own classroom. Lucy Calkins, Fountas and Pinnell, Kathy Richardson are just some of
the experts whose work and research have been consulted and are directly reflected in the
classrooms at Timothy.
At Delano, in addition to helping parents and engaging families, the school places
a high emphasis on using research-based and proven methods to increase student
achievement in all 10 of the instructional strategies for improving student performance.
The school uses the work of Susana Dutro, Rick Dufour, and Patricia Cunningham to
guide the work and the professional development that is utilized at the school site.
At Amarado, in addition to supplementing the curriculum with research based
best practices, the school is also trying to actively engage the community. The school has
community advisory breakfasts to help the community understand the school’s vision and
mission as well as to engage students, teachers, and members of the school in which they
share a campus.
95

In all of the schools studied, all schools were engaged, to varied extents, the 10
strategies for doubling student performance. Table 4.3 shows the implementation level of
Odden and Archibald’s (2009) 10 Steps for Doubling Student Performance at each of the
four sample school sites.
Table 4.3: 10 Steps for Doubling Student Performance at Four Sample Schools
Odden & Archibald’s 10 Strategies Byron Timothy Delano Amarado
Understanding performance problem
and challenge
Strong Strong Strong Strong
Set ambitious goals Strong Strong Strong Moderate
Change curriculum program/create
new instructional vision
Strong Strong Strong Strong
Formative assessments/data-based
decisions
Strong Strong Strong Strong
Ongoing PD

Strong Moderate Strong Moderate
Using time efficiently & effectively Moderate Strong Moderate Moderate
Extended learning time for struggling
students
Strong Strong Moderate Moderate
Collaborative, professional culture Moderate Strong Strong Strong
Widespread and distributed
instructional leadership
Moderate Strong Strong Strong
Professional and best practices Strong Strong Strong Moderate

96

Resource Allocation
Charter schools, in comparison to traditional public schools, have considerably
more discretion in how they allocate their resources. Odden and Picus’ (2008) Evidence-
Based Model (EBM) was used to analyze the allocation of resources, and although there
are some areas in which the amount of resources are in alignment with the EBM
prototype, overall the schools lacked resources in multiple areas and there was a great
deal of variance in how each individual school allocated their resources.
Class Size. In all of the schools studied, kindergarten was a full day program,
which is in alignment with the EBM. However, the average number of students, 21, in
each classroom was over 25% more than the recommended ratio of 15 students per
teacher. Although class sizes are higher in the upper grades, they more closely reflect the
recommended class sizes and on average were 8% larger or 27 students per teacher in
comparison to the recommended 25 students per teacher. Table 4.4 displays the class size
of the sample schools in comparison to the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Table 4.4: Class Size of Sample Schools Compared to EBM
Grade Level EBM Byron Timothy Delano Amarado
K 15 21 20 20 20
1 15 21 20 20 20
2 15 23 n/a 20 20
3 15 26 n/a 20 20
4 25 26 n/a 28 26
5 25 29 n/a 28 26
6 25 23 n/a 28 n/a
7 25 n/a n/a 28 n/a
8 25 n/a n/a 28 n/a

97

Staffing resources. There was a great deal of variation amongst the charter
schools studied and in comparison to the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008) when examining
staffing resources. Having larger class sizes directly impacts the number of teachers, and
at all of the schools studied, the schools had fewer core teachers than the recommended
allocation.
The schools were closer in alignment to the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008) when
looking at the full time equivalent (FTE) of specialists teachers. Delano, exceeds the
recommendation and receives additional support from outside partners for their
specialists teachers. Amarado, employs three additional FTEs to provide two hours of
dance instruction to every student at the school. Byron and Timothy, had slightly fewer
specialist teachers than the recommendation, but still had nearly 90% of the FTE
recommendation.
All of the schools utilized instructional mentors/coaches, although not to the FTE
recommendation in the model, and at two of the schools, Delano and Amarado, these
instructional facilitators also had administrative duties and acted as assistant principals.
One noteworthy area of resource allocation that was higher than the EBM (Odden &
Picus, 2008) recommendation was site administration. All of the schools studied had at
least double the recommendation with two or more site-based administrators.
Staff areas where there was a notable absence of or significantly lower resources
include tutors, librarian/media specialists, teachers for the learning disabled, and teachers
for English learners. Although there is no specified allocation of teachers for English
learners at any of the school sites, because the English learner populations for the schools
98

are high the schools instead focused on preparing their core teachers with strategies to
instruct students whose first language is not English.
Resources for increased learning time. All of the schools studied implemented
extended learning day, year and/or before and after school supplemental support. Byron’s
resource allocation was greater than the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008) recommendation
with 3.46 FTE for extended day in comparison to the recommended 1.47 FTE, and had
1.35 FTE for summer school in comparison to the 1.47 FTE EBM recommendation.
Timothy, Delano, and Amarado all had less than the EBM FTE recommendation for
extended day.
Other support resources. Instructional aides are not part of the EBM
prototypical school because their effectiveness and impact on student achievement is less
than a highly qualified certificated teacher that acts in the capacity of a tutor. In three of
the schools studied, Byron, Timothy, and Amarado, used instructional aides extensively.
Although the majority of the aides were not certificated, due to the budget constraints in
California, some of the schools were able to hire certificated teachers as aides.
Additionally, all of the schools offered professional development for the aides or required
teachers to submit plans for the aides so that they were utilized in a strategic manner. Non
instructional aides were less common in the schools studied. Only Delano and Byron
utilized them, and only Delano utilized them extensively—almost three times above the
EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008) recommendation. Amarado and Byron both utilized
volunteers to supplement and support the school in ways that non instructional aides
would traditionally fulfill. Pupil support resources were the greatest at Byron, slightly
99

exceeding the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008), followed by Delano, which allocated
resources less than the EBM recommendation. Both Timothy and Amarado were far
below the recommended resource allocation with no pupil support staff.
Funding. Funding in professional development, technology, Gifted and Talented
Education (GATE) student resources, instructional materials, and student activities varied
greatly among Timothy, Delano, and Amarado. Byron did not provide sufficient
information to compare these resources. At the three schools that did provide this data,
the schools fell short in funding for professional development. For technology, only one
school, Timothy, met the recommended resource allocation and exceeded it by 15%. The
remaining two schools fell far short. None of the schools reporting this information had
funding for GATE student resources. Two of the schools, Timothy and Amarado,
exceeded the suggested funding in instructional materials while Delano funded
instruction materials at 64% of the recommendation. Funding for student activities also
varied amongst the schools. The funding was nonexistent at Timothy, only 27% of the
recommended funding levels at Amarado, and the only school that exceeded the
suggested funding levels was Delano, which has the greatest number of outside partners
and resources.
Table 4.5 provides specific figures at each school studied as well as a comparison
of resource allocation to the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008) .

Table 4.5: Comparison of Resource Allocation to EBM
Byron Timothy Delano
1
Amarado
School Element EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual EBM Actual
Core Teachers 19.68 15 11.25 10 29.2 21 15.12 12
Specialist Teachers 3.9 3.75 2.25 3 5.8 7.5 3 3
Instructional Facilitators 1.8 .5 1 1 2.6 2 1.8 1.22
Tutors 3.21 1 1.8 0 5.3 0 2.4 0
Teachers for EL .15 0 1.38 0 4.3 0 1.3 0
Extended Day FTE 1.47 3.46 .85 .66 2.1 2.55 1.13 .5
Summer School FTE 1.47 1.35 .85 .5 2.1 .59 1.13 .26
Learning Disabled FTE 2.46 1 1.38 As needed 3.6 1 1.8 .75
Substitutes $22,500 $20,000 $15,000 $12,000 $31,500 $35,000 $18,000 $32,560
Pupil Support 3.21 3.5 1.89 0 5.3 2 2.4 0
Non-Instructional Aides 1.64 1 .93 0 3.8 10 1.26 0
Instructional Aides 0 13 0 5 0 0 0 4
Librarian/Media Specialists .83 0 .47 0 1.2 0 .63 0
Site Administrators 1 2 1 2 1.2 4 1 2.08
School Secretaries/Clerks 2 2 2 1 2.4 6 2 2.5
Professional Development $35,600 $20,000 $20,300 $10,000 $53,000 $16,000 $27,900 $0
Technology $89,000
2
$50,750 $59,885 $132,500 $10,807 $69,000 $19,140
GATE Student Resources $8,900
2
$5,075 $0 $13,250 $0 $6,900 $0
Instructional Materials $49,840
2
$28,420 $36,540 $74,200 $41,987 $38,640 $62,467
Student Activities $71,200
2
$40,000 $0 $106,000 $122,000 $55,200 $15,048
Note: Comparison of resource allocations according to Odden and Picus (2008) EBM versus actual resource allocation of four sample schools.
1
Calculations do not
include school’s pre kindergarten.
2
School did not provide enough data to report this figure.

100
101

Impact of Current Funding Crisis
The impact of the current funding crisis on these charter schools has been
different than the impact at traditional public schools. At all four of the charter schools
studied, there have not been staffing reductions and they have not been forced to increase
class sizes due to budgetary concerns. The schools attributed this to sound and
conservative fiscal management and healthy reserves. This is not to say that the schools
allocated resources similarly to what they had done previously. Timothy is only spending
resources on absolutely necessary items that will have an impact on student achievement.
Delano noted that they have cut back on professional development expenses—in
particular, sending teachers to conferences. Byron indicated that they would want to fund
science enrichment, more professional development in terms of math and literacy
coaches, and are waiting to do so until they can employ a grant writer so that they can
seek outside funding. At Amarado, the school is not utilizing their reserves and is waiting
for the budget crisis to unfold further, so that they feel comfortable with restructuring
their teachers’ pay, extending the school year, adopting a new math text, and expanding
professional development opportunities.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to analyze resource allocation at four charter
schools in Los Angeles and to determine the connection between resource allocation,
school improvement strategies, and higher student achievement. All four of the schools
studied were considered high achieving schools with high numbers of socioeconomically
disadvantaged students. Three of the schools studied had APIs between 859 and 874 and
102

all were in the highest decile when compared to similar schools. The lone school without
an API score or similar schools ranking due to its new school status, had achievement
results that surpassed the grade level equivalency of its students on the SAT-10. Each of
the schools studied employed at moderate to high levels, Odden and Archibald’s (2009)
10 Strategies to Doubling Student Performance, and all of the schools studied had clear
visions and strategies for continued achievement.
When examining resource allocation, in comparison to the EBM (Odden & Picus,
2008), the resource allocation levels were varied. In many cases, such as core teachers,
librarians/media specialists, teachers for English learners and the learning disabled, the
resource allocations levels were much lower than recommended. However, areas such as
administration stood out as having much higher than a prototypical EBM school.
Although there were pockets of meeting recommended resource allocation, overall none
of the schools entirely met the recommended resource allocation of the EBM.
The budget crisis does not seem to be impacting these schools as significantly as
their traditional public school counterparts, but it is halting or making schools cautious in
their approach to spending. This trepidation is having its greatest impact on spending for
professional development. Although the budget crisis is unlikely to dissipate in the
coming year and the schools do have healthy reserves, it is unlikely that these reserves
will be significantly tapped to increase funding to be on par with the EBM (Odden &
Picus, 2008) because of the great deal of uncertainty surrounding California’s fiscal
health. Chapter 5 will further discuss this issue, provide conclusions, and suggestions for
future research.
103

CHAPTER 5 – DISCUSSION
California public schools serve the largest kindergarten through twelfth grade
population in the United States and include the most diverse student population among
the 50 states including the highest number of English language learners and
socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Yet, California’s per pupil spending is below
the national average, and even this level of funding is in jeopardy due to the current
budgetary crisis. This fiscal crisis, combined with the high needs of a large and diverse
student population, leave policy makers and educational advocates increasingly turning to
charter schools for solutions.
Charter schools are growing at a rapid pace in the United States. Due to states
competing for Race to the Top funding, artificial caps were lifted on the number of
charter schools permitted in many states and districts. This, along with the increasing
demand for solutions to solving the achievement gap, has led to one of the most visible
forms of education innovation, charter schools, to increase in numbers. Although not
uniformly high performing or successful, there are a number of examples within Los
Angeles county of schools that are quickly narrowing the achievement gap and in some
cases, becoming some of the best public schools in the county.
Charter schools have significantly more flexibility in their allocation of resources
in comparison to their traditional public school counterparts. Because of this, it is
important to study how successful charter schools, with this increased flexibility, are
utilizing their resources to achieve high results with their students. The literature
regarding best practices utilized at schools to improve student performance is extensive,
104

yet literature regarding the best ways of allocating resources in charter schools is severely
limited.
The purpose of this study was to analyze how four high performing charter
schools, with high percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged students in Los
Angeles, California, were implementing school improvement strategies and utilizing
resources at their school site to impact student achievement. The Evidenced-Based Model
(EBM), (Odden & Picus, 2008) along with Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies
for Doubling Student Performance were used as a lens in this study to compare resource
allocation as well as school improvement strategies to best support student achievement
at the schools. These combined, provided a researched-based framework to examine
school improvement strategies and resource allocation.
Summary of Findings
The original design of the study set out to examine four high performing and four
lower performing charter schools in Los Angeles, as measured by standardized
assessments, and analyze how they were utilizing their resources to impact student
achievement. However, five, mainly lower performing schools either submitted
incomplete information or did not respond to requests to participate. An additional school
was contacted and agreed to participate in order to increase the number of schools
studied. Because of this, the study evolved to become an examination of four high
performing charter schools with high percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged
students. Three of the schools studied had APIs above 850 points and had exceeded
adequate yearly progress targets in both English language arts and mathematics. The one
105

school without an API or AYP target, had SAT-10 results that demonstrated its students
had exceeded grade level equivalency. Principals at the four schools, Byron, Timothy,
Delano, and Amarado were interviewed as well as documentation and data collected to
compare strategies utilized and resources allocated to the aforementioned framework.
The following four research questions addressed the purpose of this study and were used
to guide the interviews and data collection:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resources at the school and district levels used to implement the school’s
instructional improvement plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources at the school change in response to
the recent budget adjustments including overall funding reductions and changes in
the use of categorical funds?
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 or other
Model?
Commonalities in implementation of strategies. This study revealed that in all four
of the schools studied, the 10 strategies for doubling student performance, as described
by Odden and Archibald (2009) were implemented at moderate to high levels. These
strategies are:
 Understanding the performance problem and challenge
 Set ambitious goals
106

 Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision
 Formative assessments and data-based decision making
 Ongoing, intensive professional development
 Using time efficiently and effectively
 Extending learning time for struggling students
 Collaborative, professional culture
 Widespread and distributed instructional leadership
 Professional and best practices
At the core of each school studied was a deep understanding by the principal of the
challenges they faced coupled with a laser-like vision for school improvement and a
relentless drive by the teachers to address the needs of their students. Schools created a
sense of urgency in driving toward their improvement efforts by setting extraordinarily
high student achievement goals . The schools were not satisfied with being one of the
best schools when compared to similar schools, but aimed to be in the top decile for all
schools within the state. Schools then also regularly assessed progress to their goal based
on their students’ achievement. The data analysis went beyond individual teachers
looking at individual results, but rather there was a great deal of transparency in student
results and how data was utilized. Teachers and administrators collaboratively analyzed
it, and the schools had multiple systems in place to address the needs of struggling
students. Decisions were routinely made based on this data and instructional plans,
curriculum, and additional support was adjusted to meet the needs of the students. Not
107

only was classroom instruction changed to meet the struggling students’ needs, but also
all the schools created more learning opportunities for their students.
Additionally, the schools quickly responded to teacher feedback and student results
and changed the curriculum. Whereas traditional schools may have been bogged down by
a myriad of complications to quickly adopting a new curriculum or textbook, these
schools took quick and decisive action. Also noteworthy, was that the schools invested
heavily in professional development that did not focus on implementing the textbook or
adopted curriculum with fidelity, but rather research-based pedagogical practices of the
teacher. At more than one school, the principal expressed that the teachers do not say
they teach a particular textbook such as Open Court or Harcourt Brace, but rather, they
teach the standards. The textbooks, just like other strategies, are used as one of the tools.
This strong professional development practice was further supported by a collaborative
culture at the school sites and by widespread and distributed leadership.
All of the schools focused on the core curriculum and protecting instructional time as
well as allowing for and providing common planning time during the school day. Schools
also increased and extended learning time through either before and after school
programs and extended day or year to provide additional support to their struggling
students. The curriculum taught during this extended time was closely aligned with the
curriculum taught during the regular school day.
One of the strongest aspects of each school included utilizing research-based best
practices and in particular, increasing and sustaining parental involvement. In all of the
schools studied, the sites made a great effort to involve parents in their child’s education.
108

This effort extended well-beyond the traditional back to school nights, PTAs, or what
schools in affluent communities commonly rely on. Rather, the schools proactively
reached out to involve parents, offering a multitude of ways to be involved in the school.
The schools also provided opportunities for parental development of knowledge and
skills in how to support their students. Workshops regarding improving student fluency
or math skills, or how to best prepare the student for high school and college are only
some of the examples of programming in place for the parents.
Resource allocation. Because there is a great deal of flexibility in how charter
schools allocate resources, there were more differences than commonalities in resource
allocation at the four schools studied. Even so, the resource allocation decisions made by
the school were purposeful and in alignment in supporting current school improvement
strategies although the resource allocation as a whole did not meet EBM (Odden & Picus,
2008) recommendations.
Resource allocations that met or exceeded EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008)
recommendations at all schools included full-day kindergarten, school administration,
and specialist teachers. Areas that did not consistently meet the EBM (Odden & Picus,
2008) recommendation at all school sites, yet still supported the school improvement
efforts, included utilization of instructional mentors/coaches, lower class sizes, and
increased learning time through extended day, year and before and after school programs.
The schools used other support resources, such as librarians, instructional aides,
non instructional aides, and tutors differently or not at all. Additionally, funding in
professional development, technology, Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) student
109

resources, instructional materials, and student activities varied greatly among the schools
and no conclusion can be drawn from their allocation.
The effect of the budget crisis on each schools’ current resource allocation has
been limited. The most common reduction is in the monies spent on professional
development. Unlike their traditional public school counterparts in area districts, there
have been no reductions in force, larger class sizes, elimination of summer school, or
other significant cuts to core instructional programs. This stability was attributed by each
of the schools to sound fiscal management as well as healthy reserves. Furthermore, some
of the schools were persistent in pursuing outside funding and grants to meet
extracurricular and supplemental activities so that they can utilize state and federal
funding to focus on the core curriculum.
Human capital. One area that must not be overlooked when discussing the
success of these schools are the principals and teachers at these school sites. At each of
the schools studied, the administration had significant flexibility in making personnel
decisions. These decisions include the hiring, promoting, and dismissing of teachers.
Furthermore, the administrators hired to lead these schools had significant track records
of improving student outcomes or prior experience leading successful schools in areas of
high need.
It was apparent through interviews and data collection, one reason as to why these
schools performed very well was that there was very strong leadership, solid fiscal
management, and highly effective teachers that had been selected to be in these roles
based on prior demonstrated achievement in a classroom or other endeavor. During the
110

interviews with principals, part of their improvement strategy was to attracted, hire, and
retain excellent teachers. The personnel in place at the schools were ready and willing to
take on the challenge of rapidly improving student performance and willing to implement
research based strategies without delay. Simply put, these schools hired extremely strong
teachers and had very talented administrators to execute school improvement strategies at
a very high level.
Challenges to continued improvement. Each of the schools studied execute at a
very high level and have achieved significant results in student achievement. However,
each of the schools studied face considerable and unique challenges as their schools
evolve and expand. At Delano, many of their students are leaving after the fourth grade to
enroll at a nearby high performing charter school for middle school that begins in the
fifth grade. The impact of this has been a significant number of new students entering the
school in fifth grade to replace the students who have left. These students are multiple
grade levels behind and have just a year to meet grade level standards before naturally
exiting from the elementary school to another middle school. Timothy is a new school
that is rapidly growing, adding an additional grade level each year. With this rapid
growth, means the rapid expansion of students as well as adding at least five new teachers
every year. Amarado’s current school leader, under whom its current success as been
shepherded, is transitioning into a higher leadership role, as chief academic officer for the
CMO, and the school will have a new school leader in the upcoming year.
In addition to these challenges, funding at the schools remains a concern.
California’s fiscal crisis does not appear to be subsiding in the near future. Although the
111

schools have not had to resort to drastic cuts in personnel nor extended day and after
school activities at their school sites, they have limited spending in professional
development and have been more cautious in utilizing reserves to expand services to their
students. The challenges described above will require shifts in resource allocation to
address the inevitable needs that will arise from these impending changes. Specifically,
for the schools who are experiencing an influx of students due to expansion and or
transfers to other schools, the school must devote additional resources in both tutors,
extended learning time, summer school and professional development to the level
recommended by the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008). This would provide support for the
students entering who may not be at grade level as well as pedagogical development for
classroom teachers who will be directly working with these students.
Limitations of the Study
The schools selected for this study were based on its high standardized
achievement results, percentage of students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged,
school size, and method of instructional delivery. The schools that participated in this
study met the criteria listed above, but also represented different types of management
and organizational structures. Therefore, findings from this study can only be
generalizable to schools where there is a similar organizational structure, demographics,
and administrative structure.
Recommendations for Future Research
The focus of this study was four high performing charter schools in areas of high
poverty in Los Angeles. Two of the schools studied were part of a charter management
112

organization, and the other two were independent charter schools. Recommendations for
future research are:
 Expand the study to look at both high performing and lower performing charter
schools to identify possible differences in how they allocate their resources and
degree to which they implement research based strategies. As mentioned earlier,
not all charter schools are high performing, and although there is a robust research
surrounding school improvement efforts, the research is not as great when
examining school improvement efforts specifically at charter schools. Because of
this, future studies should look at ways in which charter schools’ performance can
be improved, and specifically look at allocation of resources and implementation
of instructional strategies. Because charter schools have inherent flexibility,
approaches to school improvement can and should be different than traditional
public schools. Struggling charter schools would benefit from the findings of such
work.
 Expand the study to take a national look at the highest performing charter schools
and their resource allocation and implementation of research based strategies.
Charter schools are bound by various constraints based on locality. Because of
this, it is important to separate practices and resource allocations because of or
due to these constraints, and hone in on best practices. Expanding the study
nationally would address constraints and reveal the best and most successful
strategies employed regardless of location.
113

 Further investigation by researchers into other elements that are making these
charter schools successful. While it was very clear that there was moderate to
strong implementation of research-based best practices at these schools, other
elements that have contributed to these schools’ success such as administrators,
teachers, and parents should be further examined. By doing this, a complete
picture of what it takes to create a high performing school will emerge and have
the potential to guide policy makers to make decisions that address the whole
needs of a school as opposed to piecemeal solutions and strategies that only
partially address school needs.
Conclusion
The success at the four schools studied, along with the level of implementation of
school improvement strategies, must be viewed through the lens that everyone at the
school is there by choice. A parent or someone in the child’s life chose for them to go to
that charter school, as well as the teachers and administrators choosing to teach and work
at the school site. Because of this, there is inherently a different population of
stakeholders than at a traditional public school. This in itself, places the school at an
advantage in that there is an initial commitment from parents, teachers, and those
invested to the school’s vision and purpose. However, this in itself does not guarantee a
successful school that can produce high achievement results for students. Rather, this
provides a good base upon which to build.
All of the schools studied took advantage of the flexibility in being a charter
school and relentlessly worked toward improving their school sites through a high degree
114

of implementation of research-based best practices. This finding validates that the most
successful schools do implement Archibald and Odden’s (2009) Ten Strategies to
Doubling Student Performance. Although, as a whole, the schools did not have resources
that met the recommendations based on the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008), it was clear
that the resources that they did have were in alignment with their school improvement
efforts. The schools all had full-day kindergarten, specialist teachers, highly qualified and
effective administrators and teachers, as well as instructional coaches and mentors.
The challenge of continuing improvement, in addition to the school funding crisis,
will be addressing the exigent factors affecting each school in the upcoming year. Based
on each school’s circumstance, there are areas in which a change in resource allocation
would benefit student performance. Although some of the schools have been hesitant to
utilize reserve funds in a time of funding uncertainty, it is imperative that to continue this
momentum of positive improvement, they must increase resource allocation to be closer
in alignment with the EBM (Odden & Picus, 2008) to meet the increasingly more
complex needs of their school sites.

115

REFERENCES
Abbot, C.J., & McKnight, K. (2010). Developing instructional leadership through
collaborative learning. Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 7(2), 20-26.
Anand, P., Esra, P., Gubbins, P., Parish, T., Perez., M., Socias, M., & Speroni, C. (2006).
Charter schools in California: A review of their autonomy and resource
allocation practices. Washington, DC: American Institutes of Research.
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259-
287.
Baker, B. D., Taylor, L. L., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Adequacy estimates and the
implications of common standards for the cost of instruction. Washington, DC:
National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council.
Bhatt, M. P., & Wraight, S. E. (2009). A summary of research and resources related to
state school funding formulas. Naperville, IL: Regional Educational Laboratory
Midwest at Learning Point Associates.
Birman, B. F., Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., & Garet, M. S. (2000). Designing
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search party’s report.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77-96.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Buckley, J. & Schneider, M. (2007). Charter schools: Hope or hype? Princeton, NJ.
Princeton University Press.
Bulkley, K. E., & Wohlstetter, P. (Eds.). (2004). Taking account of charter schools:
What’s happened and what’s next. New York: Teachers College Press.
California Department of Education. (2009). Parent and guardian guide to California's
2008-2009 accountability progress reporting system. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/index.asp.
California School Finance. (2010). California school finance litigation: Robles-Wong v.
California case summary. Sacramento, CA: Author.
116

California Education Opportunity Report. Educational opportunities in hard times. The
impact of educational crisis on public schools and working families. Retrieved on
August 1, 2010 from http://www.edopp.org
Center for Research and Education Outcomes (CREDO). (2009) Multiple choice: Charter
school performance in 16 states. Retrieved on August 1, 2010 from:
http://credo.stanford.edu/
Creswell, J.W., (2009).Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Lincoln,
Nebraska 2
nd
edition
Clune, W. H. (1994). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance.
Educational Policy, 8(4), 376-394.
Clark, C., Bing-ru, T., Nichols-Barrer, N., & Gill, B.P., (2010). Mathematica policy
research: Student characteristics and achievement in 22 KIPP middle schools.

Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform in
changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1),
121-153.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wholstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-
performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary
students. Los Angeles, CA: Center on Educational Governance, University of
Southern California.
Denton, K. D., West, J., & Walston, J. (2003). Reading--young children's achievement
and classroom experiences: Findings from the condition of education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.

