University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

CAHSEE intervention strategies implemented by successful urban California superintendents

(USC Thesis Other)

CAHSEE intervention strategies implemented by successful urban California superintendents

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

CAHSEE INTERVENTION STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTED BY SUCCESSFUL
URBAN CALIFORNIA SUPERINTENDENTS

by
Caroline Frances Sweeney
______________________________________________________________

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

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Caroline Frances Sweeney

ii

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to the following people:
My husband, Joel, who made me coffee to keep me awake at night, woke me up early in
the morning to get in time on my dissertation before work, protected the computer when I
threatened to throw it out the window, and gave me eye-drops when my eyes went blurry
from looking at data. You are a kind man and for that I will always love you.
My parents, John and Georgine Sweeney. (Dad, you weren’t here to see this, but I
know you are watching).
My in-laws, Joel and Elena Lopez, who took me into their family and have treated
me like one of their own. Your support is felt and appreciated.
My sisters and brothers. (In chronological order: Johnny, Gracia, Elizabeth, and
George). We may be years and miles apart but I know you are always there for me. I feel
it and need it and I utmost appreciate it.
My nieces and nephew. (In chronological order: Jennifer, Heather, Raenicia,
Acacia, Kendall, and Allegra). I live my life for you guys. You bring me joy each time
you achieve something you put your mind to. You guys are going to be whatever you
want to be.
Although all of the people listed have been invaluable, my greatest thanks goes to
my mom. Mom, you have always told me that I can be anything. You have nurtured me

iii
when I was weak of body and mind, you have supported me both financially and
emotionally, and I know that you love me. (Which to me is the key to success). Thank
you, Mom. This dissertation is for you.

iv

Acknowledgements

I take this moment to acknowledge those who have made this dissertation
possible:
My family: The entire bunch, from my mother, to my husband, my brothers and
sisters, nieces and nephew, and in-laws. All of you were there for me, and I thank you.
Dr. Rudy Castruita: You brought me along in this process and helped me know it was
possible.
The members of my cohort: There are too many of you to name, but from my first
Tuesday class I knew that we would help each other get through. (A special thanks to Dr.
Castruita’s superintendents cohort. You were with me during the worst of it).
Dr. Dominic Brewer and Dr. Michael Escalante: For being members of my
committee and giving me guidance and feedback to give you the best product possible.
The University of Southern California: For creating a program in which I could
grow and learn.
Glendale Unified School District: For granting me the ability to begin this
program in the first place. You promote learners and for that I am grateful. (A special
thanks to my coworkers. You were flexible and supportive).
My friends: I see some of you more often than others but you all know that you
have gotten me through one piece or another. Thank you.
To all of you inclusively, thank you.

v

Table of Contents

Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iv

List of Tables vii

Abstract x

Chapter One: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 11
Chapter 1 Purpose of the Study 12
Chapter 1 Research Questions 12
Significance of the Study 13
Assumptions of the Study 14
Delimitations of the Study 14
Limitations of the Study 14
Definition of Terms 15
Chapter 1 Conclusion 17

Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
Chapter 2 Introduction 18
History of Educational Reform 18
Testing and Accountability Logistics 24
California High School Exit Exam 35
Who is Responsible for a Student’s Learning? 40
Prevention as a Theory of Intervention 45
Remediation as a Theory of Intervention 49
Chapter 2 Conclusion 52

Chapter Three: Research Methodology 56
Chapter 3 Introduction 56
Purpose and Organization of the Chapter 57
Method of Analysis 57
Sample and Population 59
Population 59
Participants 59
Research Setting 62
Data Collection 62
Instrumentation 63

vi
The Survey Questionnaire 63
The Interview Guide 63
Data Analysis 64
Chapter 3 Conclusion 64

Chapter Four: Findings and Discussion of Findings 65
Chapter 4 Introduction 65
Districts Analyzed 66
Organizational Structure 73
Background of Superintendent 74
Program Improvement Status 77
Chapter 4 Research Questions 78
Types of Interventions 82
Identification of Students 104
Personnel for Testing 112
Autonomy of Sites 118
Budget Allocations 123
Implementation 124
Discussion 125
Intervention at an Early Age 125
Focused and Data-Driven Strategies for Intervention 127
Accountability for Autonomy and Coherence 128
Summary 129

Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations 130
Chapter 5 Introduction 130
Chapter 5 Purpose of the Study 131
Methodology 132
Sample 133
Data Collection and Analysis 133
Selected Findings 134
Chapter 5 Conclusions 135
Implications for Practice 138
Recommendations for Future Research 140

References 141

Appendices
Appendix A: Superintendent Letter 149
Appendix B: CAHSEE Survey 150
Appendix C: Interview Guide 156
Appendix D: District Backgrounds 158
Appendix E: Figure A1: Collective District Organizational Chart 164

vii

List of Tables

Table 1: Criteria Used for Superintendent Interview Selection 60

Table 2: Sample of Matrix Used for Superintendent Interview Selection 61

Table 3: Superintendent Survey Information 67

Table 4: District English/Language Arts Passing Rates and Growth 68
Over Four Years

Table 5: District’s Mathematics Passing Rates and Growth Over 69
Four Years

Table 6: Superintendent Success Ratings Definitions 70

Table 7: District’s and Their Success Ranking 71

Table 8: Districts, Superintendents, and Key Representatives Interviewed 72

Table 9: Districts with Interviewed Superintendents, Testing Information 73
and Success Ranking

Table 10: Program Improvement Status of Districts Interviewed 77

Table 11: Questions on the Superintendent Survey 80

Table 12: Survey Question #1 83
Table 13: Survey Question #1a 84
Table 14: Survey Question #1b 84
Table 15: Survey Question #2 85
Table 16: Survey Question #2a 86
Table 17: Survey Question #2b 86
Table 18: Survey Question #3a 87
Table 19: Survey Question #3b 88

viii
Table 20: Survey Question #3c 88
Table 21: Survey Question #3d 89
Table 22: Survey Question #3e 90
Table 23: Survey Question #3f 90
Table 24: Survey Question #5 91
Table 25: Survey Question #5a 92
Table 26: Survey Questions #5b 92
Table 27: Survey Question #6a 93
Table 28: Survey Question #6b 94
Table 29: Survey Question #6c 94
Table 30: Survey Question #7 95
Table 31: Survey Question #7a 96
Table 32: Survey Question #7b 97
Table 33: English/Language Arts Intervention Programs Used 99
Table 34: Math Intervention Programs Used 100
Table 35: Data-Driven Decision Making 103
Table 36: How Students are Placed In Intervention Programs 105
Table 37: When a Student Enters Intervention 106
Table 38: Intervention Options and Participation 108
Table 39: District or Site Interventions 109
Table 40: Diagnostics in Use 110
Table 41: Length of Interventions 111

ix
Table 42: Survey Question #7b 112
Table 43: Survey Question #12 113
Table 44: Survey Question #13 114
Table 45: Survey Question #14 115
Table 46: Personnel for Testing 116
Table 47: Are CAHSEE Interventions Affected by Budgets? 117
Table 48: Survey Question #9 118
Table 49: Survey Question #10 119
Table 50: Survey Question #11 120
Table 51: Autonomy of School Sites 122
Table 52: Survey Question #15 123

Table A1: Thinking Children’s CAHSEE Scores and Percent Increase Over 158
Four Years

Table A2: Concrete Tester’s CAHSEE Scores and Percent Increase Over 159
Four Years

Table A3: Asphalt Student’s CAHSEE Scores and Percent Increase Over 160
Four Years

Table A4: Urban Thinker’s CAHSEE Scores and Percent Increase Over Four 161
Years

Table A5: Blooming Worker’s CAHSEE Scores and Percent Increase Over 162
Four Years
Table A6: Sprawling Learner’s CAHSEE Scores and Percent Increase Over 163
Four Years

x

Abstract
This study analyzed California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) intervention
strategies that were implemented by successful urban superintendents in order to
determine best practices that were being used across the state of California to increase the
passing rate on that exam. Four research questions were analyzed: (1) what types of
intervention programs do successful California urban superintendents use to decrease the
amount of students that do not pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE),
(2) how are the students in those districts identified as in need of interventions, (3) what
personnel are involved in determining the need for intervention strategies within the
school district, (4) are the interventions in those districts guided by the sites or handed
top-down from the Superintendent?
This study surveyed fifty-one urban superintendents and interviewed six districts
across the state of California. The fifty-one superintendents that were surveyed were
superintendents of districts with a population of fifteen thousand or greater. The six
school districts that were interviewed had showed significant numerical gains in their
passing rates on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) on either one or both
portions of the exam. The members of the districts that were interviewed were the
superintendent and any other key personnel they felt were relevant to the research
questions being presented.
The study resulted in the following four conclusions: 1) there needs to be a clear
delineation of accountability; 2) data should inform decision-making; 3) professional

xi
development needs to be done to implement the strategies that are chosen; and, 4)
intervening should begin at an early age.

1

Chapter One
Introduction

Background of the Problem
Education in the United States is a continuously shifting entity with many
significant changes over last 50 years. In 1960, John F. Kennedy opened the discussion
of a need for education for all. This notion, which was reinforced by Lyndon B. Johnson,
resulted in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. This act
provided funds for professional development, instructional materials, resources to support
educational programs, and parental programs, with the assumption that the funds were for
all students. Education and proficiency in achievement for all was a new national goal.
However, no safeguards were put forth to ensure that this mandate was implemented—as
such, it was merely a statement of purpose. Although ESEA was supposed to be
authorized only through 1970, the act would be reauthorized in 1970 and every five years
thereafter. Although each reauthorization has addressed its own specific educational
issues, the most prominent reauthorizations effecting education today were the last two—
in 1994 and 2001 (Sirotnik, 2004).
In 1994, President Clinton reauthorized ESEA. This reauthorization was titled the
“Improving America’s Schools Act” (IASA), and included safe drug-free schools and
bilingual education; but, the most important addition was standards-based teaching in
schools. Clinton’s educational administration stated that teachers must have a specific

2
subset of curriculum information that their students need to learn, namely, standards.
They did not go so far as to make a list of national standards but did mandate that states
create standards themselves and that they be implemented in all classrooms. Goals 2000,
titled “Reforming Education to Improve Student Achievement,” which was put into law
in 1994 and amended in 1996, was meant to support the standards-based movement and
looked for ways to increase achievement. Although Clinton took the first step towards
unifying students in what they learn, there was no provision in the IASA for whether or
not students should be successful at the standards; in other words, there was no
accountability (Sunderman, 2008).
In 2001, president George W. Bush reauthorized the ESEA as “No Child Left
Behind.” Bush used the idea of standards-based education introduced by Clinton, taking
it one step further to include accountability when teaching those standards. This idea has
become known as “outcome-based” education. For the first time, states would be held
accountable if their students did not perform at the proficient level in core curriculum
subjects. (Again, states set their own standards and were to be held accountable for
proficiency in those standards. There is no comparison across states in content or rigor of
standards and no two sets of standards look alike) (Sirotnik, 2004).
In response to this wave of accountability, 17 states put into place minimum-skills
tests to ensure that their high school graduates had what they needed to compete at a
national, if not international, level. In 1999, California passed into law the California
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). For the first six years of its existence, the CAHSEE
was not a mandatory test; the multiple administrations were used to norm the test and set

3
the level to which future proficiencies would be held. The Class of 2006 was the first
class required to pass in order to obtain a high school diploma (Students that were
enrolled in special education in the Class of 2006 were given waiver extennsions, until
December of 2007, stating that if students reached the credit requirement of their district
but had not passed the CAHSEE they would receive their diploma [September, 2009]).
Although standards-based education made its debut in 1994, the CAHSEE made its debut
in 1999, and outcome-based education made its debut in 2001, the idea of achievement is
not new to the field of educational policy.
President Ronald Reagan first broached the subject in a 1983 memo entitled “A
Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.” This memo, which was written
in conjunction with the National Commission on Excellence in Education, stated that our
children were failing to meet the national need for a competitive workforce and that
students, as a whole, were falling behind their international counterparts (Vinovskis,
2009). This report anticipated many of the concerns of 21st Century education;
according to Tucker: “Education holds the key to personal and national economic well-
being, more now than at any other time in our history” (Tucker, 2007b). An analysis of a
report done by the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce has showed that
the middle class is shrinking. It’s not that the middle-class is slowly becoming lower
class, but that there is a clearer distinction between those who have received adequate
educations and those who have not. Those with more years in postsecondary education
are increasing the wage gap distance from those without such an education because low-
skilled jobs are being doled out to other countries at a cheaper rate—thus jobs for that

4
sector of society are no longer available (Tucker, 2007a). Student achievement is
essential to national performance levels. A recent study indicated that increased cognitive
skills, not years in the classroom, helps the economy grow (Hanushek et al., 2008).
According to a report by the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE),
titled “Tough Choices or Tough Times,” any country can create skilled workers and most
countries can produce them at a cheaper rate than the United States, so we, as a country,
need to produce the individuals that create the ideas, not manufacture them (Vail, 2007);
therefore, America needs to equip itself to compete globally.
In this era of globalization, with fewer boundaries, more migration, and the rapid
growth of urban centers, students need a new kind of curriculum. Education must reflect
today’s needs and tomorrow’s requirements. Students today need to keep up with current
technology, have skills to compete at the international level, and gain understandings that
will allow them to keep up with social change movements (Neubauer, 2007; Tucker,
2007a). In his acclaimed book, The World is Flat, Friedman (2005) purports that the new
American student must push to be competitive and must recognize that national borders
are no longer keeping jobs in, but that jobs that are being given to those best-suited and
cheapest to acquire. Friedman also argues that parents need to be more involved in
guiding their children in the right career and life path direction, one in which they are
successful at skills that not all people possess (Adams, 2006; Johnson, 2006; Petrilli,
2006). This specialization is a necessity if our students are to compete on a global scale.
America ranks, economically, in the top eight countries internationally. This
consortium of countries, known as the Group of Eight or G8, includes France, Germany,

5
Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, Russia, and Canada. (To gain access
to this group, a nation must have a thriving economy and a democratic government).
Members of this group often lead discussions on economic issues and global change.
Although the United States is economically competitive, according to the National Center
for Education Statistics, it is underperforming in science and math, as compared to its
international counterparts. (A comparison cannot be made in reading because there was a
misprint on the last international test and the results cannot be ascertained because too
few question types remained [Hajnal, 2007]). America is not behind its international
peers at all levels. In the 4
th
grade, large urban school districts in the United States are
almost equal in ability to their international counterparts but by the 8
th
grade they are
already falling markedly behind (Cavanagh, 2008). Given that America itself is behind its
international peers, that California is listed as one of the lowest performing states in
America is even more dire.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), otherwise known as
The Nation’s Report Card, shows that California is either equal to or behind all 50 states
in academic performance. These results were based on the 2007 math, reading, and
writing assessments, and the 2005 science assessment that were administered by the
National Center for Educational Statistics (Sunderman, 2008). According to a 2007 study
administered by Morgan Quinto Co., 21 factors were analyzed to determine where
California ranked in comparison to other states in the Union. On factors such as per-
pupil spending, amount of students proficient, amount paid to teachers, class size, and
teacher-student ratio, California was ranked 47 out of 50 states (Morgan, 2009). For a

6
state whose economy in itself can be compared internationally, having such low
academic achievement is unacceptable.
Perhaps Ronald Reagan said it best in the introduction to “A Nation at
Risk”:
All, regardless of race or class or economic status, are entitled to a fair
chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers of mind and
spirit to the utmost. This promise means that all children by virtue of their
own efforts, competently guided, can hope to attain the mature and
informed judgement needed to secure gainful employment, and to manage
their own lives, thereby serving not only their own interests but also the
progress of society itself. (National Commission, 1983)

The NAEP was created to show, using data, what the trends are in education across the
United States. What it has shown is a clear achievement gap between White and minority
students, especially in large urban schools (Vinovskis, 2009). That gap is alos affecting
levels of democratic involvement and civic responsibility. Data shows that students with
have higher education levels, who have benefitted from quality teaching are more likely
to participate in the democratic process (Hess, 2008). The nation’s aim has been for
states, school districts, and schools to focus on that achievement gap and raise the bar for
all. The good news is that the data indicates this improvement is possible. The NAEP
shows that since 2003 there has been an increase in mathematics achievement among
students from large urban school districts. These students can succeed. The responsibility
and challenges to ensure that all students achieve academically are tremendous but
essential to the nation’s well-being (Donlevy, 2006). Because achievement for all is so
important, response to students who are not achieving is just as important.