EdSource. (2006). Similar Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do Better?
Mountain View, CA: Edsource. Available at:
http://www.edsource.org/pdf/simstusumm06.pdf.
EdSource. (2007). Keeping California school districts fiscally healthy: Current practices
and ongoing challenges. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2008a). How California compares: Demographics, resources, and student
achievement. Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009a). The basics of California's school finance system. Mountain View,
CA: Author.
117

EdSource. (2009b). School finance 2008-2009: Fiscal crisis meets political gridlock.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009c) California’s charter schools: Update on issues and performance.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2009d). The new federal education policies: California's challenge. Mountain
View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010a). Glossary terms. Author. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from
http://www.edsource.org/glossary.html
EdSource. (2010b). School finance basics. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_basics.html
EdSource. (2010c). School finance 2009-2010: Budget cataclysm and its aftermath.
Mountain View, CA: Author.
EdSource. (2010d). Resource cards on California schools. Mountain View, CA: Author.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007).Checking for understanding. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework
for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What
makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of
teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
Grubb, W., Goe, L., & Huerta, L. (2004). The unending search for equity: California
policy, the" Improved School Finance," and the Williams Case. The Teachers
College Record, 106(11), 2057-2245.
Hanushek, E. A. (2006). Science violated: Spending projections and the "costing out" of
an adequate education. In E. Hanushek (Ed.), Courting failure: How school
finance lawsuits exploit judges' good intentions and harm our children (pp. 257-
312). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.
118

Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses :
solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America's public schools. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and
crystallized general intelligences. Journal of educational psychology, 57(5), 253-
270.
Johnson, R. S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: How to measure equity
in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kirst, M. (2006). Evolution of California state school finance with implications from
other states. Palo Alto, CA: Institute for Research on Education Policy and
Practice, Stanford University.
Kitmitto, S., Parrish, T., & Shambaugh, L. (2010). Status of k-12 education in California
at a time of fiscal crisis: Preliminary results. Washington, DC: American
Institutes for Research.
Loeb, S., Bryk, A., & Hanushek, E. (2007). Getting down to facts: A research project
examining California’s school governance and finance systems. Stanford, CA:
Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Mac Iver, M., & Farley, E. (2003). Bringing the district back in: The role of the central
office in improving instruction and student achievement. Baltimore, MD: Center
for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, John Hopkins
University.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Highlights from TIMSS 2007:
Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students
in an international context. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The condition of education: Glossary.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved March
6, 2010, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary/
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: United States Government
Printing Office.
No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
119

Odden, A. R. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan,
85(2), 120-125.
Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. J. (2009). Doubling student performance:... and finding
the resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Odden, A. R., Archibald, S. J., Fermanich, M., & Gallagher, H. A. (2002). A cost
framework for professional development. Journal of Education Finance, 28(1),
51-74.
Odden, A. R., Archibald, S. J., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level
expenditures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education Finance,
28(3), 323-356.
Odden, A. R., Borman, G., & Fermanich, M. (2004). Assessing teacher, classroom, and
school effects, including fiscal effects. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 4-
32.
Odden, A. R., & Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance : A policy perspective (4th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Odden, A. R., Picus, L. O., Goetz, M., Fermanich, M., Seder, R., Glenn, W., et al. (2005).
An evidence-based approach to recalibrating Wyoming's block grant school
Perez, M., Parish, T., Anand, P., Speroni, C., Esra, P., Socias, M., et al. (2007). Schools,
resources, and efficiency. Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Education
Policy and Practice, Stanford University.
Rebell, M. (2007). Professional rigor, public engagement and judicial review: A proposal
for enhancing the validity of education adequacy studies. The Teachers College
Record, 109(6), 1303-1373.
Renzulli, L. A., & Roscigno, V., (2005) Charter school policy, implementation, and
diffusion across the United States. Sociology of Education, 78(4), 344-365.
Resnick, L. Silva, E. (2007). On the Clock: Rethinking the Way Schools Use Time.
Washington, DC: Education Sector.
School Services of California (2010) The fiscal report.
The Education Trust. (2005). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some high schools
accelerate learning for struggling students. Washington, DC: Author.
The Education Trust. (2005). The power to change: High schools that help all students
achieve. Washington, DC: Author.
120

Timar, T. B. (2004). Categorical school finance: Who gains, who loses. Berkeley, CA:
Policy Analysis for California Education, University of California-Berkeley.
Timar, T. B. (2006). How California Funds K-12 Education. Davis, CA: Institute for
Research on Education Policy and Practice, University of California-Davis.
Weiss, J. (2007). Conditions for student success: The cycle of continuous instructional
improvement. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, School
Finance Redesign Project, University of Washington-Bothell.
Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., Sass, T., and Witte, John., (2009). RAND
education: Charter schools in eight states: Effects on Achievement, Attainment,
Integration, and Competition. Retrieved on August 1, 2010 from available at
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG869
121

APPENDIX A – INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
UNIVERSITY PARK INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
FWA 00007099

Determination of NOT Human Subjects Research

Date: Wed Apr 28 13:44:40 2010
To: Lawrence Picus
From: Kristin Craun
Project Title: Allocation and Use of Education Resources in California Schools
(IIR00000701)

The University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB) designee reviewed the
information you submitted pertaining to your study and concluded that the project does
not qualify as Human Subjects Research.*

This project focuses on how schools allocate and use educational resources to improve
student learning. This project is not collecting information about subjects, but rather
about the key elements of the instructional improvement effort. The research activities as
described do not meet the Federal definition of a human subject and are not subject to the
requirements of 45 CFR 46 or continuing review.

This review and opinion is based on the information provided and is not valid if the
proposed project is not exactly as described, or if information has been withheld. If your
project design changes in ways that may affect this determination, please contact the IRB
for guidance.

Sincerely, Kristin Craun, MPH, CIP- UPIRB Director
istar@usc.edu

*From 45 CFR 46.102, The Federal Regulations on Human Subjects Research
Human Subject : A living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or
student) conducting research obtains data through intervention or interaction with the
individual, or identifiable private information.

Research : A systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and
evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.

122

APPENDIX B – DOCUMENT REQUEST LIST
List of Documents requested from Schools
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 EL 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.

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.

123

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.

124

APPENDIX C – SCHOOL VISIT INTERVIEWS
School Visit/Interview Dates
School 1 Byron Charter Elementary School January 21, 2011
School 2 Timothy Charter Elementary School January 4, 2011
School 3 Delano Charter Elementary School December 17, 2010
School 4 Amarado Charter Elementary School January 6, 2011

125

APPENDIX D – LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFACTS

List of Documents and Artifacts Requested

1. SARC (School Accountability Report Card)
2. SPSA (School Plan for Student Achievement)
3. School Budget
4. Staff List
5. School Schedule
6. School Calendar
7. Student/Parent Handbook
8. Mission and Vision statements

126

APPENDIX E – DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK
Data Collection Codebook

DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK

This Codebook is intended to be used solely for EDUC 790 and 792 (Picus) – School
Resource Use and Instructional Improvement Strategies. It identifies data collection
items and their definitions. This document is organized according to the corresponding
Data Collection Protocol and the web portal for data entry (www.lopassociates.com).

I. School Profile

Each data item has a place for notes. This section is meant to be used for any
notations that you would like to record as a personal reminder. Notes fields will
not be used in data analysis.

A. School Name: In your training binder, there will be a group of schools for
which you are responsible. The school name and contact information are
located under the Schools tab.
B. School State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned
the school. You do not need to enter this; it has been entered for you.
C. Address Line 1: Street address of the school
D. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the school
E. City: City of the school
F. State: “CA” is automatically entered for you.
G. Zip: Postal zip code of the school
H. Phone: Main office phone number for the school
I. Fax: Main office fax number for the school
J. Website: School’s official website

127

II. School Contacts

This section is for recording the contact people at the school. This will include
the principal, and most likely the secretary. Anyone else you interview should
also be recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about this person (E.g.
phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what
the data source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead
of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically be entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

III. District Profile

A. District Name: This is the name of the district where the school is located.
District State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned
to the district within which the school resides.
IV. District Contacts

This section is for recording the contact people at the district office. This will
include the superintendent, and possibly an assistant superintendent and/or
director of curriculum and instruction. Anyone else you interview should also be
recorded here. Any notes you’d like to make about these individuals (e.g.
phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what
the data source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead
of Mike)
128

D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: “WY” is automatically be entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

V. School Resource Indicators

School resource indicators should be collected for the 2009-2010 school year.
Enter personal notations pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.

A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school on
the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in any
pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit. These
students should not be included in the previous category, Current Student
Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at secondary schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in. (E.g. K-
5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the number
of students eligible for services as an English language learner (ELL) as
defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL):
Number of enrolled students who are eligible for the federal free- and
reduced-price lunch program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the site
visit, number of students in the school with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special education services. (This
will most likely be a larger number than the number of students who are in a
self-contained special education classroom.) Does not include gifted and
talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self-contained): Number of students
in the school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicating their
eligibility for special education services.

129

H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
required to be present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for
different amounts of time, report the average length. (e.g. If the school day
begins at 8:30am and ends at 3:15pm, then the total length of the school day is
405 minutes.)
I. Length of Instructional Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
present for instruction. This information should be available from the school
bell schedule or a school staff member. Subtract recess, lunch, and passing
periods time from the total minutes in the school day. This calculation is
different from how the state measures the “instructional day.” (E.g. If the
length of the school day is 405 minutes, and the students have 20 minutes for
lunch and 25 minutes for recess, then the length of the instructional day is 360
minutes.)
J. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class
periods per day. These include periods when students are specially grouped
for extended mathematics instruction. Report an average per day length.
K. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading, English,
and language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods when students
are specially grouped for extended literacy instruction. (E.g. reading, writing,
comprehension) Report an average per day length.
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per day.
These include periods when students are specially grouped for extended
science instruction. Report an average per day length.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended history or social studies instruction. Report an
average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the previous school year (2007-08). Enter “Y” or “N”
or “NA.”
O. API

VI. Core Academic Teachers

The classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school’s core
academic subjects of reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science,
history/social studies, and foreign language. In elementary schools, core
academic teachers consist of the teachers in the self-contained regular education
classrooms. Some elementary schools may also departmentalize certain core
subjects such as math or science, especially in the upper grades. These teachers
are also to be included as core teachers. In middle schools, high schools, or any
other departmentalized school, core teachers consist of those teachers who are
members of the English/language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and
foreign language departments along with special education or ESL/bilingual
130

teachers who provide classes in these subjects. The teachers should be entered as
full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. (E.g. a half-time
teacher would be entered as 0.5) If teachers are assigned to multiage classrooms,
divide up the FTEs weighted by students per each grade. Enter each teacher’s
name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the corresponding notes fields.
Indicate in parentheses if the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category. Example:
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courteny Cox Arquette (0.33), Matt
LeBlanc

A. Grades K-12: Number of FTE licensed grade-level teachers who teach the
core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the individual subject
categories.
B. English/Reading/LA, History/Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, and
Foreign Language: Number of FTE licensed subject-specific teachers who
teach the core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the grade
categories.

VII. Specialist and Elective Teachers

This expenditure element consists of teachers who teach non-core academic
classes, and usually provide planning and preparation time for core academic
teachers. The teachers should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which
may include decimals. In the notes sections, enter each teacher’s name that
corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the
teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Art/Music/PE: Number of FTE specialist teachers, such as art, music, and
physical education (PE) teachers, who usually provide regular classroom
teachers with planning and preparation time.
B. Drama/Technology/Health: Number of FTE teachers who provide instruction
in a subject area that represents a special academic focus.
C. Career & Technical Education: Number of FTE vocational education teachers
D. Driver Education: Number of FTE drivers education teachers.
E. Study Hall: Number of FTE teachers who monitor study hall.
F. Athletics: Number of FTE teachers who coach an athletic team during the
school day. This does not include time spent as an athletic director, which
would be captured under the Administration section.
G. Other: Number of FTE specialist teachers who are not specifically listed
above.
H. Other Description: Indicate the subject area that the “Other” specialist
teacher(s) instruct.

131

VIII. Library Staff

Library staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs
entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a
1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Librarian/ Library Media Specialist: Number of FTE licensed librarians or
media specialists who instruct students
B. Library Aide: Number of FTE library aides who help instruct students

IX. Extra Help Staff

This category mainly consists of licensed teachers from a wide variety of
strategies designed to assist struggling students, or students with special needs, to
learn a school’s regular curriculum. The educational strategies that these teachers
deploy are generally supplemental to the instruction of the regular classroom.
Extra help staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Do not include volunteers in the FTE counts. Enter each staff
member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields.
Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
B. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-School
Suspension (ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-School
Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who provide
small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide small
groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a second
language (ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to teach them
English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as a second language (ESL)
classes who work with non-English speaking students to teach them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students in
the gifted program.
J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the
gifted program.
132

K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program for the
2008-09 school year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s
curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra help
staff do.
N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provide supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school’s
curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
O. Other Extra Help Classified Staff Description: Indicate what the “Other” extra
help classified staff do.
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities):
Number of FTE licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled students for most or
all of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified version of a
school’s curriculum or other learning goals required by their students’
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who assist
regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or
mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students generally have “less
severe” disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special
education teachers who provide small groups of students in special education
with extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in self-
contained special education classrooms and work with “severely” disabled
students for most or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental
disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally have “less
severe” disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education aides
who provide small groups of students in special education with extra help in
specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate in the
extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per week
that the extended day program is offered.
X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week in
the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.
133

Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who provide students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.
AA. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff: Description of classified
staff’s role in the extended day program.
BB. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of minutes per day
multiplied by the number of days per week that students attend summer
school.
CC. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer school is in session.
DD. School’s Students Enrolled in the Summer School Program: Number of
students from the individual school who are enrolled in the summer school
program (a subset of the following item).
EE. All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in the
summer school program.
FF. Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum during summer 2008.
GG. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in
the regular curriculum during summer 2008.

X. Other Instructional Staff

Included here are instructional staff members that support a school’s instructional
program, but do not fit in the previous categories. Other instructional staff should
be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter
each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related
fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category.

A. Consultants (other than PD contracted services): Dollar amount for all other
consultants other than professional development contracted services.
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
C. Other Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not included
in previous categories.
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist instruction, but
were not included in previous categories.
E. Funds for Daily Subs: Daily rate for daily certified teacher substitutes who
replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes who replace teachers who
are participating in professional development.)

134

XI. Professional Development Staff & Costs

This expenditure element includes spending on the professional development of a
school’s staff and the staffing resources necessary to support it. Professional
development staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), and cost
figures should be entered as a dollar amount, both of which may include decimals.
Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the
related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category.

A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract: Number
of days the teacher contract specifies for professional development.
B. Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount budgeted for
substitutes and stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
For time outside the regular contract day when students are not present before
or after school or on scheduled in-service days, half days or early release days,
the dollar amount is calculated by multiplying the teachers’ hourly salary
times the number of student-free hours used for professional development.
For planning time within the regular contract, the dollar amount is calculated
as the cost of the portion of the salary of the person used to cover the teachers’
class during planning time used for professional development. For other time
during the regular school day, including release time provided by substitutes,
cost is calculated with substitute wages. For time outside the regular school
day, including time after school, on weekends, or for summer institutes, the
dollar amount is calculated from the stipends or additional pay based on the
hourly rate that the teachers receive to compensate them for their time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional facilitators
and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district coaches
(though only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded). Outside
consultants who provide coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE
amount depending on how much time they spend at the school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from the
district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific
school should be recorded).
F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or other
costs for facilities used for professional development.
135

H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the “Other” professional development is, and
indicate whether it is a FTE or dollar amount.

XII. Student Services Staff

This expenditure element consists of school-based student support staff, as well as
school expenditures for extra-curricular activities and athletics. Student services
staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include
decimals. Enter each staff member’s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in
the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in
that category.

A. Guidance: Number of FTE licensed guidance counselors.
B. Attendance/dropout: Number of FTE staff members who manage attendance
and report dropouts.
C. Social Workers: Number of FTE licensed school social workers.
D. Nurse: Number of FTE registered nurses or nurse practitioners
E. Parent advocate/community liaison: Number of FTE staff members who serve
as the parent advocate and/or community liaison, often working with parents
to get their children to attend school.
F. Psychologist: Number of FTE licensed school psychologists or educational
diagnosticians.
G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech, occupational (OT), and
physical therapists (PT) who provide services to the school’s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching aides. (E.g. Lunchroom
aides, Aides who help students board buses; DO NOT include cooks – the
defining difference is whether the staff member is supervising students or
not.)
J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use this
category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the “other” student services staff member
does.

136

XIII. Administration

This expenditure element consists of all staffing resources pertaining to the
administration of a school. Administrators should be entered as full-time
equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter each staff member’s name
that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses
if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Principal: Number of FTE licensed principals.
B. Assistant Principal: Number of FTE assistant principals.
C. Other Administrators: Number of FTE other administrators. (Use this category
sparingly.)
D. Other Description: Indicate what the “Other” administrators’ duties are.
E. Secretary: Number of FTE Secretaries.
F. Clerical Staff: Number of FTE clerical staff members.
G. Technology Coordinator: Number of FTE technology coordinators and IT
staff.
H. Security: Number of FTE security staff.
I. Custodians: Number of FTE staff who provide custodial services

XIV. Elementary Class Sizes (We are NOT collecting this data for middle and high
schools.)

Sometimes it is easiest to get this information when you get the staff list, but other
times the secretary can just copy the sheet that tells them how many students are
in each classroom (we don’t want student names). You want a (preferably
electronic) copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. When entering
the data online, make sure to enter the class size for every class that is taught at
the school. Click on the Class Size option from the main menu and a new menu
will be displayed on the left. This menu will have options for grades Pre-8 plus
Special Education. When you click on a grade, the page with that grade's sections
will be displayed where you can enter the individual class sizes.

137

APPENDIX F – OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol
School Sites

Following are open-ended questions intended to capture each school’s strategies for
improving student performance. Ask the questions in the order that they appear on this
protocol. Record the principal’s answers as s/he gives them and focus on getting the key
elements of the instructional improvement effort with less emphasis on the process
aspect.

I. Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance.

A. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?

1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
(E.g. Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)

2. What curricula have you used during your instructional improvement
effort? (E.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
 Is it aligned with state standards?
 How do you know it is aligned? (E.g. District recent review for
alignment)

3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
 Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective
teaching?

4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?
(E.g. Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework)

5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional
improvement process?
 If so, what types of assessments have been key? (E.g. formative,
diagnostic, summative)
 How often are those assessments utilized?
 What actions were taken with the results?

6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part of
your reform efforts? (E.g. Individualized instruction, differentiated
instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction)
 Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
 How did you know that the instructional strategies were being
implemented?
138

B. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the
resources been in place?

1. Early Childhood program: Is it half or full day? Number kids? Staffing
ratios? Eligibility?

2. Full Day Kindergarten
 If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?

3. Class Size Reduction
 Reduction Strategy (E.g. 15 all day long K-3 or reading only with
15)

4. Professional Development:
 When are the professional development days scheduled for? (E.g.
Summer Institutes, Inservice Days)
 What is the focus of the professional development?
 Do you have instructional coaches in schools? Were there enough
coaches? (Did they need more but couldn’t afford it?)

5. “Interventions” or Extra Help Strategies for Struggling Students:
 Tutoring: Specify 1:1, in small groups (2-4), or in medium groups
(3-5)
 Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes & Number of
times per week), Academic focus, Who instructs (certified teachers
or aides), Who participates
 Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day, Number
weeks), Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who participates
 ELL
 Scheduling: (E.g. double periods in secondary schools)

6. Parent outreach or community involvement

7. Technology

C. Was the improvement effort centrist (central office orchestrated) or
bottom up?

D. What type of instructional leadership was present?

139

E. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan? (E.g. School
Board report which helped solidify focus)

F. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand
your efforts?

140

APPENDIX G – DATA COLLECITON PROTOCOL

School Profile
School Name School’s State ID
Number
Address
City State Zip
Phone Fax
Website
NOTES:

School Contact (1)
Title
Honorific First Name Last
Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

School Contact (2)
Title
Honorific First Name Last
Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

District Profile
District Name
District State ID

District Contact (1)
Title
Honorific First Name Last
Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

141

District Contact (2)
Title
Honorific First Name Last
Name
Phone # Fax #
Email Address
NOTES:

School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment
Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment
Grade Span
Number of At-Risk Students*
*Collect from district
Number of ELL/Bilingual Students
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

142

Core academic teachers
(Self-contained Regular Education)
FTEs

Kindergarten
(Full day program)
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 11
Grade 12
English/Reading/L.A.
History/Soc. Studies
Math
Science
Foreign Language
NOTES:

Specialist and Elective Teachers
/Planning and Prep
FTEs
Art
Music
PE/Health
Drama
Technology
Career & Technical Education
Drivers Education
Study Hall
Athletics
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers
Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description:
NOTES:

143

Library Staff
FTEs
Librarian
Library Media Specialist
Library Aide
NOTES:

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
Special Ed. Inclusion Aides
Special Ed. Resource Room Aides
NOTES:

144

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
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:

145

Student Services FTEs
Guidance
Attendance/Dropout
Social Workers
Nurse
Parent advocate/community liaison
Psychologist
Speech/O.T./P.T.
Health Asst.
Non-teaching aides
Other Student Services
Description Of Other Student Services
Staff:

NOTES:

Administration FTEs
Principal
Assistant principal
Other Administrator
Description of Other Administrator:
Secretary
Clerical staff
Technology Coordinator/ I.T.
Security
Custodians
NOTES:

Elementary School Class Sizes
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
Special
Education

Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6

146

APPENDIX H – BYRON CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on School
Byron Charter Elementary is a Title I school located in Los Angeles, and serves
353 students in grades kindergarten through sixth. The school is an independent, direct
funded charter school that was founded in 1997 and is recognized as a California
Distinguished School. Byron Elementary is non selective and currently has hundreds of
students on its waitlist. In addition to the elementary school, there is a middle school that
serves students in grades seventh and eighth. In 2008, the school purchased the property
it was leasing and built a state of the art facility on the grounds.
A board of directors manages the school and its membership includes a former
assistant superintendent of LAUSD, business leaders, academics, and community leaders.
The founders of the school also sit on the board. The core values of the school are
achievement, respect, commitment, integrity, community, and acceptance. The vision of
the school is that it “will be a world-class, child-centered elementary school with strong
ties to families and the community. Byron Charter Elementary School (pseudonym used
in school’s vision to maintain anonymity) will produce high academic achievers who are
self-confident, ethical, and motivated to be lifelong learners.” As part of its vision, family
and community are integral components to helping a student succeed.
The student population at Byron Charter Elementary is predominately African
American (92%) with 89% of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch. The
majority of students who attend Byron Charter Elementary live in the surrounding
neighborhood. Four percent of its students are considered English language learners and
147

school self-describes the majority of its students as “standard English language learners.”
The school provides services to these students because the English they speak is
considered linguistically different than the standard English that is spoken in schools.
Figure H.1 provides the ethnic breakdown of Byron Charter School.
Figure H.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Byron Charter School

The purpose of this case study is to identify resource allocation and instructional
improvement strategies at Byron Charter Elementary School.
Since the 2005-2006 school year, Byron Charter Elementary School has
maintained a similar schools rank of 10. Byron has demonstrated growth every year with
the exception of 2008-2009, in which the school was undergoing and extensive expansion
and upgrading of its facilities. In 2009-2010, Byron Charter demonstrated a substantial
growth of 47 API points and met growth API targets as well as AYP in all subgroups.
Since 2006, Byron Charter has improved its API a total of 59 points. Figure H.2 displays
Byron Charter Elementary School’s API for the past five years.

Hispanic
African American
148

Figure H.2: Byron Elementary Charter School’s API

In terms of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in both English Language Arts and
Mathematics, there has been a net increases over a five year period for the entire school
as well as significant subgroups. However, growth has not occurred uniformaly and in
one year, there was a decline in the number of students who achieved proficiency or
advanced recognition in English language arts and mathematics. In English language arts,
there has been a net increase of 10 percentage points of students scoring advance or
proficient since 2006. In mathematics, there has been a net increase of 16% in students
scoring advanced or proficiencet over the last 5 years. Figures H.3 and H.4 display AYP
growth in both subject areas. There are gaps in student performance data for students
with disabilities and Latino students because there were not enough students tested in the
previous year to determine base API to measure growth the following year. Additionally,
the gaps in data reflect that these groups were not considered significant subgroups.
Significant subgroups are defined as being at least 100 or more students on the first day
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
801
819
825
813
860
Academic Performance Index
149

of testing or 50 or more students on the first day of testing who make up at least 15% of
the population.
Figure H.3: Language Arts AYP for Byron Charter School

Figure H.4: Math AYP for Byron Charter School

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Percentage Proficient or Advanced
School Wide
African American
Hispanic or Latino
SED
Students with Disabilitites
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Percentage Proficient or Advanced
School Wide
African America
Hispanic or Latino
SED
Students with Disabilities
150

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Byron Charter Elementary School was founded in 1997 with three teachers, one
principal and two kindergarten students. The school has had stable leadership—the
current principal has been in her position for the past five years and is given substantial
autonomy to make decisions in the best interest of the school’s students.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. The founders and the
principal of the school deeply understand the challenges that face students in under-
resourced education and strived to create a school from scratch that directly addressed the
special needs and consideration of students in south Los Angeles. The principal stated
that she expects the education that is provided at Byron Charter School be at a level
where any of her students would be able to attend a school such as Marlborough or
Harvard Westlake in seventh grade.
When the principal began her first year at the school, she was given the charge to
reach an API of 800. At that point, the API was 789 with a growth target of one point.
To achieve the goal of 800 API, the school focused on math. They examined student data,
looked at the pacing, key standards, and the blue print of released questions. The school
created alignment between all of those components and prepared their students similar to
what she described as endurance athletes. Additionally, they invested heavily in
preparing their teachers knowing the challenges that face teaching students who may not
come prepared or on grade level.
Set ambitious goals. The school’s current and immediate goal is to reach 900
API. Teachers regularly give standardized assessments and have created vertical
151

articulation teams and meetings to align grading systems, which is based on a scale. The
school has extremely high performance standards for their students where a three on a
scale of four is considered 80% (bare minimum to pass) and a four is 93%, which they
consider mastery of grade level materials. Children who are not proficient by the end of
first grade are retained.
Additionally, students know where they are performing academically and are
active participants in their own growth. The school employs student-led conferencing,
where students lead the parent teacher conferences explaining to their parents their test
results, schoolwork, and what they are working on to improve. Student led conferencing
starts at the earliest grades and become more sophisticated as the student matures.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision.
Byron Charter Elementary School has made significant changes and adjustment to both
the curriculum and staffing in regards to responding to the needs of students. The current
principal hired over half of the current staff, which she stated were chosen because they
were extremely focused on high expectations, were strongly talented, and deeply cared
for the students. Staff who were not a good fit were asked to either leave the school or
left on their own. Furthermore, due to the slight dip in API scores for 2008, every teacher
was reassigned grade levels. The principal used this has an opportunity to create grade
levels that had similar working styles as well as to strengthen each teacher’s pedagogy
and not be complacent with their current teaching practices and placement. Significant
professional development was devoted to ensuring that the teachers were prepared to
teach their new grade levels.
152

In terms of the curriculum, the initial focus on improvement was mathematics.
The school has done well in mathematics instruction, which is now in a refinement phase.
The school initially used Harcourt Brace, but has transitioned to Singapore math, where
the focus has been in developing a student’s mathematical abilities through incremental
steps (concrete, pictorial, and finally abstract). The current focus has been directed
towards improving language arts and writing. The school uses state-adopted textbooks in
both mathematics and language arts but that principal has been deliberate in framing how
she expects the teachers to use the textbooks and curriculum. According to the principal,
the teachers use to say, “I teach Open Court Reading.” Now they say, “I teach the
standards.” The curriculum has become the base of what they teach, but they are
encouraged, allowed, and receive development in making instructional decisions to
ensure that the students are able to master the standards. The teachers are regularly
trained and developed in using thinking maps, brain-based research, and a deep analysis
of the standards—they are no longer just teaching a set curriculum, but are required to
think about them and make the needed adjustments to integrate content and to
differentiate effectively.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. The school’s
continual development is driven by on-going assessments. Students who enter during the
kindergarten year are given formative assessments starting in the summer. All students
are assessed every Friday through school-wide teacher created benchmarks. Additionally,
after the end of every unit (approximately 4-6 weeks), students are given end of unit
assessments. The weekly and unit results are shared with the principal and the data is
153

analyzed through Data Director, an online data tracking system. The data is then used to
directly guide the instruction in the classroom. Furthermore, students are divided into
tiers and teachers are doing instructionally different things at each tier to differentiate the
curriculum. Students who are not achieving proficiency receive special interventions.
The assessments are also regularly communicated to parents. Using the
assessment results, goals are set with the students (less formally in kindergarten). By first
grade, students know how they are doing in relation to their goal and are expected to take
ownership and talk with their parent about a plan for improvement.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. The school’s principal sets the
vision and direction for the improvement within the school and aligns resources to
directly address the focus and need. Professional development is provided through school
instructional coaches. There are two coaches, one in language arts and one in
mathematics. These coaches have worked with the school extensively and are continually
refining their focus. For example, after determining that the current reading program was
not meeting the needs of all students, the literacy coach developed “literacy connection”
which wove 10 standards into one daily activity.
Currently, the focus is on writing improvement, and teachers are receiving
support from the mathematics coach in how to integrate writing into the mathematics
curriculum. The principal stated that the teachers have become experts in understanding
writing and integrating writing into all aspects of the curriculum through coaching.
154