7
When a student has not demonstrated proficiency in a certain topic, the teacher,
school, district, and state must intervene. This process gets the broad label of
“intervention.” Sometimes the intervention happens solely in the classroom, meaning
that teachers notice a deficiency and do what is in their power to increase the skill level
of a student. Sometimes an intervention happens at the site-level, meaning a principal
notices a pattern of low skill-level in a certain curriculum at the school site and uses site
resources and empowerment of departments and staff to implement change. Sometimes
the deficiency in skill is prominent at all school sites in the district and the intervention
needs to come from the central office and be supported and monitored from there. At
times underachievement in a certain topic is so prevalent across the state that the state
educational administration feels the need to intervene at the state level. The deficiency in
the California High School Exit Exam represents a problem at a majority of school
campuses and thus needs support and monitoring at the state and district level.
In the state of California, one of the most pressing problems for districts, and thus
for superintendents, is the implementation of the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE). When administered in the 10
th
grade, the CAHSEE has an affect on a school
site’s state Academic Performance Index (API) score. The two components most
stringently considered are participation rate—which must be above 95%-- and that
students not just pass the CAHSEE on the first attempt but pass at a proficient level of
380— as opposed to a passing score of 350. The consequences of not passing the
CAHSEE are reflected in graduation rates for each school site and the district as a whole.
The purpose of the exam is to show grade-level competency in English language arts and

8
mathematics even though it is based on standards from the 7th-grade level. In the early
days of the CAHSEE, students took the exam and when they didn’t pass, they took it
again. As the passing rates did not increase, schools and districts began implementing
intervention programs to raise the level of nonpassing students to the minimum level of
passing. (Each site undertook a different type of intervention and the interventions
themselves were not mandatory). Since the CAHSEE exam became mandatory in 2006,
the state has put several codifiers into place to deal with students not yet passing.
Students are given two years after their intended graduation date to pass the CAHSEE
exam and are also allowed to come back to the school site to receive interventions
(September, 2009). The main problem with this system is that the term intervention is not
defined. Also, a problem arises around which intervention to use. In evaluating districts
attempting to remediate students, Goe (2006) recognized that districts did not even know
how to choose a program that adequately suited the student.
Resources need to be reserved for implementing and effecting change, and
monitoring of progress needs to happen at the district-level, which is not to say that it
shouldn’t happen at the site level and in specific classrooms, but it must be prevalent at
levels higher up as well. Because the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
affects graduation rates, which affects the national Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and
state Academic Performance Index (API) scores, which affects district and school report
cards, intervention programs need to have support at all levels, specifically at the district.
To put it succinctly, intervention needs to be systematically implemented (Guthrie, 2008;
Noell & Gansle, 2009).

9
In the past, the school site was the place where accountability resided. Principals
were at the helm of the school and if the school faltered it was their cross to bear. Studies
have shown, however, that the current leadership models, with decisions being made by
school sites, are not enough to truly produce change. Principals do not have the same
resources that districts as a whole do (Southworth, 2005). Traditionally, superintendents
kept relationships with those in the community whereas site leaders were responsible for
student achievement; however, superintendents are now a larger part of the curriculum
equation because of the above-mentioned recent accountability measures (Bredeson, P.,
& Kose, B., 2007). Recent policies have implemented accountability at all levels and
leaders now need to learn how to integrate it at all levels (Elmore, 2005).
Districts drive reform, they are prominent agents of change. According to Richard
Elmore (2000), instructional support, professional development, and system-wide reform
all need to begin at the district level. Indeed, school districts engage all stakeholders in
“ongoing study and constant practice that characterize an organization committed to
continuous improvement” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). The district as a whole is responsible
for finding the gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization (Clark, R.E., &
Estes, F., 2002), but the superintendent, as the leader of the district, is responsible for
implementation.
The superintendent, as the head of the school district, has the unique ability to set
a system-wide objective, define teaching and learning, acquire and allot human, fiscal,
and physical resources, and create local systems of accountability. The superintendent
can influence the district as a whole and, ultimately, student achievement, which should

10
be the primary role. Although superintendents are leaders of districts, a critical
relationship exists between how they create, implement, and monitor instructional goals
and how they work with school boards to ensure alignment between the goals and to
monitor how resources are allocated (Escalante, 2000). Furthermore, an analysis of
superintendents of large urban school districts has shown that developing the professional
capacity of teachers and administrators also helps push the district vision.
Superintendents who have said that power comes from or with others have done better in
the superintendent position because of their positive collaboration with the institutional
leaders around them (Brunner, 1998)
Superintendents need a certain skill set to be effective in their position; they must
have the ability to navigate local governance, political power, legislative agendas, and
mandates. Bolman and Deal (2003) have posited four frames to analyze effectiveness:
structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. Because “diverse school systems
wrestle with cultural, structural, political, and environmental forces that can reinforce or
inhibit strategic planning,” there is a need “for system leaders that understand the
educational, political, and managerial aspects of the job” (Johnson, 2006). Also, because
the educational landscape is constantly changing, superintendents need “a new skill set;
including a broad knowledge-base, strong analytical skills, mastery of research-based
change strategies and increased hands-on application during training” (Marzano &
Waters, 2006). Superintendents need to be able to pull or push district resources as
needed. They themselves need a roadmap, but they need to give others one as well. In

11
today’s journey, the roadmap superintendents need the most is one that provides guidance
on how to deal with passing rates on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
How have superintendents in large-urban school districts in California dealt with
the California High School Exit Exam? How have superintendents that have shown gains
made those improvements? What has differed between districts that have shown gains
and those that still trying to close the achievement gap? What resources have been
identified and reserved for this problem? Answering these questions is critical because
research has shown that alignment between district instructional goals and resource
allocation is a key component to success.

Statement of the Problem
The United States has a compulsory education law requiring that students remain
in school until the completion of high school requirements or the age of majority, 18. At
the same time, the optimal results of public school education come when students
perform proficient or advanced at grade level throughout their tenure in education and
pass their enrolled courses to obtain the necessary credits for graduation. Unfortunately,
for a myriad of reasons, not all students are performing at grade level and/or passing their
classes for graduation. As such, some states have instituted a minimum skills test that
students must pass in order to receive a high school diploma. (In California, this test is
the California High School Exit Exam). At this time, not all students are passing this test.
In an attempt to rectify both of these problems, superintendents of large urban school
districts, whose graduation rates are dropping, have implemented programs that target

12
students who are not at grade level, are credit deficient, and/or do not have the ability to
pass the minimum skills test offered in their state. What these programs are, and what
their level of effectiveness is, serves as invaluable information for education today.

Chapter 1 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to identify and analyze California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE) intervention strategies being implemented by superintendents of large
urban school districts in the state of California that have reported their level of
effectiveness for the nonpassing student population. Different policies that will be
analyzed are allocation of human resources, how students are identified as needing
intervention, use of prevention or remediation intervention strategies, and site-based
intervention strategies versus district-based intervention strategies.

Chapter 1 Research Questions
1) What types of intervention programs do successful California urban
superintendents use to decrease the amount of students that do not pass the
California High School Exit Exam?
a. Are the strategies of intervention those of prevention or remediation?
2) How are students in those districts identified as needing intervention?
3) What personnel are involved in determining the need for intervention strategies
within the school district?

13
4) Are the interventions in those districts guided by the sites or handed top-down
from the superintendent?

Significance of the Study
In American education today, the goal, as specifically stated in Bush’s 2001 “No
Child Left Behind,” is that all students be proficient in the standards of their grade level.
By being proficient at their grade level, students are more likely to be competitive in the
global community (Tucker, 2007a). Besides this implementation of standards proficiency,
students must possess a minimum set of skills in order to participate as self-sufficient
members of society.
The superintendent, as head of the district, along with members of the school
board, is ultimately responsible for the learning that is taking place on school sites within
the district (Elmore, 2005). It is the district vision that is followed and the
superintendent’s set of mandates being adhered to when schools need to implement
change. With the implementation of school and district reports cards, and the era of
accountability in full swing, districts must take specific and deliberate steps toward
intervention for students not at the proficient level. By analyzing large California urban
school districts and how they are successfully implementing intervention strategies to
increase both graduation rates and student proficiency, researchers must find possible
avenues for superintendents to follow.

14
Assumptions of the Study
This study was conducted with an awareness of the following assumptions:
1) The superintendent is the individual who chooses the intervention programs used
in the district.
2) It is possible to identify intervention programs or strategies that increase the
passing rate on the California High School Exit Exam.
3) Interviewees could accurately recall intervention strategies that were in place and
how the superintendent communicates his vision and/or agenda.
4) The intervention strategies could be codified and categorized.
5) The data collection forms of survey and interview were valid instruments for
gathering data.

Delimitations of the Study
The study was delimited by the following factors:
1) School districts that were studied were in large urban centers in California.
2) Population of the school districts was 15,000 or greater.
3) Superintendents that were interviewed had been in their district for more than two
years.

Limitations of the Study
The limitations of the studied were as follows:
1) This study was limited to participants who agreed to participate voluntarily.

15
2) Validity of the study is limited to the reliability of the instruments used.
3) This study was limited geographically to California.
4) The study was limited to the 40 superintendents who were surveyed and the six
superintendents who were interviewed.
5) The study was limited to six districts that were interviewed. Within those six
districts, five superintendents, one superintendent designee, and key district
personnel were interviewed.

Definition of Terms
Within the context of this study, the following terms are used extensively:
Academic Performance Index (API): California’s system for measuring proficiency in a
school and school district.
Accountability: The process of making an individual or entity deliver upon promises
made.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The federal government’s system for measuring
proficiency in a school and school district.
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE): The minimum-skills test for the state of
California.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): The 1965 legislation originally passed
by Lyndon B. Johnson that is updated every five years by the president in office. Its
purpose is to improve education in the United States.

16
High-Stakes Testing: Testing whose outcomes has a major effect on the day-to-day
workings of a school, a school district, and a student’s life. (i.e., The California High
School Exit Exam effects the API, AYP, and a student’s ability to earn a diploma).
Improving America’s School Act (IASA): President Clinton’s reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). It instituted standards-based
education in the United States.
Instructional Leader: An educational leader whose duties go beyond a managerial style
to facilitating in-depth instructional conversations.
Intervention: Recognizing the knowledge gap of an individual and providing instruction
to close it.
Limited Growth: Increase on any given subject but not of significant numerical value.
Minimum-Skills Test: A test whose purpose is to determine that an individual knows the
minimum amount of information necessary for success in any given subject.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): President George W. Bush’s reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). It shifted education from standards-
based to outcome-based.
Outcome-Based Education: The term used after the passage of No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) to promote an increase in the number of students proficient in different school
subjects.
Prevention: The shoring up of deficiencies before a gap is formally identified.
Proficient: At or above grade level in a tested subject.
Remediation: The shoring up of deficiencies after a gap is formally identified.

17
Standards: Outlined information that students need to learn within a defined amount of
time.
Successful: Able to make significant increases in the passing rates on the California High
School Exit Exam.
Superintendent: The lead individual in a school district. Reports to and is held
accountable by the Board of Education; holds all other individuals in the school district
accountable.
Unsuccessful: Unable to make numerical increases in the passing rates on the California
High School Exit Exam.

Chapter 1 Conclusion
Chapter One of this study provided a brief overview of the history of testing and
accountability in the United States, and of today’s educational landscape. More
specifically, it focused on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and how
those scores are incorporated into the accountability measures at the state and national
level. Superintendents were also identified as the instructional leaders of the school
district and those most able to effectuate change therein. The five questions guiding this
study focus on what programs are used to intervene with students who have not passed
the CAHSEE; how students are chosen to receive that intervention; and who makes the
choice to use that intervention.

18

Chapter Two
Literature Review

Chapter 2 Introduction
The orientation of this study is to examine current California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE) intervention practices taking place in successful large urban school
districts under prominent instructional leaders (i.e., superintendents). More specifically,
this study examines the strategies and programs that successful urban superintendents
have utilized to increase the pass rate on the CAHSEE.
When examining the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and the
superintendent’s role in intervention measures, researchers must address six different
avenues: the History of Educational Reform, Testing and Accountability Logistics, the
California High School Exit Exam, Who is Responsible for a Student’s Education,
Prevention as a Theory of Intervention, and Remediation as a Theory of Intervention.