Additionally, there is collaborative time planned into the school day. Finally, a
week prior to school starting is devoted to professional development based on the focus
of improvement.
Using time efficiently and effectively. The two areas of priority for the school
are mathematics and language arts and there is extended learning time in both of these
subjects. As such, they devoted the great majority of the day to these areas with content
from science and social studies integrated into the subject matter. Most recently, science
is becoming a focus and time is being allotted in some grades so that students can receive
specific instruction in this area.
Extra curricular activities are reserved for the structured after school program.
Additionally, the school has structured their time so that planning and preparation time
for grade levels is done during each grade level’s physical education. The school day is
also thirty minutes longer than traditional district public schools, in which students attend
from 8:00-2:45. Finally, the amount of time a struggling student spends in school is
longer because of winter school and Saturday school, which will be discussed further in
the next sections.
Extending learning time for struggling students. Because the school utilizes
weekly assessments, the lowest performing students in language arts are pulled two times
a week during the school day in grades first through fifth to work on word analysis and
fluency. Additionally, for students not doing well, the school institutes Student Success
Teams (SSTs) to help students and hold parents accountable. Furthermore, during the
winter break, students who are not on grade level attend winter school for one week and
155

starting in January through the end of May, they attend Saturday school. During the
summer, the students attend summer school Monday through Friday with Friday being an
academic field trip if they attended every day of that week.
The school also employs the Science Theater Art Recreation (STAR) program,
which is a grant, for three hours after school. The program offers enrichment class in a
secondary language as well as support for instruction during the day. The STAR director
and the principal have daily talks to ensure that the curriculum is in alignment with the
school’s priorities.
Collaborative, professional culture. The professional culture at the school is
that all teachers must be willing to do whatever it takes to help students succeed. When
interviewing potential teachers, the principal looks for teachers who embody this and
who are willing to have extremely high expectations for students.
The school also works collaboratively. Instructional coaches are an important
part of the school culture and work directly with teachers individually and in groups in
mathematics and language arts. One time a week, the grade level meets during a joined
physical education time to plan collaboratively and respond to their student’s needs based
on weekly benchmark assessments.
A defining factor in Byron Charter School is that that they make parents and
community a core part of the student’s success. The school provides tools for parents, and
even a parent empowerment coordinator. An example of this tool is the Reading A-Z
program as well as workshops for parents to learn how to use the program in addition to
other literacy skills. The school also has foster grandparents who are from the Senior
156

Corps, an AmeriCorps program. These seniors reside in the community and work with
the students on literacy.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership. The principal is very
clear in setting and creating the vision for the school, but teachers are given the authority
to make decisions and to propose solutions in the best interests of their students. For
example, it has been the teachers who indicated they were not satisfied with the writing
program relative to other components of Open Court and took it upon themselves to
design, develop, and seek out professional development with the help of the principal.
Teachers have also taken the lead, with the principal’s support, for doing an early
adoption of Singapore math. Originally, the school utilized Harcourt Brace and was
rolling out Singapore math by grade levels starting with kindergarten and first grade.
Teachers wanted to utilize the program because of its effectiveness and rolled out second
and third grade simultaneously and have committed to the professional development
necessary to adding Singapore math early. The teachers are leaders within the classroom
and are empowered to make the decisions in the best interests of students. They are
continuously encouraged to utilize every tool to help their students and the expectation is
that they are not required to follow a textbook curriculum with fidelity. Teachers are
trained to become pedagogical experts through coaches, their peers, are expected to use
that knowledge to deliver effective standards-based instruction.
Professional and best practices. The school is continually looking for the best
method to increase student performance based on research. Instead of investing heavily
on implementing a curriculum with fidelity, they have invested their teacher’s
157

professional development on learning how to become effective teachers based on
research. The school has delved into brain-based research, effective ways of instructing
math, and most recently is attending seminars in writing, their current area of focus, to
learn the best research-based practices for instructing their students. Furthermore, the
principal has sought out advice from other leaders who have been successful at their
school. When initially deciding to improve the English language arts curriculum, the
principal consulted with a nationally recognized turnaround school principal who had
extensive experience and success working with similar population.
As described above, Byron implemented all 10 strategies at a moderate to strong
level. Table H.1 displays a summary of this implementation.

158

Table H.1: Byron Charter and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Moderate Weak N/A
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

x

School was founded on the principle
of providing a high quality education
to underserviced students
Set ambitious goals
x

Immediate school goal is 900 API
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision

x

Curriculum is the base and considered
one of the many tools teachers have to
improve student performance.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

x

Weekly benchmark assessments are
given. Students are grouped into tiers
and remediation and differentiation is
offered based on tiers.
Ongoing PD

x Coaches for both subject areas as well
as ongoing themed PD
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

x

Protected time for mathematics and
language arts.
Extended learning
time for struggling
students

x

Longer school year, winter school,
Saturday school as well as after
school program that is coordinated
with the school
Collaborative,
professional culture

x

Teachers work together weekly and
seek out best practices from coaches
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership

x

Teachers are developed into
pedagogical experts
Professional and best
practices
x

All decisions are researched-based.

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
In comparing school resources to the evidence-based model, there are several
areas where the school has allocated resources similarly to the Evidence-Based Model.
The number of administrators, extended day, summer school, specialists teachers, and
full day kindergarten are all in close alignment or above Evidence Based Model (EBM)
159

recommendations. The most significant areas where the school’s resource allocation is
less than the EBM are the number of instructional facilitators/mentors and tutors. An
important allocation to note is that the school utilizes a high number of instructional
aides, which is not a part of the EBM. Table H.2 reflects Byron’s resource allocation in
comparison to the EBM.

160

Table H.2: Byron Charter and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Byron Charter
School
Current Resource
Status
Byron Charter
School Based on
Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 356 82% of the size of
a prototypical
school
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-1: 21
2: 23
3-4: 26
5: 29
6: 23

K-3 classes 23%
larger
4-6 classes 4%
larger
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180, does not
include 6
professional
development days
School year is 10
days less than
recommendation
and 4 fewer
professional
development days
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day
kindergarten
Same as
prototypical school
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE director &
1.0 FTE assistant
director
Double the number
of administrators
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
2 FTE 2 FTE
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 15 FTE 19.68 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 3.75 FTE 3.9 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE .5 FTE 1.8 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
1 FTE 3.21 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0 FTE .15 FTE
Non-Instructional Support
for EL Students
0.0 FTE 1 FTE 1.64 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 3.46 FTE 1.47 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE 1.35 FTE 1.47 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1 FTE 2.46 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
22

161

Table H.2 Continued
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
funded at substitute rate
$20,000 $22,500
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
3.5 FTE 3.21 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 1 FTE 1.64 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 13 FTE 0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 0 FTE .83 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student
1
$8,900
Technology $250 per pupil
1
$89,000
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil
1
$49,840
Student Activities $200 per pupil
1
$71,200
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$20,000

$35,600
1
Data provided by school was incomplete.
2
There are no severely disabled students at
the school.

Summary and Lessons Learned
Byron Charter School has continuously outperformed its peers in standardized test
results and performs on par with students in more affluent communities. One can surmise
that the achievement gap is being closed through a school like Byron Charter School.
There are several points that make Byron unique and particularly effective:
 High expectations for all—students, teachers, parents, and community
members.
 The principal has provided a stable and clear vision for the school
community to implement.
 Teachers are the instructional leaders and are developed into pedagogical
and content experts through coaching.
 Students understand the performance challenge and set goals for
themselves that they are supported in working toward.
162

 There is a very strong emphasis on parent and community involvement
with parents receiving support in meeting the needs of their child.
 Outside resources such as STARS, Vista, AmeriCorps, are continually
sought to provide additional support for the school.
Future Considerations
Additional funding would be needed and helpful for the school to reduce class
sizes since the smallest class is currently 21 to 1, which the principal said would be a
priority if there were increased funding. Also, as the teachers are becoming content and
pedagogical experts, it would be effective for those teachers to form content teams to
create an even more collaborative culture. Furthermore, teachers should begin sharing
data amongst themselves so that they can support and develop each other in becoming
more effective teachers. Finally, the school must address both the early departure of its
students to an area charter middle school in fifth grade, as well as the influx of new
students with significant academic needs.

163

APPENDIX I – TIMOTHY CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on School
Timothy Charter Elementary School is part of a nationally recognized and
acclaimed charter network. Originally an idea conceived in 1994 by two young teachers
to start high performing middle schools, it has expanded to a charter network with over
99 schools educating 26,000 students in 20 states and Washington, DC. This organization
has become one of the nation’s most acclaimed charter networks receiving national
attention from researchers, policy pundits, and education reformers. Most recently, a
policy research think tank found that charter schools within this network had statistically
significant results and that the impact was great enough to close or reduce the “race and
income-based achievement gaps” after just three years of entering one of the schools. A
statistic cited by the network states that 85% of its alumni attend college.
All schools under this network share a set of operating principals referred to as
the five pillars, which are: 1) high expectations for students parents, teachers and staff; 2)
choice and commitment; 3) more time through an extended day, week, and year; 4)
power to lead (principals have the flexibility to make staffing and budgetary choices);
and 5) a focus on the relentless pursuit of results. The network, which now includes a
foundation, does not directly manage the new schools but rather focuses on developing
and training new school leaders.
Timothy Charter Elementary School is part of this network of charter schools,
and is managed by a regional charter management organization (CMO). The regional
164

CMO is governed by a board of directors representing business and educational leaders in
Los Angeles and currently manages multiple schools in Los Angeles with plans to
expand in the next five years.
Timothy Charter Elementary School currently has 306 kindergarten through
second grade students, adding a grade every year until it reaches fourth grade with an
expected capacity of 500 students. The school’s four pillars are integrity, excellence,
honor, and love. The school is tuition free and entrance is based on a lottery. Located in
East Los Angeles, 97% of the school is Latino and 91% quality for the federal free and
reduced lunch program. Sixty-eight percent of the students are English language learners.
Figure I.1 reflects the ethnic breakdown of Timothy Charter School.
Figure I.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Timothy Charter

Because 2010-2011 will be the first year that Timothy Charter School will have a
class of second grade students, there will not be STAR data until the summer of 2011.
Consequently, there are no API or AYP results. However, the school had independently
administered standardized tests, namely the SAT-10 Subject Test, to its kindergarten and
Hispanic
African American
165

first grade students and the results in both math and reading have been significant.
Measured against first grade standards, 69% of kindergarten students scored at or above
the national average in math and 93% at or above the national average in reading. At the
end of first grade, high results continued with 88% scoring at or above the national
average in math and 95% for reading. Furthermore, Timothy Charter School’s grade
level equivalents were also impressive with kindergarten students ending their
kindergarten year at a first grade equivalent in math and a 1.4 grade level equivalent in
reading. By the end of first grade, the students were performing at a 2.5 grade level
equivalent in mathematics and 2.8 grade level in reading.
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Timothy Charter School’s principal is the school’s founding principal. Prior to
founding the school, the principal was an interim principal for two years at a school in
Compton, following four years in the classroom in which she had demonstrated
significant and substantial growth with her students. The school’s principal was one of 13
selected out of 550 applicants for the principal leadership program. Upon accepting her
offer to lead one of their schools, the principal was put through a rigorous one year
fellowship that allowed her to tour the country visiting high performing schools (private,
public charter, and traditional public schools) as well as attend intensive training for six
weeks at Stanford University. The founding principal was allowed to create her school
from the ground up, in addition to being able to hire her entire staff, she has been able to
root her school in research-based principals and strategies that she had learned during her
time spent as an interim principal and during the leadership institute. The purpose of this
166

case study is to identify the effective resource allocation and instructional strategies that
are employed at Timothy Charter Elementary School.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. Timothy Charter
School strives to ensure that all of its students will “never face the achievement gap.”
This network of charter schools, whose original focus was middle schools, began serving
elementary students primarily because it made sense to prevent the achievement gap. The
regional CMO’s website states that in south and east Los Angeles, only 10% of those
who enter high school will attend college and a fraction of those, 4%, will earn a college
degree. The CMO estimates that they will increase the annual college going rate by 50%
when its middle school alumni reach college. Timothy Charter Elementary School is built
around the principle of a results-driven education.
Set ambitious goals. Students at Timothy Charter School are called achievers.
The initial target for API is set at 900, meaning that the goal will be for all students to test
proficient in second grade. The principal demands excellence from everyone and strives
for Timothy Charter School to be the best elementary school in Los Angeles—one that all
should be proud to send their children to.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision. The
network of schools are driven by “no shortcuts, no excuses” philosophy. Teachers at
Timothy Charter Elementary are given the autonomy to create and implement a
curriculum that will allow their students to succeed. Open Court Reading was the
school’s adopted English language arts curriculum, but after feedback from the teachers,
only the most effective parts of the program are utilized and it is accelerated and
167

condensed in order to meet the pacing required to ensure their students meet the school’s
high expectations.
Another example of changing the curriculum is evident in mathematics. During
the school’s first year California Math was used, but during the second year, the school
switched to Envision math and supplemented it with the research and work of Kathy
Richardson. Again, the teachers are given a great deal of autonomy to make instructional
decisions in the best interests of their students and the curriculum is only used as a base
and is heavily supplemented.
Even though teachers are given a significant amount of leeway to design and
create their lessons, there is also a high level of accountability. Lessons created are not
only peer evaluated, they must also show all eight steps of a lesson plan, and are
continually and regularly evaluated by the principal.
The overall instructional vision of the school is that a teacher starts from the
standards and then builds from them as opposed to teaching a set publisher’s curriculum
blindly and hoping to cover the standards.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. Teachers continually
use assessments to guide their practice and the school’s administration monitors the
assessment results very closely. To ensure alignment and high quality assessments,
masters of the assessments are due by the to the principal the Tuesday prior to the exam.
Every Friday, assessments created by staff are administered to their students. The
principal and the dean review the test results and are very transparent with the assessment
168

results and disseminate the results to the entire staff. The result of a child’s individual
performance is communicated to the parents regularly.
If students are not proficient on their Friday assessment, they are given
intervention in small groups by their primary teacher and intervention teacher and then
reassessed. A student’s primary teacher works directly with the intervention teacher to
ensure that there is alignment in instruction and that the intervention is very purposeful.
Ongoing, intensive professional development. Professional development is an
ongoing aspect at Timothy Charter School and is differentiated to meet the needs of the
teacher. New teachers to the school and apprentice teachers receive one additional week
of professional development prior to the beginning of school, and returning teachers
receive two weeks of development prior to the beginning of the year. Staff development
for all occurs weekly and teachers requesting to observe other teachers are arranged
frequently. Apprentice teachers, who do not have their own classes initially, spend the
first part of the year observing, working with other teachers, and teaching small groups
or specific classes.
Using time efficiently and effectively. The entire day at Timothy Charter
Elementary is significantly longer than a traditional public school day. The school day
runs from 8:00 until 4:30 for all students (kindergarten students receive a rest period of
50 minutes from September until January). Every student attends summer school for two
weeks during the year. Additionally, time during the school day is focused on the core
subject areas with over three hours devoted to English language arts, over and hour to
169