History of Educational Reform
The founding fathers of the Untied States opened their first legislative document
with this statement:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America. (United States, 1787)

19
Education in America today has a long and storied history, beginning with the
Constitution, the building block of our nation, and continuing today, as education issues
are discussed, lobbied, and eventually put into law to govern how our education system is
run. Although there are hundreds upon thousands of laws and house resolutions that
could be discussed, a few key pieces of legislation have truly shaped what is happens in
the classroom today.
In 1960, John Fitzgerald Kennedy became President of the United States of
America. His vision was one of “education for all.” With the social sentiment of the
time and the fact that civil rights legislation was being openly discussed in Congress,
Kennedy was clearly at the forefront of thinking on education. Unfortunately, he was
assassinated before he could make his dream of “education for all” a reality. Thankfully,
his successor, Lyndon B. Johnson picked up where Kennedy left off (Baptiste & Sanchez,
2003).
In 1965, Johnson lobbied for, and managed to pass, the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The ESEA articulated Kennedy’s vision that
education should be available for all. This act provided funds for professional
development, instructional materials, resources to support educational programs, and
parental programs, again under the assumption that funds would be used to support all
students. This piece of legislation was originally supposed to only last until 1970, but has
been reauthorized every five years (Valverde, 2004). Each reauthorized version differs
from the previous one, often reflecting the current presidential stance on education.
Although each reauthorization is different in its own right, only the two most pertinent

20
reauthorizations will be explored in detail and only during their correct placement on the
educational timeline.
In the 1970s, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),
otherwise known as “The Nation’s Report Card,” was created to show, with data, what
the educational trends were across the United States. Essentially the NAEP
crosscompares how students are doing nationally in math, English, and science. (i.e., Do
Florida students score better than Wisconsin students?) Besides a crosscomparison, the
NAEP shows trends in the states themselves. (i.e., Are Hispanic students doing better or
worse than African American students on English/Language Arts exams in various
Mississippi school districts?) The NAEP updates its reports annually to highlight any
and all similarities and disparities at the time (Schafer, Liu, & Wang, 2007).
In partial response to the trends indicated by the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) and because education will always be a key issue in the
United States, in 1983, President Ronald Reagan drafted a memo titled “A Nation at
Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform.” This memo took the idea of “education for
all,” which Kennedy espoused in the 1960s, and changed it to “achievement for all”
(Wong & Nicotera, 2004). This memo was based on a study done by the National
Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE), which said that our students were
failing to meet the needs of a competitive workforce. Not only were we failing to create
the caliber of students that needed at home, but we were also, this study pointed out,
falling behind our international peers. Simply put, because other countries had a more

21
skilled labor force than the United States, U.S. jobs were being outsourced to other
countries (Viteritti, 2004).
In 1994, President Clinton reauthorized the 1965 Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) and titled it the “Improving America’s School Act” (IASA). This
reauthorization of ESEA built upon Kennedy’s and Johnson’s “education for all” and
Reagan’s “achievement for all,” adding the idea of standards-based teaching. The Clinton
administration recognized the need for achievement for all and said the only way to do
that was by ensuring that all students were learning exactly what we want them to learn
when we want them to learn it. States were required to create a set of standards at each
grade level for the core subjects of English/language arts, math, science, and
history/social studies. After these standards were created, students were to be tested on
them. The goal was to create a unifying curriculum that would be taught to all (Cohen,
Moffitt, & Goldin, 2007). However, a remaining hurdle when standards-based education
came into play was that states were not required to have the same standards. This
oversight means that Texas’s 5
th
-grade standards could be more or less rigorous than
North Dakota’s fifth-grade standards, but at the end of the testing cycle their 5
th
-grade
classes would still be compared to one another (Peterson & Hess, 2008). Other
legislation supported this idea of “standards-based education,” the main one being the
1994 act (which was reauthorized in 1996) titled “Goals 2000: Educate American Act”
(Superfine, 2005; What is Goals 2000, 1994). Although both pieces of legislation were
put into place to support standards-based education, neither had a provision for holding
states accountable.

22
The first piece of legislation that shifted away from the theory of “education and
achievement for all” toward trying to ensure, through testing and sanctions, that everyone
truly did achieve, was Bush’s 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), titled “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB). Bush left in the idea of
standards-based education that Clinton had implemented six years before but added to it a
new idea of “outcome-based education.” Not only were students now expected to learn
certain standards at determined times, but also states had to show gains in student
proficiency on those standards or there would be consequences. This term is broadly
known as accountability. NCLB set up the national system of accountability, known as
the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and encouraged states to set up their own systems
of accountability (Choi, Seltzer, Herman, & Yamashiro, 2007). (In California, this system
is known as the Academic Performance Index (API) [Powers, 2004], which was actually
put into practice before the creation of the AYP). Although it tried to establish
safeguards to ensure that all students would truly learn, this piece of legislation still failed
to make the idea of standards a national movement; instead, standards are still determined
by individual states. National legislation is not the only entity shaping educational
policy, the United States is always trying to compete on an international scale as well.
The United States is a member of the Group of Eight, more commonly known as
the G8. As mentioned previously, a country must have a thriving economy and a
working democracy in order to be a member of this consortium. However, there is no
educational standard to which countries are held—which is good for America because it
is falling behind its international counterparts (Hajnal, 2007). Not only is the U.S. falling

23
behind its international peers, but also the country itself is starting to stratify (Cavanagh,
2008).
According to the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, the
American middle-class is shrinking. The reason for this phenomenon is quite simply,
education. It is not so much that the middle-class is shrinking as the gap between the
upper and lower classes is growing. Those with more years of education are more skilled,
and therefore better able to compete for jobs at an international level. Those with lower
skills have less opportunity for advancement, especially given that lower-skilled jobs are
increasingly being doled out to other countries with workers who can do them at cheaper
rates (Tucker, 2007a).
In his highly acclaimed 2005 work, The World is Flat, Friedman stated that
American students must realize that the world’s borders are dissolving, which is
preventing jobs from staying in the country and making migration and immigration
easier. Thus jobs are going to the most qualified at the cheapest rate. Only the most
resilient will succeed (Friedman, 2005). This sentiment was echoed in the report done by
the National Center on Education and the Economy, “Tough Choices or Tough Times.”
Any country can create a worker with a certain skill, our job as a country is to create an
individual with an idea that needs a skilled worker to implement it (Vail, 2007). The
United States must be the country that creates the ideas, not just the one that implements
them. Education needs to reflect today’s needs and tomorrow’s requirements. We must be
in the present but also in the future and not let either context fall to the wayside.
Globalization is changing our economy at a faster pace than our educational system can

24
currently maintain (Spring, 2008). The United States shouldn’t be playing catch-up it
should be leading the pack.

Testing and Accountability Logistics
“High-stakes testing” means different things to different people. Today the
phrase is almost solely in reference to the accountability measures put in place with the
2001 reauthorization of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), No Child Left
Behind (NCLB). This effort was the first outcome-based legislation to put sanctions on
schools/districts that did not meet achievement levels by a certain time. This particular
high-stakes testing took away money from schools failing to meet the standards (Schoen
& Fusarelli, 2008). But a different type of “high-stakes testing” was implemented before
NCLB, beginning with the Goals 2000 legislation.
With the 1994 Goals 2000 legislation, schools were given incentives if their
schools performed well on standardized tests. These incentives came in the form of
resources, as programs and funding for schools, but also in the form of money, given
directly to fully credentialed teachers if their students did well (What is Goals 2000,
1994).
One state performance honor is The Certificated Staff Performance Incentive
Award (CSPIA), created with Assembly Bill 1114, which carries a monetary award for
fully credentialed teachers whose students have shown growth in the standards-based
curriculum from one year to another. Besides the CSPIA, is the Governor’s Performance
Award program, which takes three different forms: One form is similar to the Certificated

25
Staff Performance Incentive Award in that it gives monetary awards to fully credentialed
teachers if their students show proficiency in state standards tests; the second form is
recognition through the form of public nonmonetary commendations such as membership
in the Superintendent’s Distinguished Schools or School Honor Rolls; the third, and final
incentive, is a possible waiver of education code requirements. If a school is meeting the
needs of its students, it may get leeway on how it implements other educational policies
(Stecher, 2008). (Two key notes: only fully credentialed teachers of proficient students
would receive monetary awards. If teachers are not fully credentialed, or their students
have shown marked growth, but are not in the proficient category, they would not receive
the monetary awards. Also, if states do not have enough money for the incentives, none
of the awards is given). Although it is important to know the legislation and policies that
have shaped our current trend of testing and accountability, more important is knowing
how the outcomes on these tests translate directly to the school site both from the national
and state level.
Nationally, test scores are translated into a score/grade known as the Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP). AYP is the federal standard that all schools must reach and was
enacted under Title I of the 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)
reauthorization, No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The broad goal of this legislation is for
all students to be grade-level proficient in their state standards by 2014 (Choi et al.,
2007). Granted, this proficiency level only applies to schools that have accepted Title I
funding from the federal government. If it has not accepted money, the school or district
is not held accountable to these testing/proficiency guidelines. Although the AYP is the

26
federal accountability measure, the necessary elements for meeting federal standards are
set by the state (Porter, Linn, & Trimble, 2005). For its part, California decided that in
order to meet AYP targets, a school must meet four different subcategories. (These
requirements also pertain to school districts, referred to as Local Educational Agencies
[LEAs]., which are held just as accountable as schools at the federal level).
California’s first subcategory is that all schools have a certain percentage of
students participate in the testing. That level of participation has been set at 95% percent
(September, 2009). (This number is the state and the district participation level). Though
state-mandated, this level is open to interpretation. Which students are required to
participate? Significant research has considered the topic of migrant students and
whether they are truly taking the state tests (Lennon & Markatos, 2002). In the case of
the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), any 10
th
-grader enrolled on the first
day of testing must take the test, regardless of when he or she entered the country or the
school. Those test scores are counted in the total for participation. In the case of the state
accountability system, students required to take the test are those counted on the
California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) at the beginning of the school year
(September, 2009).
California’s second subcategory is the percentage of students labeled proficient,
as determined by the Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs). For the 2008-2009 school
year, the English/language arts AMO is 44.5% percent and the mathematics AMO is
43.5% percent proficient. (The percentage needed at the district level is 45 in
English/language arts and 45.4% in mathematics). This proficiency level is based on the

27
California Standards Test (CST), the California Alternate Performance Assessment
(CAPA), the California Modified Assessment (CMA), and the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE). (The CAPA and CMA are modified assessments taken by special
education students in the state [September, 2009]). Again, the goal of this proficiency
level is that every year it will increase until 2013-2014 when 100% of students will be
proficient at grade-level standards. Notably, this goal of 100% proficiency by 2013-2014
is a federal standard whereas the state standard stands at 45%. Furthermore, not only
must schools as a whole make the percent proficient targets, but also all significant
subgroups must do so. A school or district may claim safe-harbor if it does not meet
percent proficiency but has decreased its percent below proficient by more than 10%. (A
subgroup is determined as significant if it contains more than 100 members or has more
than 50 that equate to more than 15% of the population. Also, English learners must
show yearly growth on the California English Language Development Test, or CELDT
test [Sunderman, 2008]).
California’s third subcategory is that schools/districts make their Academic
Performance Index (API) target. For the 2008-2009 school year, schools must at least
reach the 650-point mark and have improved one point from the year before (Peterson,
2003).
California’s fourth and final subcategory is that all schools/districts meet a certain
graduation rate. For the 2008-2009 school year, the percent needing to graduate for both
schools and districts was 83.1%--or growth of .1% from the year before –or a growth of

28
.2% percent from two years before. (Percent growth is for schools/districts that have not
reached the 83% graduated level [Peterson, 2003]).
A school or district that does not meet even one of these requirements is placed on
Program Improvement, or the PI list. (Schools are placed in PI when they do not meet
95% participation or percent proficiency in English/language arts and mathematic, do not
meet their Academic Performance Index (API), or do not have the adequate number of
graduates). The first year it does not meet its Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) a school is
in limbo, neither on the PI list nor without monitoring. Only after two consecutive years
of not meeting AYP is a school or district specifically placed on this list. A school or
district can get off of this list if it performs adequately for two consecutive years after it
has been placed on the list (Sofo, 2008). Again, the above-mentioned criteria relates to
the federal standard of accountability, the AYP; there is, however, also the state-level
accountability measure, which in California is known as the Academic Performance
Index (API).
Although the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA), No Child Left Behind (NCLB), is sometimes credited as the first
accountability measures placed on schools, districts, and the educational system as a
whole, California’s accountability system, the Academic Performance Index (API) was
actually put in place two years prior, with the passage of the California Public School
Accountability Act of 1999. (This piece of legislation is more commonly known as the
Public School Accountability Act [PSAA]). The PSAA not only put into practice the

29
API but also established the awards and interventions programs associated with the API
(Powers, 2004).
The state Academic Performance Index (API) is technically based on one
concern— whether a school has met its growth target goal in the API scale. A growth
target for API is calculated one of four ways. If a school’s API is less than 650, the
growth rate is calculated as 5% of the distance from its previous API to 800. (Example: If
a school has a base API of 630, the distance from 630 to 800 is 170 points; 5% of 170 is
8.5, so its target growth API is 630 plus 8.5, which is 638.5). If a school is above 650 but
below 750 its target growth is 5 points, and if a school is between 750 and 800 its goal is
a sliding scale from 5 to 1, depending on how close it is to 800. If a school is above 800
it must only remain there to meet API (Peterson, 2003). (It does not even need to show
growth). Although knowing what a target API is important, determining how to reach
that API is just as important.
At the high school level, the California Standards Tests (CSTs) and the California
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) results determine a school’s Academic Performance
Index (API) score. The approximate weight of each test is as follows: from the CST,
27% of the API is based on English/language arts, 18% is based on mathematics, 23% is
based on science, and 14% is based on history/social science; from the CAHSEE, 9% of
the API is based on English/language arts, and 9% is on mathematics (September, 2009).
Markedly different between the federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and the state
API is that the former says that students must meet the proficiency level of 380 on the
CAHSEE, whereas the latter says that the passing level of 350 is all that matters (Garcia,

30
2003). (As with the AYP, a school must not only meet target rates for the school as a
whole but also must meet it for all significant subgroups found at that school).
A school that meets its Academic Performance Index (API) target growth for the
school and all of its subgroups is eligible for distinction as a California Distinguished
School, a National Blue Ribbon School, or a Title I Academic Achievement Awards
School (McCallum, Lerchenmuller, &Van Patten, 1988). A school that does not meet its
target growth rate is automatically placed on the Immediate Intervention
/Underperforming School (II/USP) list and is subject to sanctions. Year one brings local
sanctions and local interventions; a school that does not meet its targets again the
following year is subjected to state sanction and state interventions (Goe, 2006).
Besides being eligible for rewards and sanctions, after Academic Performance
Index (API) scores have been established, schools are ranked. They are ranked two ways.
First, all elementary, middle, and high schools are ranked against each other. Depending
on how a school compares to another in the same category, it is given a decile ranking, 1
to 10, 1 being lowest and 10 being highest. In an effort to take into account all the
different reasons why a school would receive its ranking, the state has a similar schools
ranking. In this ranking, a group of 100 schools with similar demographics is then
compared to each other and given a ranking of 1 to 10, 1 being lowest and 10 being
highest (Peterson, 2003). Thus, it is possible for a school to have a state high school
ranking of 4 but, when compared to similar schools, to have a rank of 10— meaning the
school is below the average for the state but above average for schools that have the same
demographics. Conversely, if a school has a state ranking of 10, but amongst similar

31
schools has a ranking of 3, it is performing at or above state levels, but below schools
with similar demographics.
There are other testing accountability measures besides the national Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) and the state Academic Performance Index (API). As mentioned
before, in the 1970s the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was
created to show trends across the nation, across the state, and across schools (Schafer et
al., 2007). This measure creates a type of accountability. Knowing that progress will be
compared nationally, and in a forum that interests many stakeholders, often causes
schools to become more competitive and attempt to increase its progress (Campbell,
2008). (Notably, many states have a problem with the NAEP because it is comparing
standards across states when not all states have the same standards. Comparing schools
within the same state does not provoke as much of a push to not accept the findings [Ho,
2007]).
When No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA), another stipulation was added requiring that schools and districts
publish their findings (Ramanathan, 2007). In California, at the school level, this
condition is met with the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) and at the district
level with the District Accountability Report Card (DARC).
Again, similar to the Academic Performance Index (API) enactment previous to
the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), California published its test findings before the
federal government compelled it to do so. The School Accountability Report Card
(SARC) came into existence after the passage of Proposition 98 in California in 1988.

32
Proposition 98, “The Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act,” was
originally created so there would be a transparent way to see how money was spent in a
district, specifically at a school site. This legislation sought to ensure that all money not
specifically needed for funding teachers and site administration would be spent in the
classroom on the students. California recognized that this base level of accountability
was not enough for its schools, and thus amended Proposition 98 in 1998 to include
performance on grade-level tests, average Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, one-
year drop-out rate, number of students participating in class-size reduction, number of
fully credentialed teachers, number of days used for professional development, and
suspension and expulsion rates for a five-year period. These additions to the SARC
enabled community members not only to see where its money was being spent but also
why and with what level of success (September, 2009; Olson, 1999; Vaughan, 2002).
After the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the SARC was amended again in
2002 to add progress on the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), graduation rates, and
status of participation in Title I Improvement Programs (Ramanathan, 2007). Because of
lobbying by teachers unions and the educational funding problems that have recently hit
schools and school districts, one final amendment was tacked on to Proposition 98: in
2008, the following factors were deleted: the need for reporting on class-size reduction,
school discipline policies, teacher evaluation processes, SAT results, and local
assessment results. (Local assessment results refer to district benchmarks— not the
California Standards Test’s (CSTs)— mandated at the state level). Although this update
of Proposition 98 eradicated large number of factors on which schools and districts had to

33
report, it stipulated that all of that information had to be posted on the Internet, with a
visible link on the district website for easy access. Again, such moves have increased
transparency in the educational system so that all can see where money is being spent
(LaFee, 2009).
Although Proposition 98 did not call for districts to have an accountability report
card, many nonetheless chose to do so in order to show the trends and patterns of the
district as a whole. This accountability measure is commonly known as the District
Accountability Report Card (DARC). In instances where the district’s accountability
report card was created, the information found within was the same as the information
found on the School Accountability Report Card (SARC) (September, 2009).
It is not enough to use the term “testing” broadly; knowing the different types of
tests and how and when they are used is also important. The three most commonly used
types of tests are the norm-referenced test, the criterion-based tests, and the minimum-
skills tests. A norm-referenced test places a student on a continuum of students and is
thus a process that compares test-takers to their peers. The Scholastic Aptitude Test
(SAT) and the American College Test (ACT) are the two most common types of norm-
referenced tests in the United States. A student’s score does not reflect how many he or
she got right (or wrong), but rather how many he or she got right or wrong compared to
peers. The test is not disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, or any other demographic data,
just simply how students compare to each other as a whole (Notar, Herring, & Restauri,
2008).

34
The second type is a criterion-referenced test, otherwise known as a standards-
based test. Unlike norm-referenced tests, standards-based tests measure students on recall
and understanding of a specific body of knowledge and then place them according to
their results, regardless of how others around them have performed (Lissitz & Wei, 2008;
Notar et al., 2008). The most common example of a standards-based test is the California
Standards Test (CST). When tested, students are given a number that correlates to how
many questions they got right or wrong. The state then puts students into bands
depending on their scores. The bands are Far Below Basic (FBB), Below Basic (BB),
Basic (B), Proficient (P), or Advanced (A), and a student is labeled as such. The state and
federal government expect all students to be at Proficient or Advanced (Shim, Ryan, &
Anderson, 2008). (The state test has a limited growth model, by which points are given to
students who move from one band to another, whereas at the national level it is simply
who is at or above proficient).
The final type of test is the minimum-skills test. In response to the accountability
measures that have come into play, 25 states have adopted minimum-skills tests to show
whether students are proficient at grade-level standards; there is a minimum set of
standards that must be “mastered” prior to graduation (Griffin & Heidorn, 1996). In
California this test is known as the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE); results
of this test are also included in calculations of the state Academic Performance Index
(API) and the federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (Peterson, 2003). (Again, API is
pass/not-pass, whereas AYP is level-proficient).

35
The previous section enumerated the different accountability measures and when
certain tests are used; more important is what noncompliance with these measures means
for districts, schools, and students. If the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is not met, a
school may lose its Title I money (Goe, 2006; Sofo, 2008). (For schools with a large
minority and low socioeconomic population this penalty can mean hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of dollars).
Schools that do not meet their Academic Performance Index (API) may face state
take-over. When this consequence occurs, the state has authority to replace the entire site
administration. The state can fire teachers at that particular school site, regardless of
tenure. (Though it would be the district’s responsibility to find new places of employment
for those teachers at other sites in the district). The state can mandate bussing for
students to other schools that are showing improvement; and, in worst-case scenarios, the
state can completely close the school. In the state of California, this process is known as
the School Assistance Interventions Teams, or SAIT process (Myers & Kline, 2001).
Besides Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index
(API) noncompliance possibilities, the most prevalent concern for students and parents is
what failure of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) means—namely, no
high school diploma.

California High School Exit Exam
The National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), created in the 1970s,
was meant to serve as a tool to show state comparisons across the country (Schafer et

36
al.,2007). Such measures revealed that California was behind most states in educational
progress. (In 2007 California was either equal or behind all 50 states in mathematics,
reading, and writing; in 2005, it was equal to or behind all 50 states in science
[Sunderman, 2008]). Also, according to a 2007 study by Morgan Quinto Co., California
ranks 47 out of 50 on other measures such as per-pupil spending, number of students
proficient, amount paid to teachers, and 21 other factors (Morgan, 2009). Although these
facts are alarming in-and-of themselves, California saw the direction it was going in and
chose to implement a minimum-skills test to ensure that its students had at least a base
level of knowledge.
In 1999, California passed into law its version of a minimum-skills test, the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). This exam came into existence with
Assembly Bill 1609 (September, 2009). California was not the first, or the last, to
implement the idea of a minimum-skills test. Currently 25 states implement a minimum-
skills test as one step in their graduation process. Furthermore, according to the Center
on Educational Policy, by 2008 7 out of 10 students will be required to take a high school
exit exam to receive their diploma (Peterson, 2005). Arizona and California have most
closely mirrored each other in their minimum-skills tests; both states were supposed to
have implemented their tests in 2004, but because of high failure rates, the tests were
postponed until 2006. (If Arizona’s Class of 2004 had been required to pass the test to
matriculate, 64% of its population would not have received a diploma; for California,
approximately 20% would not have [Garcia, 2003]). As a result, California chose the
Class of 2006 as the first graduating class required to take the test. (Notably, not all

37
members of the Class of 2006 needed to pass the CAHSEE exam. Students with a
registered disability in the Individualized Education Program [IEP], but who had met all
graduation requirements by December of 2006, were able to receive a waiver that
allowed them to get a high-school diploma without having passed the exit exam
[Katisyannis, Zhang, Ryan, & Jones, 2007]. All students in the Class of 2007, including
those with disabilities, had to pass the high school exit exam).
In California the specifics of the test are as follows: first, students take the test in
February or March of their 10
th
-grade year. (This test is known as the census
administration and is used as an indicator in the Adequate Yearly Progress [AYP] and
Academic Performance Index [API]. All tenth graders are supposed to take it at these
administrations with a participation rate of 95% percent or above. The API looks at
percentage of students passing at or above the 350 mark. The AYP looks not at the
percent passing rate but rather at the percent proficient, which is listed as 380, or above).
If 10
th
graders miss the test, they may take a make-up in May but their participation is not
counted in the participation rate for the AYP and API. Second, 11
th
graders have the
option to take the test twice in their 11
th
-grade year if they did not pass. (Students who
passed in their 10
th
-grade year but did not make proficiency are not allowed to retake the
test. There is no need; the goal is just passing, not passing and proficient). Third, seniors
may take the test five times in their senior year if they have not passed in their 10
th
or
11
th
-grade year. A student who has left a school site at the end of the mandated fourth
year of schooling but who has not passed the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE) may return for up to two years after their expected date of graduation and

38
take the test five times each year. (The tests are offered in July, November, February,
March, and May. July is counted as the first test of a year so that 11th graders may take it
immediately before their senior year to try and pass it again [September, 2009]).
The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) is based on 7
th
grade
English/language arts standards and Mathematics Pre-Algebra standards (September,
2009); however, this material may not be what students are learning at the time of testing.
English/language arts standards build on top of each other so that what a student learns in
7th grade is reinforced in the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12
th
grades. The student is
constantly honing his/her skills on those standards and has more of an opportunity to
perfect them. Such is not the case for the prealgebra standards, which are only taught the
year a student has prealgebra. The current push in California for all students to take
Algebra in the 8
th
grade means that students must learn these standards in 7
th
grade or
sooner. A majority of prealgebra standards is not reinforced at any other grade level. (For
instance, percent rates-of-change and time-distance equations are only done in prealgebra
or before, and not at any other level). This timing means that a student may have learned
what he or she needs in order to pass the CAHSEE in 7
th
grade but then not encounter
that material again until the 10
th
grade when he or she is expected to demonstrate
proficiency on the test.
Besides the participation rate and percent passing/proficient rate serving as
indicators in the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index
(API), passage or nonpassage of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) also
has an effect on the graduation rates of the school, district, and state. If a minimum-skills

39
test is one measure used to determine whether a student graduates or not, and a set of
students is in fact meeting the credit requirement but not the passing the CAHSEE, those
students are not listed as graduates and are thus not included in the 83% percent of
graduates needed to meet AYP (Marchant & Paulson, 2005).
In addition to controversy around students receiving a high school diploma based
on a test, many lawsuits have contested the legality of such a stipulation. In California,
the most prominent of these legislations is the Valenzuela v. O’Connell et al., more
commonly known as the Valenzuela Act. This lawsuit, filed in February 2006, was
considered settled assuming the passage of Assembly Bill 347, which stated that students
must be allowed to take the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) exam for up to
two years after their stated day of graduation. Not only must students be allowed to return
but they must also receive intensive instruction in the standards they are lacking.
Determination of precisely what standards need intervention is based on a diagnostic test
and the previous results of the CAHSEE. This legislation also has a requirement to notify.
Each student that has not passed by his/her senior year must be notified that interventions
are available to him/her at the previous school site every term following the projected
date of graduation. Also, at each testing time, a notification must be sent out that a test is
coming and the student is allowed to return and retake it (September, 2009). (Notification
is sent to the last known address, which oftentimes changes with the transciency of any
given population).
As previously stated, the Class of 2006 was the first graduating class in California
required to take the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE); however, the lawsuit

40
Chapman et al. v. the California Department of Education, the Superintendent of Public
Education, and the State Board of Education allowed special education students who
were on track to graduate but did not have the skills to pass the CAHSEE to graduate
(Kramer, 2002; Perner, 2007). On May 30, 2008, Plaintiff Kids et al. rendered a verdict
requiring an outside government agency to look at the CAHSEE and determine whether it
is truly detrimental to the special-education population (September, 2009).
As in the case of special education students, lawsuits emerged to protect the rights
of English Language Learners, but none with as much prominence as the special
education legislation. The only real legislation that has protected English Language
Learners is also the Valenzuela legislation. Unfortunately, the legislation only says that
English Language Learners will receive targeted instruction in English to meet the
standards assessed by the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). They already
receive this instruction in high school English classes (September, 2009). One problem is
that English Language Learners do not have the academic English needed to understand
the language on the mathematics portion of the test, and thus cannot pass that section
either. So they may know how to do the math but not understand the question being
asked (Silva, Weinburgh, Smith, Barreto, & Gabel, 2008).

Who is Responsible for a Student’s Learning?
When it comes to student instruction often a debate arises around who exactly is
responsible for student learning. Seven different entities have cited as responsible for a
student’s learning: the student him or herself, the parent or guardian of the student, the

41
teacher in the classroom (aides are included in this description), the school site (including
the principal, counselors, and site administrators), the district (including the
superintendent and the board of education), the state (including the governor, the state
superintendent, and state government agencies), and the federal government (including
the president and federal government agencies). Knowing how each of these entities
aides in a student’s progress can help determine how the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE) is addressed.
The single most important participant in ensuring a student’s success on grade-
level standards is the student himself. This individual has free will and makes personal
choices on an ongoing basis. Yes, it is the charge of others to motivate this individual and
ensure that he or she is receiving appropriate grade-level curriculum; without this
individual actively participating in the learning process there is no possible way for
learning to occur (Meyer, Turner, & Schweinle, 2009; Kizilgunes, et al., 2009).
The parent or guardian is also a crucial member of a student’s learning process.
Before a child reaches school age, the parent must provide rich immersion in print and
promote the idea that learning is a positive thing. Studies have shown that the more
children are introduced to literature and learning before reaching the school environment,
the better equipped they are to handle schooling (DeCusati, C. & Johnson, J., 2004;
Zaman, 2006). Later a parent needs to reinforce what is happening at the school site and
in the classroom; a parent/guardian must support the completion of homework
assignments at home, making sure to notify the school if the work is too challenging so
that interventions can begin as soon as possible (Miretzky, 2004). The parent/guardian

42
needs to set aside a specific time and place for learning to occur at home and constantly
reinforce the notion that learning is a positive and necessary thing in a student’s life
(Zaman, 2006).
Arguably the most significant impact on a student is borne by the teacher in the
classroom. It is the teacher’s duty to impart the grade-level material (Kizilgunes, et al.,
2009). A teacher must identify struggling students and seek to shore up any
deficiencies—or seek out other resources for that individual. Teachers must intervene
frequently to ensure adequate progress (Brown, Morris, & Fields, 2005) and
communicate shortcomings with everyone involved in the student’s life—
parents/guardians, grade-level associates, site administrators, and in some cases, the
district (Carr, 2007).
A student can have many different types of interactions at the site level. If a
student is “on track” and showing adequate, if not proficient, progress on grade-level
standards, that site may not know much more than the student’s name, his or her
parent/guardian, and what classes he or she is taking. If a student is not proficient, the
site is likely to know about them more intimately. It is the site’s responsibility to monitor
the progress in the classroom (Kimball, 2009). Because of this responsibility, the site is
normally the location where praise or blame is given for progress or lack thereof. (For
example: If a school has a ranking of 810 it is congratulations to School A for that
ranking, if a school is in year 3 of program improvement then School B is in need of
intervention. It is not students by name but the site as a whole). A site is responsible for
allocating resources in a way that most benefits its population (Greene, Huerta, &

43
Richards, 2007; Southworth, 2005). The site oftentimes chooses the curriculum being
taught at any given time and has the charge of communicating with the surrounding
community what exactly is happening at the school site. The site must also communicate
with the district to let them know what else students may need (Halawah, 2005).
A district is even less likely to know students by name. The district is given the
charge of monitoring the progress at the school sites and ensuring that they are on target.
At the district level there are two forms of leadership: the superintendent and the board of
education. Traditionally the superintendent has been a manager of sorts, but in recent
years the focus has shifted to more of an instructional leader role. The superintendent
works hand-in-hand with the board of education to decide what strategies and programs
are right for their district and to find funding for such programs. The superintendent is
also in charge of communicating with the larger community about what is happening in
the district and what its current needs and wants are (Bredeson, P. & Kose, B.,, 2007;
Elmore, 2005; Escalante, 2000).
The board of education is an elected body of individuals given the charge of
ensuring that strategies and programs offered up by the superintendent are truly what the
community wants and needs. Because of the elected status of its members, the Board of
Education truly has a finger on the pulse of the surrounding community and tends to
gravitate towards topics of most interest there. The board of education is a thinking,
breathing, thriving organism working through problems with the superintendent in a
collaborative manner trying to do what is right for the district (Carr, 2006; Escalante,
2000).