mathematics instruction, and daily instruction of Science and Social Studies for 45 and 30
minutes respectively.
Extending learning time for struggling students. As mentioned in the previous
section, all students receive additional learning time that is differentiated to meet their
needs. Students not meeting expectations work with an intervention teacher on the
specific area of need and every classroom has an instructional aid whose main priority is
working with students in small groups.
Collaborative, professional culture. The teachers at Timothy Charter School
work collaboratively on a regular basis. Teachers give each other feedback on instruction
and peer feedback is an important component of their development. Teachers share the
lesson plans they develop and receive feedback from their peers. In addition to a cycle of
feedback from their peers, teachers spend a significant amount of time reflecting on their
practice.
Teachers are also on instructional committees based on content areas where they
work together to develop curriculum. There are committees for math and reading as well
as cross content committees that focus on vertical articulation for grades kindergarten
through second. The principal provides teachers with significant amounts of planning
time during the school day. While apprentice teachers are honing their skills teaching
students, the other teachers are refining their teaching units, developing interventions, and
analyzing data.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership. The principal stated that
she gives the teachers freedom and flexibility, but with accountability. The school takes
170

significant steps to successfully onboard their staff so that the teachers can take on
instructional leadership roles. As mentioned earlier, new staff and apprentice teachers
start one week prior to the rest of the staff and this time is focused on ensuring that they
have a good command of the eight step lesson plan, understanding the school’s mission,
and learning how to embody and teach the students the five pillars.
Teachers are also encouraged to observe other teachers to develop their own
proficiency. Teachers are on instructional committees that directly impact what they are
teaching and frequently engage in peer observations. The expectation is that if a teacher
observes another teacher, they are expected to email their notes to the teacher they
observed, the dean, and the principal. From those notes, the dean identifies trends and
teacher’s areas of strengths so that future recommendations for observation opportunities
can me made.
Professional and best practices. The curriculum decisions and staff
development all are based on foremost thinkers in teaching pedagogy. The school looks
at what is working and strives to not only replicates it, but make it better. New teachers
are referred to as apprentice teachers and are given the time to develop their pedagogical
skills prior to having their own classroom. Lucy Calkins, Fountas and Pinnell, and Kathy
Richardson are just some of the experts whose work and research have been consulted
and are directly reflected in the classrooms at Timothy Charter.
The school also places a high priority on developing a strong home and school
connection. The principal conducts home visits for all incoming kindergarten students
and teachers also frequently visit the homes of their students. The school also has a parent
171

advisory council (PAC) which meets monthly and helps parents become more involved in
school activities.
Timothy Charter is a very strong school that implements all 10 strategies for
increasing student performance. Table I.1 evaluates Timothy Charter School’s
instructional practices against the 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance.

172

Table I.1: Timothy Charter and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Moderate Weak N/A
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

x

The charter network, CMO, and
school are based on the principal of a
no excuses philosophy in ensuring
that the achievement gap is eliminated
Set ambitious goals x

The school not only wants to
eliminate the achievement gap, it
wants to be the very best school—
period.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision

x

Teachers teach the standards and use
research-based materials and
strategies to support their instruction
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

x

Formative assessments are given at
the beginning of the year as well as
weekly Friday assessments—data
from assessments are used to directly
influence decision-making at the
school.
Ongoing PD

x
Professional development is weaved
throughout the school year. There is a
schedule of staff professional
development created at the beginning
of the year
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

x

Extended school day and year
Extended learning
time for struggling
students

x

Intervention given to students who are
not meeting expectations on weekly
Friday assessments.
Collaborative,
professional culture
x

Teachers observe their peers and are
on curriculum committees.
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
x

Teachers are given flexibility along
with accountability. Teachers create
lessons and share best practices with
other teachers.
Professional and best
practices
x

School implements and seeks-out
leaders in curricular fields

173

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
In comparing school resources to the evidence-based model, there are several
areas where the school has allocated resources similarly to the evidence-based model.
The number of instructional days, full day kindergarten, instructional materials,
technology funding, and administrative support are all in close alignment with the
Evidence Based Model (EBM). The most significant areas where the school’s resource
allocation differs from the EBM are the number of FTEs for instructional aids and
extended support personnel. However, this difference is not detrimental to student
outcomes. Timothy Charter uses significantly more FTEs for extended day and summer
schools because it is mandatory that all students participate. Additionally, while the EBM
recommends that no instructional aides be used, but rather highly qualified tutors,
Timothy Charter uses instructional aides that are continually developed and have a direct
manager that monitors their performance and development. The way that Timothy
Charter utilizes and develops their aides is therefore very similar to what one would
expect to achieve from a teacher that acted in a role of a tutor. Table I.2 displays a full
comparison of Timothy Charter to the Evidenced-Based Model.

174

Table I.2: Timothy Charter and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Timothy Charter
School
Current Resource
Status
Timothy. Charter
Based on
Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-1; 203 School is 46% the
size the
prototypical school
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K: 20
1: 20
K-1 25% larger
than EBM
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
190 instructional
days, (includes 10
days mandatory
summer school)
does not include up
to 3 weeks of PD
training
Instructional days
in alignment with
EBM. School
offers one week
more of intensive
PD than the model
to new and
apprentice teachers.
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day
kindergarten
Same as
prototypical school
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal &
1.0 FTE operations
coordinator
School has double
the number of
administrators
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary 1 FTE Secretary
1 FTE Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 10.0 FTE 11.25 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 3 FTE 2.25 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 1.0 FTE Dean 1.0 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
0 FTE 1.8 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0 FTE 1.38 FTE
Non-Instructional Support
for EL Students
0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE .66 FTE .85 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE .5 FTE .85 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
Psychologist—as
needed
Speech/OT/PT—as
needed
1.38 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
n/a
1
n/a
1

175

Table I.2 Continued
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 10 days per teacher
funded at substitute rate
$12,000 $15,000
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
0 FTE 1.89 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0 FTE .93 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 5.0 FTE 0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 0 FTE .47 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0 $5,075
Technology $250 per pupil $59,885 $50,750
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $36,540 $28,420
Student Activities $200 per pupil $0 $40,600
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$10,000 $20,300
1
School does not have severely disabled students.
Summary and Lessons Learned
During its initial two years, Timothy Charter has been very successful, as
measured by the SAT-10, in ensuring that its students excel. The school has several
practices that have made is successful:
 Teachers focus on standards and collaboratively develop curriculum directly
aligned with the standards and the needs of their students. There is a very strong
collaborative and professional culture at the school.
 A significant amount of time is devoted to developing a results-driven school
culture and ensuring that the five pillars are embodied in students and new
teachers.
 The school day and year are longer, and every learner spends significantly more
time in school.
176

 The principal has authority and flexibility in making personnel decisions and has
been involved in the creation of a vision for her school from the ground up.
Future Considerations
Timothy Charter School is a very strong school that displays all 10 strategies for
doubling student performance. However, an area not discussed that would increase the
school’s impact event more is a facility that would accommodate all classrooms.
Currently, the school is spread between three different sites (some are several blocks
apart), which make collaboration, and building a school community more difficult. The
school has recently secured a site that would allow the entire school to be on one campus.
Finally, there are challenges to growing at a rapid pace, and the school should be very
cognizant of these challenges and potential pitfalls of adding staff rapidly and continue to
proactively address them before they come to fruition.

177

APPENDIX J – DELANO CHARTER
Background on School
Delano Charter School serves 120 pre kindergarten and 530 kindergarten through
eighth grade students in Los Angeles. The mission of Delano Charter School is “to
educate students in a college preparatory program to be literate, critical thinkers, and
independent problem solvers who are agents of social justice with sensitivity toward the
world around them.” The core values of the school are scholarship, respect, access,
justice, and community.
Delano Charter School offers a Developmental Bilingual Program which begins
in kindergarten and lasts until fifth grade, with the goal that students become fully
bilingual, biliterate, and bicultural. The school has been recognized as a California
Distinguished School and has received the Bilingual Education Seal of Excellence.
Delano Charter was an idea conceived in 1998 by a non-profit community
development organization, Hillside Empowerment Group, to address the needs of
immigrants in one of the most impoverished areas of Los Angeles. Delano was opened in
2000 as the first campus, which has since been followed by the opening of four additional
sites. Combined, these five campuses serve over 2,000 students in grades pre
kindergarten through high school. Each campus has a principal and the schools are
governed by a fourteen member board of directors and a leadership team that includes an
executive director, chief operating officer, director of academic affairs, school site
administrators and program leaders.

178

Similar to the other campuses under this management organization, Delano is
predominately Latino (97%) with 52% of students being English language learners.
Ninety-eight percent of the students are identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged
(SED). Figure J.1 illustrates the ethnic breakdown of students at Delano Charter School.
Figure J.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Delano Charter School

Delano Charter currently has a 10 out of 10 ranking when compared to similar
schools and has demonstrated tremendous growth since 2002, gaining more than 453
points on the Academic Performance Index (API) to reach a 2010 API of 859.
Additionally, the school is among the top schools in Los Angeles, ranking among the top
25% for grades kindergarten through fourth and the top 10% for grades fifth through
eighth and has a state-wide ranking of eight out of 10. Figure J.2 illustrates the most
recent growth of 162 points since 2006.

Latino
African American
179

Figure J.2: Delano Charter School Elementary School’s API

The Adequate Yearly Progress reports also reflect this continuous growth in
student achievement with all major subgroups making significant gains and surpassing
the state targets for growth. Since 2006 in English language arts, there has been a school
wide increase of over 35 percentage points for students who are proficient or advance in
this subject. The growth for all subgroups, Latino, English Language Learners (ELL),
socioeconomically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities are all within one
percentage point of the school wide increase during the same period. In comparison to the
school wide average, two groups of students, ELL and Students with special needs, do
not do as well as the school wide average trailing by 5% and 23% respectively. Although
those two groups are trailing, they are keeping pace with the overall growth of all
subgroups of students. Figure J.3 displays the English language arts AYP growth.

600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
697
740
779
817
859
Academic Performance Index
180

Figure J.3: English Language Arts AYP Delano Charter School

In mathematics, Delano Charter has also demonstrated a very similar pattern of
growth as they did in English language arts. Since 2006, the school wide growth has been
nearly 37 percentage points, slightly higher than English language arts. During this
period, all subgroups with the exception of students with disabilities, made increases that
were all within one percentage point of the school wide increase during the same period.
Students with disabilities made a much larger increase than the school wide average with
a growth of 14 percentage points. Even so, the greatest gap in achievement is occurring
with student with disabilities who are 22.7 percentage points behind the school wide
average. Figure J.4 displays the math AYP for 2006 through 2010 for all subgroups.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Percentage Proficient or Advanced
School Wide
African American
English Language Learners
Hispanic or Latino
SED
Students with Disabilities
181

Figure J.4: Math AYP for Delano Charter School

In both English language arts and mathematics, African American students’ achievement
results were not reported after 2006 because the enrollment is not numerically significant
enough to cateogrize the students as a subgroup.
Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
Delano Charter Elementary School has demonstrated continuous and impressive
growth under the leadership of their principal who was the school’s assistant principal,
and then co-principal, prior to assuming her current role. Although there has been
significant growth, the school did initially struggle when it became a dual language
immersion school and was in program improvement status for the 2005-2006 school year.
The current principal came into her role, initially as co-principal, with the charge
to fix the bilingual program, improve teacher morale, and improve instructional practices.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Percentage Proficient or Advanced
School Wide
African American
English Language Learner
Hispanic or Latino
SED
Students with Disabilities
182

During her time as principal, she has been given the autonomy to significantly change
and improve the way the school operates. This case study will focus on Delano’s school
improvement efforts, and identify effective resource allocation and instructional
strategies.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. The organization that
founded Delano Charter School is based on the premise that community members’ needs
were not being met and one of those needs is education. The school was founded with the
mindset that to overcome the reality of severe social and economic issues that plague
communities in poverty, community based services must be created to meet the immense
needs of its residents. This community empowerment approach is reflected by the actions
of the school and is seen in their decision-making processes. With this type of founding
ideology, the school understands and recognizes that its scope must be broader than
traditional schools and that it must take numerous steps to continually address the needs
of students and their families.
Set ambitious goals. Throughout the school, there are posters explicitly stating
the ambitious goals for the school. These posters, displayed as School Wide Academic
Achievement Goals, show targets such as increasing the percentage of students who are
advanced or proficient in mathematics from 81% to 85% and increasing the level in
English language arts from 55% to 67%. The posers also display an API growth target
from 851 to 870 and also a one and a half grade level growth in reading. The
administration, teachers, and students all understand and internalize the ambitious goals
being set for achievement.
183

Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision. The
principal both created the instructional vision and changed the curriculum program to
better meet the needs of the students in response to teacher feedback and student
performance.
The school is unique in the fact that it is a dual immersion program for grades
kindergarten through fifth, which was created at the request of parents. Starting in
kindergarten, the students are taught 80% in Spanish and 20% in English. The percent of
instruction in English increases by 10% and decreases by the same amount in Spanish
every year until fourth grade where 50% of instruction is in English and the other 50% of
instruction is in Spanish. After fifth grade, the students exit the program and receive all
instruction in English. At the end of the program, the student will be bilingual, biliterate,
and bicultural. The school has not always been a dual immersion program and there were
challenges to implementing it initially. The principal clearly understood this challenge
and made several changes to the instructional program to best meet the needs of students
at her school site.
The focus of the school has been to build a strong literacy foundation—especially
for English language learners, which constitute the majority of its population. Although
most of the instruction is in Spanish during the early years, not all of its students come
with a formal background in Spanish language acquisition and the school has placed an
emphasis on developing Spanish for those students as well as developing their English
skills. The school uses the work of Susana Dutro, who created E.L Achieve, for a focused
approach to English language instruction through a systematic ELD framework. In
184

English language arts, as opposed to relying on a publisher’s curriculum, the school has
instead focused on developing the pedagogy of teachers. The English curriculum is
teacher designed and based on Dr. Patricia Cunningham’s Four Blocks literacy model,
which includes guided reading, self-selected reading, writing, and working with words.
Although the school has been historically strong in mathematics, the teachers
lacked the conceptual piece of mathematical development in their instruction and desired
a more rigorous and authentic math program. Additionally, the teachers said that due to
the immersion program, Houghton Mifflin was not meeting the needs of their students
and was thus supplanted by Singapore math.
Finally, a multi-year pacing plan has been in place since 2006 and backwards
planning and vertical articulation are key components to ensuring that teachers are
covering the content relentlessly and authentically.
Formative assessments and data based decision making. Formative
assessments are administered at the beginning of the year to all students and benchmarks
are given to all students three times a year. These benchmarks drive the assessment
across the organization and measure standards mastery. The benchmarks are aligned to
the multi-year pacing plan in which teachers then create their own pacing plans and
assessments to meet the needs of their students. Teachers design interventions and adjust
instruction following each benchmark, where they have a professional development day
where they collaboratively analyze the data, engage in peer collaboration, and discuss
their instructional practices.
185