44
Regardless of the level of communication between the superintendent and the
board of education, the public sees both as agents-of-change. They both have the ability
to steer a community in the right direction and shore up the deficiencies in the district
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Elmore, 2000).
A district is then held accountable by the state. The head of a state is the
governor, whose responsibility it is to set standards for all districts and schools, to guide
and implement programs and policies that can be used by varying agencies, to set funding
and funding limits for county offices of education and districts, and much more. The
state is also run by members of the senate and the house of representatives, who lobby on
behalf of their constituents to get what they believe is appropriate for their portions of the
state. The state selects the curriculum as well as what books and publishers can be used
to meet that curriculum requirement. (Not just traditional curriculum but any extra
curriculum that is used to shore up the deficiencies found throughout the state). The state
also monitors the districts and school sites to determine which are at adequate proficiency
levels and which are in need of more intervention. The state is responsible for
communicating its findings to the state as a whole and to the national government. The
state must lobby the national government for funding allocations and reprieves on federal
mandates, where deemed appropriate (Fusarelli, 2002; Gittell & Mckenna, 1999).
The final entity responsible for student is the federal government. The federal
government must determine adequate levels of proficiency throughout the nation and set
policy and programs to achieve those goals. The federal government is also responsible
for setting funding guidelines that all states and districts must follow. Notably, the United

45
States federal government has a tendency to sway to the right of the state when making
specific educational decisions because of a longstanding tradition that education is a
states’ rights issue and that each state should have power over what happens within their
states with regard to education. Amendment X of the United States Constitution states:
“the powers not enumerated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited to the
states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” (United States, 1787). The
federal government has gotten around this jurisdictional issue in various ways, for
example, Title I, but for the most part education remains a state issue (Debray-Pelot,
2007).)
Again, not just one entity determines whether a student succeeds; seven different
entities together can help a child succeed. Arguably, three entities have the most
influence: the teacher, the site, and the district. The teacher has the most one-on-one
interaction with the student; the site is charged with monitoring the teachers; but the
district has the ability to support or neglect the sites and the teachers. Although sites must
dole out funds to appropriate places, districts determine how much a site should get.
Ideally, this process would be a collaboration among the three groups, led by the
superintendent at the district level (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Johnson, 2006; Waters &
Marzano, 2006).

Prevention as a Theory of Intervention
Interventions take on two forms, prevention and remediation. Each type of
interventions come with its own philosophy and timeline of integration, as well as belief

46
systems around why it is appropriate. The American Heritage Ddictionary defines
prevention as “the act of preventing or impeding,” then breaks down the word
etymologically to its root word, prevent, which means to “keep from happening or
arising.” Prevention is one theory of aiding a student in need of intervention (The
American Heritage Dictionary, 2005). In this scenario the intervention occurs before the
student is officially deemed as not at grade level.
The theory of prevention presupposed that a student will not score adequately on
the test when it is eventually given. The only true way to determine competence is to give
the student a preassessment. On the simpler side a preassessment can just be another
version of the test so proficiency can be assessed. If a “smarter” test is chosen as a
preassessment tool, that test can be used as a diagnostic test. Diagnostic means “serving
to identify a specific characteristic” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2005). With a
good diagnostic tool, a student and teacher can leave a preassessment knowing exactly
what a student’s deficiencies are and align the interventions towards them (Cobb, 2003).
The next question becomes who picks and assigns the diagnostic test.
In some cases the teacher selects the diagnostic tool—though in some cases the
site does and, in other cases, the district. In very rare cases, the state or national
government picks the diagnostic tool, though in most cases it just states that, “a
diagnostic tool must be used.” At elementary levels, the teacher uses the diagnostic tool,
as in the case of Kindergarten placement for late-birds or early-birds. In special
education identification, the diagnostic tool determines exactly where the processing
disorder lies. In the case of testing diagnostics, these tools determine exactly what a

47
student does not know that he/she is about to be tested on so that a targeted intervention
can take place (Cobb, 2003). The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) has no
diagnostic tool available; however, a rough estimate can made through a prereleased test,
in which each question is identified as part of a different strand and the percentage
correct on the strand can determine proficiency. (This prereleased test can be found on
the California Department of Education’s website [September, 2009]). This diagnostic
test may assess a set of individuals identified by its teachers as needing intervention,
though some schools have given the diagnostic tool to their entire 9
th
grade to determine
the possible percentage passing and proficient the following year. (It is hard to take the
results of a diagnostic seriously though because you are assuming that a student tried
his/her hardest on the diagnostic just as if it was the real test. CAHSEE is the highest-
stakes test administered by the state of California and thus students routinely score higher
on it than they do on the California Standards Test [CST]). In the case of whole-grade
testing, students are sometimes tested by teachers at a time designated by site
administrators who are trying to get a true reading of what is about to happen at the site.
In the best-case scenario, all students are pretested at the same time so that all are treated
equally and all can be assessed. It is helpful to tell students exactly why they are being
tested on and what consequences or interventions will befall them if they don’t score at a
proficient level (Cobb, 2003).
Once a diagnostic tool has deemed that a student needs intervention, the necessity
of that intervention must be determined. Is intervention mandatory or voluntary? For
example, because the student has technically not yet scored nonproficient on the exam,

48
must he or she receive intervention? Processes and systems must be put into place to
answer this question with clear guidelines and stipulations (Rahn, Stetcher, & Goodman,
1997). Another question is when should interventions take place? Should the
intervention take place during the school day at a time period already assigned to
something else? If students are deemed below proficiency in English should they be
intervened during the English time block or should that time period still be used to move
students forward in the standards that they will be tested on at the end of the year?
Should the intervention take place before or after school? If so, who is responsible for
getting the student there, and if they do not show what consequences should be imposed
on that student? Should the student lose extracurricular activities until he or she is
brought up to proficiency? All of these questions need to be considered by those
providing preventative intervention measures to a student (Jimerson, Pletcher, &
Graydon, 2006).
Finally, how early must interventions begin? If a student is not taking a high-
stakes test until his/her 10
th
-grade year, how early should the diagnostic test be given to
ensure that adequate prevention measures are being implemented? This theory is known
as early-intervention. The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) base its on
seventh grade standards; so, should the diagnostic tool be nonproficiency in those
standards at that grade level makes preventative measures begin? Should intervention
begin at the 8
th
-grade year and go until proficiency is achieved? These questions must be
taken into consideration by the student, the parent/guardian, the teacher, the site, and the
district (Jimerson et al., 2006).

49
Once students get into intervention, how do they get out? Do they stay in
intervention until the actual high-stakes test is given or should they be given a chance to
retest on the skills necessary to succeed on that test? Is the same diagnostic tool given
again or an alternative tool? How often should a student be retested? Who makes that
decision and at what (student, teacher, site, district) level? These questions are all
important (James & Wahlberg, 2007; Rummell, Acton, & Costello, 1999). In contrast to
prevention is another type of intervention known as remediation.

Remediation as a Theory of Intervention
Webster’s dictionary defines remediation as “the act of correcting an error or
fault.” When remediation is broken down into the root word of remediate the definition
then becomes “to set straight, or right” (The American Heritage Dictionary, 2005). The
theory of remediation comes into play when a student has taken the high-stakes
assessment and is found nonproficient (or nonpassing in the case of the California High
School Exit Exam [CAHSEE]) and thus needs intervention to pass.
In contrast to prevention, remediation happens after a student has failed a high-
stakes test. For the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) intervention would
take place after a student fails the 10
th
-grade census administration. The question then is
no longer who is going to fail, but rather, of those who have failed, who should receive
remediation and when?
Do seniors get remediation priority because they are the closest to graduation and
therefore their passing is most important? Do juniors get priority because they need their

50
senior year left open for possible remediation in other core curriculum classes that they
failed their first two years in high school? Do 10
th
graders get remediation because they
are closest in age to the last time that material was taught to them (Vaughn, Wanzek,
Murray, Scammacca, Linan-Thompson, & Woodruff, 2009)? Once who will be
remediated has been decided, the question remains as to the subjects in which they will
be remediated.
In the prevention model of intervention, a student is given a diagnostic tool to aid
the teacher and site in determining what type of intervention should be administered.
Once a student has taken the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) that test can
be used as a diagnostic tool. When a student gets results from the CAHSEE, the exam is
broken down into the strands they were tested on and the percentage correct within the
given strand. This data tells a teacher what to focus on for that student (Cobb, 2003). (For
instance, if a student fails the mathematics section and the test copy says he scored a 98%
in probability but a 32% percent in number sense, a teacher or remediation specialist
knows to focus on number sense). According to California’s Valenzuela legislation, a
diagnostic tool determines the areas of student deficiency, thus an alternate tool, one
chosen by the school site or district, must also be used (September, 2009). Once the
question of what to focus on is answered, the question of who participates should be
asked.
After a student has taken the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and
the results have been received by the student, the site, and the district, it is May of the
student’s 10
th
-grade year. Students are only allowed to take the test twice in their junior

51
year, so creative thinking must applied to determine how and when students will get
remediation. According to the Valenzuela legislation, timing does not matter as much as
the fact of intervention itself. Again the situation raises the question of whether this
remediation should be mandatory or voluntary. Under Valenzuela legislation
interventions are mandatory, but is “mandatory” defined as offered to the student or as
the student taking part in the intervention (Rahn et al., 1997)? (If a site has made all
attempts to offer interventions to a student and that student does not participate, is it the
fault of the site or of the student if he or she does not pass the next CAHSEE exam?)
After participation is confirmed, the next question is when to intervene?
What should be a priority in a student’s defined schedule? Studies have shown
that if students are not proficient in grade-level standards, they will also probably be in
need of intervention on high-stakes tests. If a student is in need of credit recovery for
world history and in need of remediation in California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE) standards, which one should take priority in the student’s schedule? Should
students get a CAHSEE remediation class as dictated by Valenzuela legislation or should
they get credit recovery so that if they do pass the CAHSEE they can get a diploma? Are
schools not also charged with giving students every opportunity to get the credits they
need? Which is more important?
Once a student is found in need of remediation, how long should that student
receive the intervention? Should a student receive continuous intervention until the test is
passed or is reteaching of the content standards enough? If a student shows mastery on a
diagnostic test before results have been returned, can remediation be stopped (James &

52
Wahlberg, 2007; Rummell et al.,1999)? What if the student is in special education and
his/her processing disorder will make it impossible to pass the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE); are they then allowed to stop? When is enough, enough?
Valenzuela legislation has determined that students must receive intervention for
up to two years after their projected graduation date. Considering it is hard enough to get
students to go to interventions when they are physically on campus eight hours of the
day, how can sites/districts compel a student who no longer has any connection to the
school site to come for intervention? Is communication about the availability of
interventions enough or do students have to actually show up? How much can a site and
district reasonably be expected to do?

Chapter 2 Conclusion
Intervention is enacted to increase a student’s likelihood for success on whatever
standards for which he or she is being. In this study, prevention and remediation are the
two conceptual frameworks used to analyze the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE) standards and the passing rate of successful large urban school districts. What
matters is not just what intervention policy is utilized by which district, but why
successful urban superintendents chose that policy to begin with. The study is advanced
by summarizing the literature about the different types of tests used to quantify student
knowledge, what theories of intervention can be utilized, and what the gaps in the
research lead to effective California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) intervention
policies being implemented by successful urban superintendents.

53
First, prevention is the intervention used before a student has proven unsuccessful
at the standards. Research has shown that an adequate way to accurately identify those in
need of preventative intervention is to offer all students a diagnostic test and those not
scoring at grade level are then identified as in need of preventative intervention. Although
an abundance of literature addresses the need for diagnostic tools to identify students, a
literature gap still exists with regard to when that preventative intervention should take
place and for whom. What does an effective prevention intervention program look like?
How much money should be set aside to build that program? Because the student has not
officially shown a lack in grade-level abilities, should classes be taken away to shore up
perceived deficiencies? If a student or parent does not want intervention, should the
student still be placed in the intervention program for “its own good”? What happens if
after preventative intervention the student still does not perform at proficiency or grade
level? These questions are yet to be answered by the literature and therefore require
analysis.
Second, remediation is intervention that is utilized when a student has already
shown not to be at grade level or proficient in the standards being tested. Because the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) can be considered a diagnostic test, and
the students have proven that they cannot pass, the question of who needs remediation
and in what subjects has been answered. Gaps in the literature remain around what an
effective remediation intervention policy looks like. Who is required to be in the
program? All students? If there is a student in need of credit recovery and remediation,
should one be sacrificed for the other, and which one? What about nonparticipation by

54
students involuntarily signed up for remediation? How are those students, and their
scores, handled? These are all questions that have not been answered by the literature and
therefore need to be analyzed.
Superintendents chose the type of intervention the district will use. Literature has
shown that the superintendent is the instructional leader of the school district; the
superintendent and the school board are agents of change. Although plenty of research
addresses those roles and responsibilities, there is a dearth of literature on how a
superintendent chooses the intervention strategy used by the district. Has evidence shown
that one type of intervention is better than the other? Is one type of intervention working
at one school and therefore applied to the whole district? Are schools allowed to use
whichever intervention strategy they would like, as long as it follows state and federal
guidelines? Should the superintendent choose at all? What makes one policy successful
and the other not? These are all questions that the literature has yet to answer and
therefore must be analyzed.
The purpose of the proposed study is to identify and analyze California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) intervention strategies being implemented by
superintendents at successful large urban school districts in the state of California and
who report on levels of effectiveness for the nonpassing student population. Different
policies to be analyzed are: usage of prevention intervention versus remediation
intervention, and how a superintendent determines whether site-based intervention
strategies versus district-based intervention strategies is more appropriate.

55
More research is needed on how students are chosen for intervention and when
the appropriate time to administer those interventions is. By exploring these questions,
this study may find possible intervention frameworks that can be used by districts
struggling to increase their pass rates on the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE). This study will also build upon the knowledge already gained on the
necessity of diagnostic tests and the need to balance intervention strategies with credits
for graduation.

56

Chapter Three

Research Methodology

Chapter 3 Introduction

In 1999, the state of California passed into law the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE). This minimum-skills test has been used as the benchmark for the least
amount of knowledge a student needs to have mastered to receive a diploma in the state
of California. This test is also used in the accountability measures of Academic
Performance Index (API) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), by which every school
and district are rated. Because this test is so “high-stakes,” California used the first six
years of implementation as norming years. The Class of 2006 was the first class required
to pass this test in order to receive a diploma. Passing rates on this test vary from district
to district. Some districts have always had high pass rates in the CAHSEE, whereas
others began with low-test scores and have increased their pass rates in recent years. It is
the latter that this study focuses on.
The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE) intervention strategies being implemented by successful
superintendents of large urban school districts in the state of California who report on the
level of effectiveness for their nonpassing student population. Specifically, whether the
intervention strategies of prevention and/or remediation were used by successful large

57
urban school districts, and who at those school districts determined what strategy should
be used. The research questions that will be addressed are as follows:
1) What types of intervention programs do successful California urban
superintendents use to decrease the number of students who do not pass the
California High School Exit Exam?
a. Are the strategies of interventions those of prevention or remediation?
2) How are students in those districts identified as in need intervention?
3) What personnel are involved in determining the need for intervention strategies
within the school district?
4) Are the interventions in those districts guided by the sites or handed top-down
from the superintendent?