Ongoing, intensive professional development. The professional development
that occurs at Delano Charter Elementary School is purposeful and directly linked to the
curriculum and instructional vision being implemented. The principal creates the
professional development calendar over the summer based on these four strands: literacy,
English learner achievement, Singapore math, and issues affecting the whole child such
as poverty, race, and ethnicity.
As recently as 2006, there was a large variance in teacher quality at the school. To
address this, the school has implemented a coaching model based as well as focused on
professional development throughout the year. Teachers spend a significant amount of
time unpacking the standards and developing a better understanding of effective
pedagogical practices both collaboratively with their peers as well as with the guidance of
administrative coaches. Currently, the school’s two assistant principals primarily focus on
coaching, developing, and evaluating teachers. There is a large degree of investment in
using coaches and this is reflected in the significant amount of time that has been devoted
to developing the skills of the administrators who act as coaches to ensure a positive
coaching culture.
In addition to coaching, there is also ongoing professional development directly
inline with the area of focus throughout the year. Every Thursday morning from 7:45-
9:45, the teachers are led in professional development in the school’s focus area (which is
ELD this year). Additionally, three times a year the teachers have one-on-one meetings
with the principal to discuss their teaching practices and philosophy. In total, teachers
receive five days for professional development during the year—two prior to the
186

beginning of the school year and one after each benchmark in addition to meeting every
Thursday morning.
Using time efficiently and effectively. Delano Charter Elementary has an
extended school year with 195 instructional days for students in kindergarten through
eighth grade. Since 2006, the school has had a full day kindergarten. The school day
itself is also longer than traditional public schools with the school day starting at 8:00 and
ending at 3:00. The school day is focused on core subject areas with emphasis in
instructing English language learners.
Extending learning time for struggling students. The school has before and
after school tutoring for supplemental support. These tutors are hired from the outside
and tutor one hour before and up to two hours after school. The focus of tutors has shifted
from remedial support to front loading and targeting students who are identified as basic
on the CST. An assistant principal manages the tutors and their focus is in direct
alignment with the school’s focus and they concurrently implement practices such as the
Four Blocks literacy frame. The challenge, as indicated by the principal, is that the tutors
are hired form the outside and that it can be difficult to find the highest quality tutors who
are able to work non-standard hours. Although using teachers is an option, the school
wants to maintain work and life balance for the teachers in order for them to be able to
sustain their current rigorous workload.
During the summer, approximately 50 students attend half-day summer school
from 8-12:30 for six weeks. The summer school is taught by both school staff and outside
instructors. The students targeted for summer school are those students who are
187

struggling with academic achievement, students who may regress during the summer, and
newcomers.
Collaborative, professional culture. Teachers regularly plan collaboratively.
The teachers have embraced a shared commitment towards common goals and the
school’s administration has implemented Rick Dufour’s work to increasing the
effectiveness of teacher collaboration. Also, the coaching model that is being
implemented reflects appreciative coaching practices where the teacher is a vital
component of his or her professional development.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership. Staff morale was low
when the current principal entered her position and one of her first priorities was
developing and leading the culture building at her school site. The principal has placed a
significant amount of resources into the capacity building of her staff. She has created an
instructional leadership cadre of the best teachers at her school site who meet three hours
a week to engage each other in professional development. These teachers then go back to
their fellow teachers in their grade level and develop them. The staff also engages in 360-
degree feedback, where they not only receive feedback from their administrators, but they
also give feedback to their administrators.
Professional and best practices. Delano Charter places a very large emphasis on
parental involvement and has programs in place to help and support involvement from
parents and has built several programs to support, increase, and sustain this high level of
involvement. The school achieves a high level of parental involvement through a parental
coordinator. The coordinator is a highly compensated position and is charged with
188

creating diverse programming to meet the needs of parents. Examples of this
programming include: parent meetings after each benchmark to analyze and review
student achievement data, mental health counseling, workshops regarding Singapore
math and Four Block literacy for parents help their students, college knowledge, financial
planning for higher education, and immigration help. Additionally, the school accesses
multiple outside resources to support students and their families. These partnerships
include an arts program, a family health clinic, The Latino Family Literacy Project, Let’s
Get Healthy Program, a mental health program with the Los Angeles Child Development
Center, and a music partnership with the LA Philharmonic.
In addition to helping parents and engaging families, the school places a high
emphasis on using research-based and proven methods to increase student achievement in
all 10 of the instructional strategies for improving student performance. As mentioned in
previous sections, the school uses the work of Susana Dutro, Rick Dufour, and Patricia
Cunningham to guide the work and the professional development that is utilized at the
school site.
Table J.1 provides a summary of the aforementioned instructional practices and to
what degree the 10 strategies for improving student performance are being implemented.

189

Table J.1: Delano Charter and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance
Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Moderate Weak N/A
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

x

Community based organization that
founded school is deeply rooted in
solving the plight of students and
families in under resourced areas.
Set ambitious goals x

School has a current API goal of 870
and 1.5 years of growth in reading.
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision

x

The school has focused on developing
the pedagogy of teachers and not on
developing their expertise in
implementing a publisher’s
curriculum
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

x

Formative and ongoing assessments
given and the data is analyzed
Ongoing PD

x
PD occurs regularly
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

x Time is spent on core subjects areas
and the school year is extended
Extended learning
time for struggling
students

x Before school and after school
tutoring (up to three hours a day) is
offered to struggling students by non
regular teaching staff
Collaborative,
professional culture
x

Appreciative coaching model, as well
as regular collaborative meetings to
analyze instructional practices and
student data
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
x

360 degree feedback and cadre of
teacher leaders
Professional and best
practices
x

All practices are based on research
and a high degree of supporting and
developing parental involvement
through an organized system

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Delano Charter School Elementary employs all 10 strategies, but there are notable
differences in the resource allocation in comparison to the EBM. In direct alignment with
the EBM, the school employs full time kindergarten and an increase in instructional days.
190

Areas in which the resource allocation is greater include administrative support, specialist
teachers, summer school and extended day teachers. Areas in which the resource
allocation is notably less than the EBM include teacher to student ratios and instructional
facilitators/mentors. Although there are differences in resource allocation, the school has
structured itself in ways to successfully meet the diverse needs of its students. Table J.2
displays a comparison of the EBM to Delano Charter School.

191

Table J.2: Delano Charter and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
BB Charter School
Current Resource
Status
BB Charter Based
on Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students Pre-Kindergarten
120
K-8; 530

Pre-Kindergarten
not a part of the
EBM; 22% larger
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 20
4-8: 28
K-3 is 25% larger
than EBM
4-8 is 12% larger
than EBM
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
195 school days that
do not include 5
days for intensive
PD training
School has
increased
instructional days
as suggested by
EBM.
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day
kindergarten
School has full day
kindergarten as
suggested by EBM
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal &
3 directors
1.2 FTE principal
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary &
5.0 FTE Clerical
1.2 Secretaries and
1.2 Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 21.0 FTE 29.2 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 1 FTE teacher on
school payroll

6.5 FTE teachers
through partnerships
4.2 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 2.0 FTE assistant
administrators act as
facilitators and
mentors
2.6 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
0 FTE 5.3 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0 FTE 4.3 FTE
Non-Instructional Support
for EL Students
0.0 FTE 0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE 2.55 FTE 2.1 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE .59 FTE 2.1 FTE

192

Table J.2 Continued
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
1.0 FTE resource
specialist, 2 SPED
TAs
3.6 FTEs
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
n/a
1
n/a
1

Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 5% of personnel
resources and special
education personnel
$35,000 total budget
for substitutes
$31,500
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
1.0 FTE Academic
Counselor, 1.0 FTE
Social Worker

5.3 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 10.0 FTE 3.8 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 0.0 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 0.0 1.2 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0 $13,250
Technology $250 per pupil $10,807 $132,500
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $41,987 $74,200
Student Activities $200 per pupil $122,000 $106,000
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$16,000 $53,000
1
School does not have severely disabled students.
Summary and Lessons Learned
Delano Charter School is an example of school that is very purposeful in
addressing the needs of both the whole child and the child’s family. The school has had
tremendous success and gains and it is due to these strong aspects:
 A high emphasis and infrastructure to develop, increase, and sustain high levels of
parental involvement
 High expectations for all learners and ambitious goals for their students continued
growth
193

 Ongoing, intensive, and purposeful professional development that is researched
based, data driven, and focused on developing a teacher’s pedagogy, not expertise
in a publisher’s curriculum
 Multiple partnerships to address outside factors that affect students and their
families in under resourced communities
Future Considerations
There are many things that Delano Charter School does exceptionally well. In
further strengthening their program, some areas of improvement and focus should be on
strengthening technology usage throughout the school in a more meaningful way that
promotes learning. One area that the school is cognizant of is ensuring that the
technology will not be the “Crayola curriculum in a digital format” as stated by the
principal. Additionally, the school should continue to look at further increasing the
quality of before school and after school teachers and utilizing fully credentialed and
highly qualified tutors. Finally, as the school leadership transitions next year, it will be
imperative that the new principal be able to continue the momentum of the school’s
current improvement efforts.

194

APPENDIX K – AMARADO CHARTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Background on School
Amarado Charter Elementary School is a rigorous, standards-based, danced-
themed charter school that serves 276 students in grades kindergarten through sixth and is
in the process of expanding to grade eight by 2011-2012. The school, established in 2005
by a foundation originally created to provide after-school dance instruction to
socioeconomically disadvantaged students, is one of the first dance-themed charter
schools in Los Angeles.
A school governance committee consisting of seven voting board members and
four advisory board members manages Amarado Charter Elementary School. The board
membership consists of a teacher, parents, the principal and business and educational
leaders from Los Angeles. The foundation’s board reviews the decisions made by the
school’s governance committee. Matters directly related to instruction are made solely by
the school governance committee.
Amarado Charter Elementary School shares a campus with a traditional public
school in an area of Los Angeles that is going through gentrification. Its recent move to
the new location will allow it to expand to grade eight and nearly double the number of
students it serves by 2011-2012. Its students are diverse (percentages do not equal 100%
because some students did not self-identify), 81% of the students are Latino, 8.6% Asian,
3.4% African American, 3% White, and .3% Filipino. Forty-eight percent of the students
are English language learners and 89% of its students are eligible for a free or reduced
195

price lunch. Figure K.1 displays the ethnic composition of Amarado Charter Elementary
Charter School.
Figure K.1: Ethnic Breakdown of Amarado Elementary Charter School

The school has been recognized for its achievement and has received the Title I
Academic Achievement Award. Amarado Charter has a similar schools ranking of 10 out
of 10. The API for the school has fluctuated but remained above 800 since its inception.
Since 2006, it has had a net gain of 20 API points and from 2008 onward, has
demonstrated positive growth in their API every year. It is important to note that
according to the California Department of Education (CDE), because the school was
identified as a small school (having between 11 and 99 valid Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) Program test scores in 2006 and 2007), these numbers are not as
reliable as APIs calculated with a larger student body and should be carefully interpreted.
Figure K.2 reflects API scores from 2006 to 2010.

Latino
African American
Asian
Filipino
White
196

Figure K.2: Amarado Charter Elementary School’s API

The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for Language Arts also reflects the same
variation that the API scores showed. Not taking into account 2006 and 2007 AYP scores
due to the lack of reliability, AYP since 2008 in English Language Arts has reflected a
small increase of 1.3 percentage points school wide. When looking at subgroups, English
language learners, Latino students, and students with disabilities all increased by 2.7, 3.8,
and 16 percentage points respectively. Asian students overall performed the best, with an
increase of 4.9 percentage points (data is only available for 2009 and 2010). The only
decline during this period was for students who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and
scored .2 pts lower than in 2008. In 2010, 62.4% of students scored proficient or
advanced. Figure K.3 represents the English language arts AYP for Amarado Charter
Elementary School from 2006-2010.

600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
854
814 808
852
874
Academic Performance Index
197

Figure K.3: English Language Arts AYP for Amarado Charter Elementary School

The AYP for mathematics has remained steady. Overall, school-wide scores have
declined slightly by 1.6 percentage points since 2008. All subgroups, with the exception
of students with disabilities, declined during this period. English language learners,
Latino students, socioeconomically disadvantaged all marginally declined by .6, .1, and
2.9% respectively. Asian students declined by 6.7% (from 2009-2010 only). Students
with disabilities increased their scores by 17.1 percentage points during this period.
While there has been a slight decline, it is important to note that students in mathematics
are still scoring very well with 79.1% of students scoring proficient or advanced in 2010.
Figure K.4 displays the mathematics AYP since 2006.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Percentage of Studnets Proficient or
Advanced
School Wide
Asian
English Language Learners
Hispanic or Latino
SED
Students with Disabilities
198