Purpose and Organization of the Chapter

The purpose of this chapter is to reflect on how participants were chosen to
participate in this study, what instruments were used to elicit responses from the
participants, how the data was collected, and how the data was analyzed.
This chapter is organized into five sections: the introduction, sample and
population, data collection, instrumentation, data analysis, and conclusion.

Method of Analysis

This study used a mixed-methods approach to determine the level of effectiveness
of intervention strategies in large California urban school districts. The term mixed-

58
methods refers to the use of both quantitative and qualitative data when conducting a
research study (Patton, 2002).
This study first used quantitative data to determine which superintendents would
receive a survey asking about the intervention strategies being used within their school
districts for the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). The population of the
school district was used to determine which superintendent would receive an official
screening survey.
The study then sent out a descriptive survey to determine which intervention
strategies were being used within the school districts to increase the pass rate on the
CAHSEE. The survey, which is also quantitative in nature, used a Likert scale to
determine levels of responses by the superintendent.
The final portion of the study involved interviews with school district
superintendents to learn the intricacies of the strategies being implemented within their
school districts. (The interviews may also have included conversations with key district
personnel if the superintendent felt it was necessary). This portion was qualitative in
nature.
By using both quantitative and qualitative data in this study, triangulation can
occur. Triangulation involves using multiple data collection techniques to study the same
setting, issue, or program. The methods triangulation used in this study serves to
“elucidate complementary aspects of the same phenomenon” (Patton, 2002, p.558).
The surveys and interviews for this study were conducted during the 2009-2010
academic calendar year.

59
Sample and Population

Population

This study was conducted in the state of California, across multiple counties in
Northern California, Central California, and Southern California. The chosen school
districts were either secondary or unified in nature and had student populations of 15,000
or more. No consideration was given for the ethnic or racial make-up of the school
district. Superintendents were requested to participate in the study through a letter of
introduction, which indicated that participation in the survey, and answers found within,
would determine possible follow-up in the form of an interview. The survey instrument
and interview questions were both field-tested to ensure that they took no more than 15
minutes to complete the survey and to verify that the interview questions elicited the type
of answers that would accurately identify intervention strategies in place in those
districts. Based on the feedback of the field-testing, the final survey and interview
questions were implemented.
Participants

Purposeful sampling was the method of selection for participants in this study.
Not all superintendents in the state of California were eligible for participation in this
study; only those who had shown success in their school district passing rates on one or
more portions of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
Table 1, below, is a graphic organizer of how school districts and superintendents
were chosen to participate in this study.

60
Table 1
Criteria Used for Superintendent Interview Selection

Districts

Superintendents

Population of 15,000 students or more

Held a position in that school district for at least two
years
Initial passing rate of 70% or greater on
the CAHSEE
Growth in passing rates in the last four
years

In order to determine eligibility for participation in this study, the researcher
considered three pieces of data: (a) the population of the school district was 15,000 or
more, (b) the passing rate on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) was 70%
or higher, and (c) there had been growth in the past four years on the passing rate for both
portions of the CAHSEE.
Table 2, below, shows an example of the table used to determine exactly which
superintendents and school districts met the criteria for inclusion in the study.

61
Table 2
Sample of Matrix Used for Superintendent Interview Selection
District
Being
Studied

Population
of 15,000 or
more

70%
Passing
rate

Growth in
the last
four years

Always
High Pass
Rate

Superintendent
in the district for
two or more
years
Chosen for
Study

A Y Y Y N Y Y
B Y Y N Y Y N
C Y Y Y N Y Y
D N Y Y N Y N
E Y Y Y N N N

As Table 2 indicates, superintendent were not identified if they had always had successful
passing rates on the CAHSEE, nor were superintendents excluded from participation if
they did not meet all three criteria. (Even if a district did not have an initial passing rate
of 70% but had shown significant growth in its own population, it was chosen for a
survey).
Once an eligibility pool of superintendents was created, 88 district
superintendents were sent surveys to determine whether their school districts used
prevention intervention strategies, remediation intervention strategies, both, or neither.
Once the surveys were returned and analyzed, a portion of surveyed superintendents was
chosen for interviews to gain a more specific picture of their districts. (If during an
interview, a superintendent expressed the need for key district personnel to be
interviewed, those interviews were held as well).

62
Six superintendents were interviewed for this study. Four superintendents were
deemed successful for their numerical growth in the passing rates on the California High
School Exit Exam and two superintendents showed limited growth by having significant
numerical growth on one portion of the exam but not on both.
Research Setting

All superintendents were interviewed at their central office. Approximately one
hour was set aside for each interview to allow time for completion of the interview and
time for reflection and follow-up notes.

Data Collection

In the spring and summer of 2009, publicly available data on the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) was compiled to determine which large urban school
districts were showing gains on the passing rates of their students. A set of 88 district
superintendents to survey was compiled and a letter was sent to those districts asking for
their participation in the study. A copy of the letter can be found in Appendix A. The
superintendents were assured of the confidentiality of the interviews and that names and
titles would not be included in the study. Field-tested survey questionnaires and
interview guides were used for the study and interview notes were compiled in
appropriate tables to ensure correct data analysis.

63
Instrumentation

The author used two pieces of instrumentation to evaluate the intervention
strategies of successful superintendents: a survey questionnaire served to determine what
types of intervention strategies were being used in that school district and interview
guides were consulted during interviews with the superintendents.
The Survey Questionnaire

The survey questionnaire contained 16 questions divided in to four subcategories:
one, prevention intervention strategies in place in the district; two, remediation
intervention strategies in place in the district; three, superintendent knowledge of
intervention strategies being used in the district; and four, personnel specifically
designated for testing and evaluation and intervention.
The questions on the survey questionnaire used a 5-point Likert scale with an
answer of “1” meaning that it is not in use at the school district, and “5” meaning it is
highly used within the school district. (A copy of the survey questionnaire can be found
in Appendix B).
The Interview Guide

For the purposes of this study, an interview guide was created. This guide was
created to ensure that the necessary questions were asked in a way to elicit the types of
answers that would aid the study the most. It was created to keep the interviews
structured and consistent. (A copy of the interview guide can be found in Appendix C).

64
Data Analysis

Microsoft Excel was used to organize the quantitative data so that the correct
participants could be chosen for the study. Microsoft Excel was also used to create tables
for the information found in the Likert scale surveys.
Analysis of the qualitative data began immediately after the data was collected.
The interviews were immediately transcribed and then coded to identify themes or
patterns within the data. The collected data reflected the perceptions and practices of
superintendents at the time of the interview. (Key district personnel were included, as
appropriate).

Chapter 3 Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was to indicate how superintendents were chosen to
participate in the study, what instruments were used to elicit their responses, and how
data was collected and analyzed. Through a mixed-methods approach, data from a sample
of 88 were collected using quantitative survey questionnaires. Six district qualitative
interviews were collected. The presentation and analysis of this data are combined in
Chapter Four.

65

Chapter Four
Findings and Discussion of Findings

Chapter 4 Introduction

This chapter presents the findings from multiple case studies of superintendents
who had guided their school districts towards successfully increasing their passing rates
on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). In order to determine how
superintendents guide their districts to increasing state test scores, specifically the
CAHSEE, six superintendents served as the unit of analysis. Within the context of six
districts, pre and posttest scores were of significant importance, as was the inclusion of
the district in program improvement. Case study methodology was utilized to support
data collection.
This study analyzed six different urban superintendents to identify best practices
for increasing the passing rate on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Two
instruments, described in depth in Chapter Three, were used in the collection of data: (a)
Superintendent Survey (Appendix A) and (b) Superintendent and Key Player Interview
Guide (Appendix B). The data in this study consisted of surveys with 51 urban
superintendents, interviews with six urban superintendents and/or key district personnel,
and reports from district and State Department of Education web sites. Data was
interpreted and analyzed using the process of triangulation. This methodology supported
the reliability and validity of the findings.

66
The findings from the research, as well as a detailed analysis and discussion of the
data, are presented in this chapter. This chapter focuses on the strategies a successful
urban superintendent uses to increase the passing rate on the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE). The following four research questions helped focus the study and
determined some of the section headings for this chapter:
1) What types of intervention programs do successful California urban
superintendents use to decrease the amount of students that do not pass the
California High School Exit Exam?
a. Are the strategies of intervention those of prevention or remediation?
2) How are students in those districts identified as in need of intervention?
3) What personnel is involved in determining the need for interventions strategies
within the school district?
4) Are the interventions in those districts guided by the sites or handed top-down
from the superintendent?
The remaining section headings for the chapter are based on characteristics or
experiences of all of interviewed districts.

Districts Analyzed
A single criterion was used to determine which superintendents would be
surveyed: population of the school district greater than 15,000. Eighty-eight California

67
superintendents matched that description; of those 81, 51 returned surveys. Table 3,
below, summarizes the number of districts that were sent surveys, and the districts that
responded.
Table 3
Superintendent Survey Information
Survey Information Number
Sent Surveys 88
Responded to Surveys 51

Table 3 highlights the 88 districts that were contacted and the 51 districts that
participated in the survey. That is a 57.95% response rate. The results of those who
returned their surveys will be discussed further in this chapter. When superintendents did
not respond to the survey, a follow-up phone call was made to their executive assistants
to determine why they had not returned their surveys and whether they would still be
willing to do so. Superintendents did not respond for a myriad of reasons: eight
superintendents were new to their districts, two were interim superintendents, and one
was a superintendent placed in his position by the state; the remaining superintendents
did not give a reason.
Although the purpose of this study was to identify urban superintendents that had
successfully increased their passing rates on the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE), all superintendents with a district population over 15,000 were surveyed.
This decision was purposeful: When looking at best practices, researchers must consider
successful and unsuccessful districts because superintendents from both types are using
the same strategy with their students. The key to success may not be that strategy, but

68
rather something that the superintendents and districts are doing differently. Table 4,
below, shows the summary of district scores on the English/language arts portion of the
CAHSEE over the last four years.
Table 4
District English/Language Arts Passing Rates and Growth Over Four Years

English/Language Arts Passing Rate Range Number of Respondents
Greater Than 79% 34
5% or Greater Growth Over Four Years 6
0- 4% Growth Over Four Years 40
Decrease Over Four Years 5

Six districts had growth of 5% or greater in English/language arts, 40 districts had
growth of 0-4%, and 5 decreased their passing rates. In addition to growth in percent
passing rate, 34 districts reported a passing rate of greater than 79%. (An 80% or greater
passing rate was researched because 79% was the state passing average for 2009; 80% or
greater would put those districts above the state average). Table 5, below, shows the
district’s scores on the mathematics portion of the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE) over the last four years.

69
Table 5
District’s Mathematics Passing Rates and Growth Over Four Years

Mathematics Passing Rate Range Number of Respondents
Greater Than 80% 26
5% or Greater Growth Over Four Years 22
0-4% Growth Over Four Years 25
Decrease Over Four Years 4

As illustrated above, 22 districts had 5% or greater growth over four years in
mathematics, 25 had growth of 0-4%, and 4 decreased their passing rates. In addition to
growth in passing rate, 26 districts reported a passing rate of greater than 80%. (An 81%
or greater passing rate was researched was because 80% was the state passing rate for
2009; 80% or greater would put those districts above the state average). While it is
important to know what percent passing and growth a district has achieved on the
California High School Exit Exam, this information also delineates how successful a
superintendent was in increasing test scores. For the purpose of this study, districts were
placed in one of three rankings. (See Table 6, below).

70
Table 6
Superintendent Success Ratings Definitions

Superintendent Success Rating Definition
Successful 5% or greater growth over four years or 80%
or greater passing rate on both portions of the
CAHSEE
Limited Growth From 0-4% growth over four years or less
than 80% more than 69% passing rate on at
least one portion of the CAHSEE
Unsuccessful Decrease in passing rates over four years or
less than 70% passing rate on at least one
portion of the CAHSEE

Successful was defined as either a 5% or greater growth over four years or 80% or greater
passing rate on both portions of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
Limited Growth was defined as from 0-4% growth over four years and a less than 80%,
more than 69%, passing rate on at least one portion of the CAHSEE. Unsuccessful was
defined as a decrease in passing rates over four years, or less than 70% passing rate on at
least one portion of the CAHSEE. Table 7, below, breaks down the 51 surveyed districts
into those three rankings.

71
Table 7
Districts and Their Success Ranking

Successful Ranking Number of Districts Identified
Successful 33
Limited Growth 10
Unsuccessful 8

Of the 51 surveyed districts, 33 are defined as Successful districts, 10 are defined
as Limited Growth districts, and 8 are defined as Unsuccessful districts.
From this ranking of districts, the researcher determined the superintendents to be
interviewed. Superintendents that did not respond to the survey were not included in the
interview process, nor were superintendents that had been in their district less than two
years. Based on this criteria and the willingness of superintendents, six different districts
were included in the interview portion of the study. (See Table 8, below).

72
Table 8
Districts, Superintendents, and Key Representatives Interviewed
District Name

Superintendent
Name
Superintendent
Interviewed
Representatives from
District Interviewed
Thriving Children Mr. Children By Phone Yes
Concrete Tester Mr. Tester Yes No
Asphalt Student Mr. Students Yes Yes
Urban Thinker Mr. Thinkers No Superintendent Designee
Blooming Worker Mr. Workers Yes Yes
Sprawling Learner Mr. Learners Yes Yes

Although the purpose of this interview was to speak directly to the superintendents about
“best practices” happening in their school districts, only four superintendents were
available to speak directly; one spoke in a phone interview and one designated his
assistant superintendent to speak on his behalf. Superintendents were invited to include
any representatives from their school district that they felt would be necessary or
pertinent to the questions being posed. Four districts chose to include other
representatives, whereas two did not. The successful rankings of the interviewed
superintendents are listed below in Table 9.

73
Table 9
Districts with Interviewed Superintendents, Testing Information, and Success Ranking
Superintendent
Name

2009 ELA
% Passing
Rate

ELA %
Increase
Over
Four
Years
2009 Math
% Passing
Rate

Math %
Increase
Over
Four
Years
Success Ranking

Mr. Children 71 6 75 13 Successful
Mr. Tester 74 7 74 8 Successful
Mr. Student 75 6 78 8 Successful
Mr. Thinker 80 5 82 6 Successful
Mr. Worker 78 4 82 15 Limited Growth
Mr. Learner 73 4 71 12 Limited Growth

Four superintendents are labeled Successful and two are labeled Limited Growth.
The two Limited Growth Superintendents were included in the interview process because
their percent increase on the mathematics portion of the California High School Exit
Exam is of such large numerical value: 15% and 12%. (The average increase across the
51 districts surveyed was only 4.13%). Once the districts to be interviewed were
identified, the district organizational structure was reviewed.

Organizational Structure
When analyzing districts, organizational structure is certainly of importance.
Although each of the districts could be analyzed separately, their similar structures allow
them to be discussed as a single group. A Collective District Organizational Chart

74
appears in Appendix E. As noted in Appendix E, all districts are governed by a Board of
Education to whom the superintendent is held directly accountable. Each district utilizes
between three and six key departments, for whom the superintendent is held accountable.
Although each of the departments serve crucial needs within the school district, for the
purpose of this study, the department that was dealt with the most was the Instructional
Services/Educational Services Department. Up to eight subdepartments in the
Instructional Services/Educational Services Department are found in each school district
but the purpose of that department was to support student achievement and to analyze
data to improve student achievement.

Background of Superintendents
The five superintendents and one superintendent designee that were interviewed
have varying backgrounds that brought them to their positions. (Since the sixth
superintendent did not have time for an interview but sent an assistant superintendent to
speak on his behalf, the remainder of this chapter refers to the five superintendents and
one superintendent designee as the six superintendents). Although one would expect to
see a wide variance in the backgrounds of the superintendents, their histories were
remarkably similar.
Thriving Children School District’s Superintendent has been a superintendent for
five-and-a-half years. Prior to being a superintendent, he moved up the educational ranks
from teacher to assistant superintendent. He also was a deputy superintendent of the
county office of education. He said one of his greatest challenges in becoming

75
superintendent was to get an administrative team that fit. He explained: “Even though I
had been in the district it took me almost four years, I would say over three years to build
my team.” I held a phone interview with this superintendent and interviewed one of his
elementary principals at her school site. The elementary principal indicated that she was
chosen to be interviewed because interventions in mathematics and English language arts
begin well before the high school level in her district. The elementary principal stated
that interventions:
should all fold into getting students at mastery by the time they’re at the
secondary level cause ultimately we feel that if we do our job here,
starting in kindergarten, by the time we promote them to sixth grade to go
on to middle school they are competent readers and they have a good
grasp of at least basic math skills so that they can be successful in any skill
that they will need, certainly any of them that would prepare them well for
the CAHSEE.

Therefore, for Thriving Children School District, interventions for California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) begin at the elementary level.
Concrete Tester School District superintendent had been in the position for six
years but in the district itself for over 30. Prior to being a superintendent, he had moved
up the educational ranks from teacher to assistant superintendent. He has applied for
other superintendency positions but to date had not received any other offers.
Asphalt Student School District’s superintendent had held the position for less
than a year. Prior to being a superintendent, he had held many the educational titles,
including interim-superintendent, which he held for the last six months. He had been in
that district for nine years as a director of pupil resources, administrative director of
certificated staffing, and administrator in charge of high school operations. Three

76
members of the school district were interviewed for this study: the superintendent, the
Program Administrator Secondary, and the Director of Testing and Accountability.
Urban Thinker School District’s leader had been a superintendent for three years,
but had been in his district for 18. This superintendent is considered a “home-grown”
superintendent: He started as a teacher, became a counselor, a dean of discipline, an
assistant principal, a principal, an assistant superintendent, and now superintendent, all
within the same district. Due to prior commitments, the superintendent was unable to be
interviewed for this study. At the request of the superintendent, the assistant
superintendent spoke on his behalf.
Blooming Worker School District’s superintendent has been in the position for 19
years, not all of them in the Blooming Worker School District. Prior to becoming
Blooming Worker’s superintendent, he was superintendent of a smaller urban school
district. He held a Doctorate in Education (Ed.D) with an emphasis in alternative
education. For the purpose of this study, two individuals were interviewed from within
the school district: the superintendent and the assistant superintendent of educational
services.
Sprawling Learner School District’s superintendent has been the leader for three-
and-a-half years. Prior to becoming a superintendent, he had held various positions,
ranging from teacher to assistant superintendent. For the purposes of this study, four
individuals were interviewed from this school district: the superintendent, the Assistant
Superintendent of Educational Services, the Director of Curriculum 9-12, and the

77
Director of Elementary Education. The next piece of background that all districts had in
common was Program Improvement Status.

Program Improvement Status
Besides increasing their scores on the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE), all of the interviewed schools districts had also been identified as a program
improvement district. Program Improvement districts have been designated as such
because of their inability to improve their Academic Yearly Progress (AYP) at the pace
set by the federal government under “No Child Left Behind.” Table 10, below, provides
further information about their PI status.
Table 10
Program Improvement Status of Districts Interviewed

District Name PI Status Year Entry Into PI
Thinking Children Year 3 2004-2005
Concrete Tester Year 3 2004-2005
Asphalt Student Year 3 2004-2005
Urban Thinker Year 3 2004-2005
Blooming Worker Year 3 2004-2005
Sprawling Learner Year 3 2004-2005

As shown in Table 10, all six districts are in year three of program improvement and all
entered program improvement category in the 2004-2005 school year. Once a broad
overview of the districts and their superintendents had been reviewed, the researcher took
a more comprehensive look at the study’s research questions.

78

Chapter 4 Research Questions
When interviewing the Superintendents and key figures in the school districts, the
researcher asked questions related to the four research questions identified in Chapter
One. Each research question was designed to answer a specific range of questions.
1) What types of intervention programs do successful California urban
superintendents use to decrease the amount of students that do not pass the
California High School Exit Exam?
a. Are the strategies of intervention those of prevention or remediation?
Research questions one’s goal is to get a list of specific programs being used within the
school district, either by name or by target focus.
2) How are students in those districts identified as in need of intervention?
Research question two seeks to identify which students are determined as in need of
intervention in those districts and how they were labeled as such.
3) What personnel are involved in determining the need for interventions strategies
within the school district?
Research question three attempts to illicit which personnel determine the intervention
strategies put in place in the districts.
4) Are the interventions in those districts guided by the sites or handed top-down
from the superintendent?
Research question four seeks to determine the level of autonomy sites have in choosing
the strategies and programs that fit the needs of their students.

79
The following section provides access to information obtained through the survey
and interview process for the four research questions. Table 11, below, offers a more
succinct list of survey questions.

80
Table 11
Questions on the Superintendent Survey

Question
No.
Question

1 Do you have prevention intervention for CAHSEE standards at the middle
school/junior high school level? (in general)
1a In Mathematics Pre-Algebra standards?
1B In 7
th
-grade English/Language Arts Standards?
2 Do you have prevention intervention for CAHSEE standards at the high school
level? (in general)
2a In Mathematics Pre-Algebra standards?
2b In 7
th
-grade English/Language Arts Standards?
Middle School
3a During the school day, integrated into current classes?
3b During the school day, specifically for the purpose of CAHSEE intervention?
3c After school, targeted on CAHSEE standards?
High School
3d During the school day, integrated into current classes?
3e During the school day, specifically for the purpose of CAHSEE intervention?
3f After school, targeted on CAHSEE standards?
4 Are there currently no prevention intervention strategies happening within your
school district?
5 Do you have remediation intervention for CAHSEE standards at the high school
level? (in general)
5a In Mathematics Pre-Algebra standards?

81
Table 11, Continued
5b In 7
th
-grade English/Language Arts Standards?
6 If there are remediation intervention strategies, when do they occur?
6a During the school day, integrated into current classes?
6b During the school day, specifically for the purpose of CAHSEE intervention?
6c After school, targeted on CAHSEE standards?
7 Are there remediation intervention classes available in your district for students
that have aged out of your system but have not yet passed the CAHSEE?
If yes, where are they housed?
7a At the school site where the student previously attended?
7b At a designated district site where all students in this category attend as a group?
8 Are there currently no remediation intervention strategies happening within your
school district?
9 On a scale of 1 to 5, how involved do you feel in the choosing and implementing
of CAHSEE strategies at the school sites and district level in your district?
10 Do you request that specific programs or strategies be implemented within the
district for intervention on CAHSEE standards?
11 If you were a Superintendent prior to coming to your current district, did you
bring an intervention plan with you when you entered the district?
12 Does your district employ a testing coordinator?
13 Does your district employ an intervention specialist?
14 Are these two positions one-in-the-same?
15 Are specific fiscal resources set aside to implement any intervention strategies
that are deemed integral to your district to success on the CAHSEE?
16 What are your combined years of superintendent experience across any districts
in which you have served?

82
Survey questions 1 through 8 seek answers to research question one and the types and
locations of interventions; survey questions 7b, 12, 13, and 14 center on research question
three’s intent to know what personnel are associated with the intervention strategies
offered in the district; and survey questions 9, 10, and 11try to find answers to research
question four’s inquiry about autonomy of sites. The survey was analyzed using a rubric
scoring guide. (A five-point Likert scale indicating: occurs often [5], sometimes occurs
[4], doesn’t often occur [3], almost never occurs [2], and does not occur [1]).
The following sections detail the findings related to each of the four research
questions under study and present data that identifies common and unique practices in
each of the rankings of superintendents that were surveyed, and secondly the specific
superintendents that were interviewed. (To streamline the data: the number in parentheses
next to the success rating is how many superintendents with that success rating answered
that question on the survey and the brief discussion of the table rounded the average that
was produced to the appropriate whole number).

Types of Intervention
Research Question 1 asked, “What types of intervention programs do successful
superintendents use to decrease the amount of students that do not pass the California
High School Exit Exam?” Survey questions 1 through 4 refer to the prevention
intervention available at the school sites and when those interventions occur.

83
Table 12
Survey Question #1
Survey Question #1: Do you have prevention intervention for CAHSEE
standards at the middle school/junior high school
level? (in general)
Success Ranking: Average Score
Successful (28) 3.86
Limited Growth (9) 4.33
Unsuccessful (8) 3.5

All three rankings of Superintendents stated that prevention interventions sometimes
occurred at the middle school/junior high school level. Although, when rounded, all three
rankings show that interventions sometimes occur, the successful and unsuccessful
superintendents average lay below the (4) ranking of sometimes occurs, but well above
the ranking of (3), doesn’t often occur. (The unsuccessful superintendent average is
exactly halfway between sometimes and doesn’t often occur). Limited growth
superintendents lay above the (4) ranking of sometimes occurs but .67 below the ranking
of (5), occurs often. Survey questions 1a and 1b further break down whether the
prevention intervention strategies were being done with mathematics or English/language
arts standards.

84
Table 13
Survey Question #1a
Survey Question 1a: In Mathematics Pre-Algebra standards?
Success Ranking Average Score
Successful (29) 4.14
Limited Growth (9) 4.56
Unsuccessful (8) 4.13

Both successful and unsuccessful superintendents stated that prevention intervention in
mathematics/prealgebra standards sometimes occurred at the middle-school level whereas
the limited growth superintendents stated that those interventions occurred often.
Table 14
Survey Question #1b
Question 1B:
In 7
th
-grade English/Language Arts Standards?
Success Ranking: Average Score
Successful (29) 4.1
Limited Growth (9) 4.44
Unsuccessful (8) 3.22

Successful and limited growth superintendents stated that prevention interventions in
English/language arts sometimes occurred at the middle school level. (The limited growth
superintendent average was .01 away from being rounded to (5), occurs often). The
unsuccessful superintendents stated that the interventions didn’t often occur.
Note that in all three survey questions in question one, the limited growth
superintendents indicated (with the highest average scores) undertaking prevention

85
interventions of all types at the middle school level. Conversely, unsuccessful
superintendents had the lowest average and thus were the least sure that interventions
were happening at the middle school level. Survey question 2 asked the superintendents
whether prevention interventions were happening at the high school level.
Table 15
Survey Question #2
Question 2: Do you have prevention intervention for CAHSEE
standards at the high school level? (in general)
Success Ranking: Average Score
Successful (32) 4.84
Limited Growth (10) 4.9
Unsuccessful (8) 4.25

The successful and limited growth superintendents stated that those prevention
intervention classes occurred often at the high school level. The other group of
superintendents, unsuccessful, stated that those interventions only sometimes occurred.
Survey questions 2a and 2b further break down whether the prevention intervention
strategies at the high school level were being done in mathematics or English/language
arts.

86
Table 16
Survey Question #2a
Question 2a: In Mathematics Pre-Algebra standards?
Success Ranking Average Score
Successful (31) 4.74
Limited Growth (10) 4.7
Unsuccessful (8) 3.88

Two of the three groups of superintendents, successful and limited growth, stated that
prevention interventions in mathematics were occurring often at the high school level.
One superintendent group, the unsuccessful, stated that those interventions occur
sometimes.
Table 17
Survey Question #2b
Question 2b:
In 7
th
-grade English/Language Arts Standards?
Success Ranking: Average Score
Successful (30) 4.4
Limited Growth (10) 4.6
Unsuccessful (8) 3.63

Only one group of superintendents, the limited growth, stated that prevention
interventions occurred often in English/language arts at the high school level. The other
two groups, successful and unsuccessful, stated that those interventions sometimes
occurred.

87
Similar to survey question one, in 2 of the 3 parts of survey question 2, limited
growth superintendents indicated with the largest numeric value that they often did
prevention intervention at the high school level. Only in question 2a did successful
superintendents have a larger average when indicating whether mathematics prevention
intervention was happening at the high school level. Similar to survey question 1,
unsuccessful superintendents indicated with the lowest average that they do prevention
interventions less often at the high school level. Survey question 3 asked the
superintendents when the prevention intervention classes were scheduled in the school
day. Survey questions 3a, 3b, and 3c were about classes at the middle school level.
Table 18
Survey Question #3a
Question 3a: During the school day, integrated into current
classes?
Success Ranking: Average Score
Successful (28) 3.89
Limited Growth (7) 4.57
Unsuccessful (8) 3.75

Only one group of superintendents, limited growth, stated that prevention interventions
often occurred during the school day, integrated into their current course schedule. The
other two groups of superintendents, successful and unsuccessful, stated that they
sometimes were integrated into their current course schedule.

88
Table 19
Survey Question #3b
Question 3b: During the school day, specifically for the purpose
of CAHSEE intervention?
Success Ranking Average Score
Successful (27) 3.33
Limited Growth (7) 4
Unsuccessful (8) 2.63

At the middle school level, superintendents were less likely to say that courses were
created specifically for California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). One group of
superintendents, the limited growth, stated that courses sometimes occurred specifically
for CAHSEE standards at the middle school level. The other two groups of
superintendents, successful and unsuccessful, stated that they didn’t often occur.
Table 20
Survey Question #3c
Question 3c: After school, targeted on CAHSEE standards?
Success Ranking Average Score
Successful (28) 3.32
Limited Growth (7) 3.14
Unsuccessful (8) 2.75

89
All three groups of superintendents, successful, limited growth, and unsuccessful, stated
that classes targeted on California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) standards did not
often occur after school.
According to survey questions 3a and 3b, limited growth superintendents
expressed with the highest average that prevention interventions happened during the
school day at the middle school level. According to question 3c, successful
superintendents expressed with the highest average that interventions occurred after
school at the high school level. Again, as seen in survey questions 1 and 2, unsuccessful
superintendents were the least likely to indicate that prevention interventions happened
during the school day or after school at the middle school level. Survey questions 3d, 3e,
and 3f were about prevention intervention classes at the high school level.
Table 21
Survey Question #3d
Question 3d: During the school day, integrated into current
classes?
Success Ranking Average Score
Successful (33) 4.39
Limited Growth (10) 4.7
Unsuccessful (8) 4.75

At the high school level, two of the groups of superintendents, limited growth and
unsuccessful, stated that preventions intervention strategies were often integrated into the
student’s current course schedule. (Survey question 3d is the only question in all survey
questions that had to do with types of interventions that unsuccessful superintendents

90
held the highest average on). One group of superintendents, the successful, stated that
those interventions were sometimes integrated into the current course curriculum.
Table 22
Survey Question #3e
Question 3e: During the school day, specifically for the purpose
of CAHSEE intervention?
Success Ranking Average Score
Successful (32) 4.56
Limited Growth (10) 4.8
Unsuccessful (8) 4.63

All three groups of superintendents, successful, limited growth, and unsuccessful, stated
that prevention intervention strategies often occurred in specific classes at the high school
level.
Table 23
Survey Question #3f
Question 3f: After school, targeted on CAHSEE standards?
Success Ranking Average Score
Successful (33) 4.06
Limited Growth (10) 4.69
Unsuccessful (8) 3.38

One group of superintendents, limited growth, stated that prevention intervention classes
occur often after school at the high school level. One group, successful, stated that those

91
classes sometimes occurred after school. The unsuccessful superintendents stated that
prevention intervention classes didn’t often occur after school at the high school level.
When comparing the averages from survey questions 3a, 3b, and 3c, which asked when
prevention interventions happened at the middle school level; and questions 3d, 3e, and
3f, which asked when prevention interventions happened at the high school level, all of
the averages for all of the groups of superintendents increased.