Figure K.4: Math AYP for Amarado Charter Elementary School

Key Elements and Themes of the Improvement Process
The school initially started in 2005 with two kindergarten classrooms, and one
first and one second grade classroom. A talented cadre of teachers was hired to be the
school’s founding teachers and were given significant flexibility to design and implement
their own curriculum based on the standards.
Amarado Charter Elementary School is led by one of its founding teachers who
spent several years teaching in Compton Unified prior to joining Amarado Charter. After
being a founding teacher, she moved into the role of assistant principal during her second
year and focused on teacher support, evaluation and professional development. Last year
was her first year as the school’s principal.
Understanding the performance problem and challenge. The school, which is
located in a diverse community, understands the challenges of serving a highly diverse
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Percentage of Students Proficient or
Advanced
School Wide
Asian
English Language Learners
Hispanic or Latino
SED
Students with Disabilities
199

population of students in which the majority are English language learners and
socioeconomically disadvantaged. In addition to this inherent challenge, the school has
the additional task of growing at a rapid pace, and is keenly aware of the challenges of
not only maintaining student performance but also increasing it. As discussed in a
previous section, the school has consistently scored above 800 API since its founding.
With the addition of upper grades, and the increase in class sizes for the upper grades,
new students have entered the school. Of the new students entering fifth and sixth grade,
many are behind two to three grade levels. Because of this, the school’s administration
knows that it must not only continue to challenge its current students, but also provide for
the needs and services of its incoming students at the upper grade levels. In addition to
the increased number of students, the school will also add additional staff. The school
recognizes this challenge and is placing a significant amount of resources into culture
building and ensuring both new students and teachers reflect its high standards for
academic achievement.
Set ambitious goals. The school has the ambitious goal of continuing an upward
API trajectory while also nearly doubling the number of students it serves. This is
particularly ambitious since many of the new students to the school are behind several
grade levels. Although there are no specific numerical goals stated, the school expressly
states that its expectations are that its students should perform comparably to their more
socioeconomically advantaged peers.
Change the curriculum program and create a new instructional vision.
English language arts is the instructional focus of the school. Math has performed strong,
200

nearing 80% proficient or advanced with most students scoring advanced in mathematics.
The focus in computational mathematics has shifted toward critical thinking in math.
Houghton Mifflin, Harcourt Brace and FOSS science kits are used as the
curriculum/publishers. However, teachers have been given autonomy to utilize the
curriculum to best meet the needs of their students. Because of this, English language arts
has evolved and the school utilizes Lucy Caulkins’ writer’s workshop model.
Additionally, the school reached a very high level of math proficiency and desired a more
rigorous curriculum. Because of this, the school transitioned to Singapore math.
Formative assessments and data-based decision making. Assessments at the
school are given regularly to inform data-based decision making. The CORE assessments
are given as formative assessments in grades kindergarten through second and in third
and fourth on an as needed basis. Fountas and Pinnell level reading assessments are also
given to students at the beginning of the year. Additionally, teachers give quarterly
assessments such as fluency tests, as well as teacher-designed tests that are reviewed by
the administration. In grades five, six, and seven, Measures of Academic Progress are
given two times a year.
Based on data from the beginning of the year assessments and quarterly
assessments, teachers create individual intervention plans, adjust their long term plans,
and plan for future units. This cycle of adjusting instruction and developing intervention
plans occurs quarterly. The director of intervention and assessment reviews the
assessment results and follows-up with teachers to offer support and training to develop
201

the intervention plans. This director also coaches the instructional aids, as well as works
with teachers who have students participating in the student success team (SST).
Ongoing, intensive professional development. Professional development is
ongoing and intensive. The focus of the professional development includes culture
building as well as instructional development. Because instruction is not tied solely to a
publisher’s curriculum, but rather research-based best practices, significant professional
develop is in place to support the teachers’ development. For example, this year is the
first year of reader’s workshop and the school sent one teacher to a professional
development session in New York, who will then intern lead the staff in the development
of reader’s workshop at the site.
During the summer, there are five days devoted to professional development that
are dependent on the school’s year plan. During the school year, teachers are given two
professional development days. Additionally, teachers have planning and professional
development time weekly and are able to attend seminars and conferences on a case by
case basis. The teachers also engage in classroom walks and visits to observe their peers.
Continuous professional development is offered through classroom observations
and feedback regarding lesson and unit plans. The principal also meets with each teacher
bi-weekly to review instructional plans as well as to check-in on the well-being of the
teacher.
Using time efficiently and effectively. Amarado Charter Elementary school
operates from 8:00-3:30 on a traditional 180 day calendar. The school day is one hour
longer than the traditional school day and this additional hour is devoted to dance
202

instruction. The remainder of the time is focused on the core curriculum where teachers
try to bring in and integrate movement into their everyday instruction. The majority of
the day is focused on English language arts, where 90-150 instructional minutes occur
daily, and math, where 60-90 instructional minutes take place daily. Less than 60 minutes
daily is spent in each of the two remaining subject areas, science and social studies.
Extending learning time for struggling students. In kindergarten and first
grade, there are instructional aides, many of whom have a full teaching credential. The
school has a guideline that the teacher must also submit plans for the aides and that the
majority of their time must be spent instructing students (up to 15 minutes is allowed for
clerical duties). There is also tutoring before and after school three days a week for
students who have been referred by their teacher. These students work in small groups of
approximately four to five students. Furthermore, there is summer school for
recommended students who are struggling academically. Two regular teachers and two
intervention teachers teach the summer school; all are fully credentialed.
Collaborative, professional culture. Team teaching at the school site defines
the schools collaborative and professional culture. Teachers team teach starting in first
grade where subject matters are divided—one teacher focuses on writing and social
studies and the other teacher teaches math and science. Each teacher instructs their own
literacy block. This model is continually evolving and as additional classes are added,
will continue to be adjusted to meet the needs of students. Additionally, the teachers are
supported in bringing and integrating movement into the classroom. The school’s dance
educator coordinates the professional development in this area.
203

The school has also set aside common planning time for the grade level each day
by scheduling dance at the same time for each grade level.
Widespread and distributed instructional leadership. Teachers at the school
site act as instructional leaders for fellow teachers and there is widespread and distributed
instructional leadership. The distributed leadership is best represented in what the school
calls pods. The pods are groupings of teachers who set goals, observe each other, hold
each other accountable, and engage in a cycle of continuous improvement. Pods meet for
approximately two hours weekly. Each pod focuses on a specific content area such as
math and science or English language arts and comprehension. The school’s leadership
team works together to guide pods. Each pod is led by a teacher leader who has
additional time set aside each month for planning and organization of the group’s
activities.
Professional and best practices. The school utilizes several research-based best
practices. One of those best practices is parental involvement. Parents are asked to
volunteer a minimum of 15 hours a year as well as serve two meals a year. To encourage
parental engagement, teachers conduct parent meetings every quarter and engage parents
in ways that they can help their students. Examples of this include how to read a book to
develop fluency, sharing checklists created in class, and how to develop writing at home.
Another recent endeavor includes the Latino literacy project, where one of the assistant
principals instructs parents in how to read with their students as well as develop their own
literacy skills. Parents are also apart of the school governance committee, participate in
general monthly parent meetings, and also act as room parents.
204

The school is also trying to actively engage the community. The school has
community advisory breakfasts to help the community understand the school’s vision and
mission as well as to engage students, teachers, and members of the school in which they
share a campus.
Overall, Amarado Charter Elementary School is a very strong charter school that
displays all 10 strategies for doubling students’ performance. The strongest areas of
practice are understanding the performance problem and challenge, changing the
curriculum, using data to drive instruction, collaborative and professional culture, and
widespread instructional leadership. Figure K.1 shows a summation and evaluation of
implementation for each of the 10 strategies.

205

Table K.1: Amarado Charter and 10 Strategies for Doubling Student Performance

Odden &
Archibald’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Moderate Weak N/A
Understanding
performance
problem and
challenge

x

The school is growing rapidly and
adding students at the middle school
level. The school is making
arrangements to make sure they can
meet the more challenging needs of
students who are several years below
grade level.
Set ambitious goals

x

The goal is that students perform on
par with their more socioeconomically
advantaged peers
Change curriculum
program/create new
instructional vision

x

Publisher’s curriculum is changed to
better meet the needs of the students.
Formative
assessments/data-
based decisions

x

Formative and quarterly assessments
are given. Intervention plans and
changes to long term and unit plans
are made based on data.
Ongoing PD

x Principal checks in every other week
with teachers to discuss lessons.
Assistant principals act partially as
coaches and 7 days are set aside for
PD.
Using time
efficiently &
effectively

x Day is one hour longer than
traditional school day. Extra hour is
devoted to dance instruction.
Extended learning
time for struggling
students

x Before and after school tutoring as
well as instructional aides for lower
grades.
Collaborative,
professional culture
x

Team teaching within grade levels.
Teachers give feedback to other
teachers and observe for best practices
Widespread and
distributed
instructional
leadership
x

Teacher are in content specific pods
where they work collaboratively to
develop content and support each
other professionally.
Professional and best
practices
x

School not only encourages parental
involvement, but also provides
strategies for parents to work with
their students.

206

Comparison of School Resources to the Evidence-Based Model
Amarado Charter School allocates many of its resources differently than the
Evidenced-Based Model. While the school is smaller than the prototypical school, a few
areas stand out as having more than the recommended resource allocation. These areas
include administrative support and specialist teachers. However, an explanation for the
resource allocation being higher in administration can be attributed to administrators also
performing coaching and teacher development duties. Additionally, the specialist
teachers provide one hour of dance instruction daily to each student, which is different
from a prototypical school. The area with significantly lower resource allocation, is in
extended support, where the school provides fewer teachers than recommended by the
model. This choice may be offset by the fact that the school uses instructional aides,
many of which have full teaching credentials. Table K.2 displays a comparison of
Amarado Charter Elementary and Evidenced-Based Model Resource use comparison.

207

Table K.2: Amarado Charter and Evidence-Based Model Resource Use Comparison
School Element EBM – Prototypical
Elementary School
Amarado Charter
School
Current Resource
Status
Amarado Charter
School Based on
Prototypical
Model
School Size K-5; 432 Students K-6; 276 Students 63% if the size of a
prototypical school
Class Size K-3: 15
4-5: 25
K-3: 20
4-6: 26
K-3: 25% larger
4-6: 4% larger
Instructional Days 200, includes 10 days for
intensive PD training
180, does not
include 7 days
professional
development
7% fewer days than
prototypical model
Kindergarten Full-day kindergarten Full-day
kindergarten
Same as
prototypical model
Administrative Support
Site Administrators 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE principal &
1.08 FTE assistant
principal
1.08 FTE more
administrative staff
than model
School Site Secretary 1.0 FTE Secretary and 1.0
FTE Clerical
1.0 FTE Secretary
and 1.5 FTE Clerical
1FTE Secretary
and 1 FTE Clerical
General Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24.0 FTE 12.0 FTE 15.12 FTE
Specialist Teachers 20% of core teachers 3.0 FTE (2 Dance, .5
Art, .5 Music)
2.4 FTE
Instructional
Facilitators/Mentors
2.2 FTE 0.5 FTE Director
of Instruction and
Assessment and
.72 FTE Assistant
principal acting in
instructional
facilitator capacity
1.8 FTE
Extended Support
Tutors for struggling students One for every 100
poverty students
0.0 FTE 2.4 FTE
Teachers for EL students An additional 1.0 FTE
teacher for every 100 EL
students
0.0 FTE 1.3 FTE
Non-Instructional Support
for EL Students
0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Extended Day 1.8 FTE .5 FTE 1.13 FTE
Summer School 1.8 FTE .26 FTE 1.13 FTE
Special Education Personnel
Learning & mild disabled
students
Additional 3.0
professional teacher
positions
.75 FTE 1.8 FTE
Severely disabled students 100% state
reimbursement minus
federal funds
n/a
1
n/a
1

208

Table K.2 Continued
Other Staffing Resources
Substitutes 10 days per teacher based
on substitute rate
$32,560 $31,437
Pupil support staff 1 for every 100 poverty
students
0.0 FTE 2.4 FTE
Non-Instructional Aides 2.0 FTE 0.0 FTE 1.26 FTE
Instructional Aides 0.0 FTE 4.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
Librarians/media specialists 1.0 FTE 0.0 FTE .63 FTE
Resources for gifted students $25 per student $0 $6,900
Technology $250 per pupil $19,140 $69,000
Instructional Materials $140 per pupil $62,467 $38,640
Student Activities $200 per pupil $15,048 $55,200
Professional Development $100 per pupil for other
PD expenses - trainers,
conferences, travel, etc.
not included above
$0 $27,900

1
School does not have severely disabled students.
Summary and Lessons Learned
Amarado Charter School is a charter school that is performing strongly and
implementing all 10 of the strategies to doubling student performance at either a
moderate or high level. There are several points that make the school’s practice both
strong and unique:
 The school actively engages parental involvement and provides avenues for
parents to support their student.
 The school has discretion in personnel choices.
 The school’s dance themed focus ensures a high level of student engagement.
Additionally, the school also holds students and teachers accountable to high
expectations academically.
 Data is used to drive instruction and support mechanisms are in place to ensure
that the teachers are supported in differentiating their curriculum.
209

 The school has a strong collaborative environment and distributed leadership
through the use of pods, or grouping of teachers to support each other’s
development
 The school is flexible and adjusts curriculum to meet the changing needs of
students.
Future Considerations
The biggest challenges the school will need to address are due to its expansion.
The new students who enter may be coming to the school significantly behind.
Additionally, as this expansion continues, more teachers will be hired, so the congeniality
and collaborative culture may be strained with a larger staff. The school can address these
two significant needs by increasing its resource allocation to extended support and by
also providing resources to train and develop teachers in the pods to take on part-time
coaching responsibilities so that they can support the new staff.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Charter schools are growing at a rapid pace have significantly more flexibility in their allocation of resources in comparison to their traditional public school counterparts in California. Because of this, it is important to study how successful charter schools, with this increased flexibility, are utilizing their resources to achieve high results with their students in a time of fiscal constraint. There is a plethora of data and research on effective school practices to improve student achievement, but a dearth of research on the effective allocation of resources at charter schools. The purpose of this study is to analyze how four high performing charter schools, with high percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged students in Los Angeles, California, are implementing school improvement strategies and utilizing resources at their school site to impact student achievement. The Evidenced-Based Model, (Odden & Picus, 2008) along with Odden and Archibald’s (2009) Ten Strategies for Doubling Student Performance were used as a lens in this study to compare resource allocation as well as school improvement strategies to best support student achievement at the schools. This study will describe each schools’ instructional vision and improvement strategy, how resources are utilized to implement their instructional improvement plan, how the current fiscal crisis is affecting their allocation of resources, and how actual resource patterns are aligned with the Evidence Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Aligning educational resources and strategies to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model

PDF

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

PDF

School-level resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The allocation of resources at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers: What is adequate?

PDF

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the middle school level: a case study of six middle schools in one California district

PDF

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

PDF

School level resource allocation to improve student performance: A case study of Orange County and Los Angeles County Title I elementary schools

PDF

Resource allocation practices in start-up charter schools in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

Resource allocation practices in three charter middle schools in relation to student achievement improvement strategies

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation to improve student achievement

PDF

Resource allocation in successful schools: case studies of California elementary schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Patrick, Ramona Kay (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/04/2011

Defense Date 03/28/2011

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

Tag charter schools,evidenced-based model,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation

Place Name California (states), USA (countries)

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 ramonakaypatrick@gmail.com,rpatrick@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3815

Unique identifier UC1483841

Identifier etd-Patrick-4438 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-465688 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3815 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Patrick-4438.pdf

Dmrecord 465688

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Patrick, Ramona Kay

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