Table 24
Survey Question #5
Question 5: Do you have remediation intervention for CAHSEE
standards at the high school level? (in general)
Success Ranking: Average Score
Successful (33) 4.82
Limited Growth (10) 4.9
Unsuccessful (8) 4.88

All of the superintendent groups, successful, limited growth, and unsuccessful, stated that
remediation interventions often occur at the high school level. Survey questions 5a and
5b further break down whether the remediation intervention strategies at the high school
level were being done in mathematics or English/language arts.

92
Table 25
Survey Question #5a
Question 5a: In Mathematics Pre-Algebra standards?
Success Ranking: Average Score
Successful (31) 4.81
Limited Growth (10) 4.9
Unsuccessful (8) 4.25

Two of the superintendent groups, successful, and limited growth, stated that remediation
intervention strategies for the mathematics portion of the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE) exam often occurred in their district. One superintendent group,
unsuccessful, stated that those interventions occur sometimes.
Table 26
Survey Questions #5b
Question 5b:
In 7
th
-grade English/Language Arts Standards?
Success Ranking Average Score
Successful (30) 4.53
Limited Growth (9) 4.78
Unsuccessful (8) 4.25

Two of the superintendent groups, successful and limited growth, stated that remediation
intervention strategies in English/language arts often occurred at the high school level.
One superintendent group, unsuccessful, stated that those interventions sometimes
occurred.

93
Notice that in all parts of survey question 5, successful and limited growth
superintendents stated that remediations often occur; however, only in the generic
question about remediation interventions, survey question 5, did unsuccessful
superintendents say they often occur. When asked to be specific about whether those
interventions were in mathematics or English/language arts, the unsuccessful
superintendents said they sometimes occur. Survey question 6 asked superintendents
when in the school day those remediation interventions occurred.
Table 27
Survey Question #6a
Question 6a: During the school day, integrated into current
classes?
Success Ranking Average Score
Successful (33) 4.15
Limited Growth (10) 4.9
Unsuccessful (8) 4.5

Two of the three superintendent groups, limited growth and unsuccessful, stated that
often the remediation interventions occurred integrated into their current course schedule.
The final group of superintendents, successful, said that those remediation interventions
sometimes occurred in their current course schedule.

94
Table 28
Survey Question #6b
Question 6b: During the school day, specifically for the purpose
of CAHSEE intervention?
Success Ranking Average Score
Successful (33) 4.61
Limited Growth (10) 4.9
Unsuccessful (8) 4.63

All three groups of superintendents, successful, limited growth, and unsuccessful, stated
that remediation interventions courses often occurred as their own stand-alone courses at
the high school level.
Table 29
Survey Question #6c
Question 6c: After school, targeted on CAHSEE standards?
Success Ranking Average Score
Successful (32) 4.06
Limited Growth (10) 4.7
Unsuccessful (8) 3.38

Only one superintendent group, the limited growth group, said that remediation
intervention often occurred after school. The successful superintendent group stated that
it sometimes occurred and the unsuccessful superintendent group stated that it didn’t
often occur.

95
Across all subquestions of survey question six, limited growth superintendents
held the strongest average that remediation interventions were happening often in their
school districts at all times of the day both in classes and out. The successful and
unsuccessful superintendents were not as strong in their averages, especially when asked
about after school interventions. Survey question 7 is about remediation interventions
available to students that have aged out of the school districts.
Table 30
Survey Question #7
Question 7: Are there remediation intervention classes
available in your district for students that have
aged out of your system but have not yet passed
the CAHSEE?
Success Ranking

Average Score
%
Successful Yes (26/33) 79
Successful No (7/33) 21
Limited Growth Yes (10/10) 100
Limited Growth No (0/10) 0
Unsuccessful Yes (8/8) 100
Unsuccessful No (0/8) 0

Two of the three superintendent groups were unanimous in their indication that
remediation interventions were available for students that have aged out of the district.
Only one superintendent group, successful, was divided in its indications; 26 of the 33

96
successful superintendents surveyed indicated that they did have remediation
interventions for students that had aged out; 7 of the 33 surveyed said that they did not.
Survey questions 7a and 7b asked whether those remediation classes were held at the
school site that the student had attended or at a centralized district office.
Table 31
Survey Question #7a
Question 7a: At the school site where the student previously
attended?
Success Ranking

Average Score
%
Successful Yes (8/23) 35
Successful No (15/23) 65
Limited Growth Yes (5/10) 50
Limited Growth No (5/10) 50
Unsuccessful Yes (4/8) 50
Unsuccessful No (4/8) 50

Superintendent groups were more divided on whether the remediation interventions
occurred at the school sites; 15 out of the 23 successful superintendents, 5 out of the 10
limited growth superintendents, and 4 of the 8 unsuccessful superintendents said that
“No,” remediation interventions for aged out students did not happen at the school site
the student had previously attended. Further, 8 out of 23 successful, 5 out of 10 limited
growth, and 4 out of 8 unsuccessful superintendent groups said that “Yes,” remediation
intervention classes are held at the previous school site that the student attended.

97
Table 32
Survey Question #7b
Question 7b: At a designated district site where all students in
this category attend as a group?
Success Ranking

Average Score
%
Successful Yes (22/26) 85
Successful No (4/26) 15
Limited Growth Yes (9/10) 90
Limited Growth No (1/10) 10
Unsuccessful Yes (5/7) 71
Unsuccessful No (2/7) 29

None of the superintendent groups was unanimous that remediation intervention
strategies were held at a centralized district site; 22 of the 26 successful superintendents,
9 of the 10 limited growth superintendents, and 5 out of the 7 unsuccessful
superintendents said that remediation interventions were held at a centralized district
location for students that have aged out of the system, whereas 4 out of the 26 successful,
1 out of the 10 limited growth, and 2 out of 7 unsuccessful superintendent groups said
that remediation intervention did not occur at a centralized district site.
In survey question 7, all superintendent groups agreed that remediation
interventions were happening in their school districts for students that had aged out of the
system, but where was not clear. Superintendents were more likely to indicate that
interventions happened at a centralized location.

98
Besides the survey instrument, interviews with the six superintendents and key
district leaders helped identify what intervention strategies are in place at the school
districts. The following paragraphs correspond with the focus questions used on the
interview guide provided to the superintendents.
Interview Question 1:
Is there a specific program that your district uses to teach CAHSEE
standards?
• If so, what are those programs?
• If not, what strategies do you/did you use to intervene on those
students that were in need?
• Were the strategies and programs implemented before the students
had taken the CAHSEE in the tenth grade, or after?

The specific programs and strategies used by the six interviewed superintendents are
varied but they have some overlap. The first portion of the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE) is the English/language arts portion and the following table indicated
some of the intervention programs in place in the school districts interviewed.

99

Table 33
English/Language Arts Intervention Programs Used
District Name Read 180 Language!
Thriving Children Yes Yes
Concrete Tester Yes No
Asphalt Student Yes Yes
Urban Thinker Yes No
Blooming Worker Yes Yes
Sprawling Learner Yes Yes

Six of the school districts use Read 180 and four of the six districts use Language! for
their English/language arts intervention programs. The six school districts use the
intervention programs for regular students, English Language Learners, and special
education students inclusively. The aforementioned intervention programs are the only
programs used by multiple districts; however, some programs do not have overlap:
System 44, HOLT core materials, San Diego Office of Education released materials,
High Point, Open Court, and California Department of Education released materials. The
second portion of the CAHSEE is mathematics. The following table indicates one of the
intervention programs in place as well as whether or not the superintendents use Internet
resources to intervene on their students.

100
Table 34
Math Intervention Programs Used

District Name Measuring Up Online Resources
Thriving Children No Yes
Concrete Tester Yes No
Asphalt Student Yes Yes
Urban Thinker Yes Yes
Blooming Worker Yes Yes
Sprawling Learner No Yes

Four of the six superintendents use Measuring Up for their math intervention program.
The aforementioned intervention program is the only program that is used by multiple
districts; however, some programs do not have overlap: Revolution and Math Triumphs.
Five of the superintendents also stated that they are using online programs to provide
interventions to their students. No online programs overlap districts. The online programs
that are being used are Odyssey Ware, Nova Net, Auto Skills, Plato, Skills Tutor, and
APEX learning.
Five of the districts also outlined how the interventions are laid out in their school
day. Urban Thinker takes sophomores that failed three semesters of algebra and places
them in CAHSEE Math for the third quarter of their sophomore year. The theory is that
they are already unsuccessful in math so if the teacher builds on the basic skills, the
students are more likely not only to pass the math portion of the California High School
Exit Exam (CAHSEE) but also their algebra class the next time they take it. Thriving
Children has a program labeled Extended Learning Opportunities, or ELO’s, built into

101
the elementary level to add time for intervention and it double-blocks its secondary
students with two hours of English or math depending on which skills need to be
strengthened. Concrete Tester provides group tutoring after school and Saturday School
to intervene on their students. Asphalt Student is in its third year of the Gear Up! grant
that follows the Class of 2012 and pushes them to succeed. Blooming Worker
implements a Saturday school to intervene on CAHSEE standards and work in subjects in
which the students are not proficient.
Although each of the six superintendents was more than willing to share the
specific programs that they use for English and math interventions for the California
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), they were also in agreement that the interventions
were broader than the CAHSEE standards, they were English/language arts and
mathematics in general. The Thriving Children Elementary Principal stated:
We really and truly are held to some very strict standards on how we
implement standards so in each classroom standards are…walked through
every single day. We literally just teach the standards and for the most part
we teach language arts and math. And if there’s a little bit of time left at
the end of the day we teach language arts and math. And on Friday
afternoon when the dust settles and we can take a breath we teach
language arts and math.

The Thriving Children elementary principal addressed how important proficiency in
English/language arts and mathematics is, but Asphalt Student’s Program Administrator
for the Secondary Level talked about their transient population more specifically,
explaining:
Gauging it from a K-12 perspective…you shouldn’t wait until the high
school level to earmark youngsters who happened to be deficient and
whether its math or English remember also with the transient population

102
you potentially have an extra responsibility…to pick them up anywhere
they are.

The six superintendents agreed that each student is different and needs to be intervened
when appropriate. Once intervention programs and strategies were analyzed,
superintendents were asked about the data kept on the students in the programs.
Interview Question 2:
Is data kept on the students that participate in those programs?
Interview Question 4:
Did your district base your interventions on data you had seen from
another district?
• If so, do your results mirror the data that you had been shown?

103
Table 35
Data-Driven Decision Making
District Name

District Data
Program
Interventions Based
on Data From Other
Districts
Interventions Changed
Because of Data
Thriving Children Datadirector Yes No
Concrete Tester EduSoft Yes No
Asphalt Student Zangle (None) No No
Urban Thinker Aries No Yes
Blooming Worker Datadirector Yes Yes
Sprawling Learner None Yes Yes

Five of the six superintendents stated that they kept data on the students being provided
interventions and that the data was under ongoing review. The data programs in the
districts ranged from Aries to EduSoft, OARS, and Eddoms. Two of the districts shared
Datadirector as their district data program. The Assistant Superintendent of Urban
Thinker stated that:
Data drives everything that you really do. If you’re truly data driven you
have to look at what the data says is happening…it could really change
month-by-month but it definitely changes year-by-year…you have to be
able to adjust and create programs that work for the students.

Four of the six superintendents indicated that they chose their programs based on
data from other districts; however, three of the six superintendents did update their
programs based on the growth or nongrowth data produced by the students that use the
intervention programs. Sprawling Learner’s Director of Curriculum 9-12 stated it most
succinctly when she said that choosing the right intervention program comes down to

104
“looking and reviewing data and determining which ones are working and should be
replicated.” In all districts, interventions programs were being implemented and in five
of the six districts data was under ongoing review; however, being that the study focuses
on how the superintendent increases CAHSEE passing rates, know what statements
and/or agendas the superintendents had is important.
Interview Question 3:
When you (as the superintendent) entered the school district, was
improving CAHSEE test scores on your agenda, or is it a byproduct of
some larger vision that was implemented?
• If so, what is/was that vision?
Three superintendents, Urban Thinker, Thriving Children, and Blooming Worker,
stated that student achievement, in the broad sense, was their goal. Concrete Tester’s
superintendent wanted all of the students in the district to graduate from high school.
Asphalt Student’s superintendent believed that education is a data-driven push, and
Sprawling Leraner’s superintendent said that his district “lives and dies by the strategic
plan.” All six superintendents indicated that the CAHSEE was important but their vision
was much broader than that measure.

Identification of Students
For research question two, “How are students in those districts identified as in
need of intervention,” no survey question was included because of the specifics needed to
answer the question. There was not a yes/no, Likert scale question appropriate for this

105
research question; therefore, this question was only addressed during the interview
portion with the superintendents and their key district leaders.
Interview Question 5:
At what age/grade level are students identified as in need of intervention?
• And how? (Through test scores, a diagnostic test, etc.)
Table 36
How Students are Placed In Intervention Programs
District Name

Data Used to
Place Students
CST's Used to Place
Students
Benchmarks Used
to Place
Thriving Children Yes Yes Yes
Concrete Tester Yes No Answer No Answer
Asphalt Student Yes Yes Yes
Urban Thinker Yes Yes No
Blooming Worker Yes Yes N/A
Sprawling Learner Yes Yes Yes

Six of the superintendents indicated that data was used to identify students in need of
intervention. Five of the six superintendents said that they used California Standards
Test’s scores to identify those that needed intervention. Three of the superintendents
stated that they used standards-based district-wide assessments to determine intervention
placement for students. Urban Thinker and Asphalt Student outlined the most intricate
ways to place students for interventions. Urban Thinker, because it is only a high school
district, needed to do vertical teaming with its feeder districts. Urban Thinker’s assistant
superintendent described the process as follows: “We developed an entire matrix for

106
every student that comes into our district… EL or special needs learner and we send out
to the school what intervention they go into.” There was no guessing which program a
student went into: they were placed into specific programs based on a specific criteria.
Asphalt Student has all of its 9
th
-graders take a California High School Exit Exam pretest
to determine who needs specific interventions. Besides how a student got placed into
interventions, when they got placed there is also important.
Table 37
When a Student Enters Intervention
District Name When Interventions Begin
Thriving Children Elementary
Concrete Tester Middle School
Asphalt Student Middle School
Urban Thinker High School
Blooming Worker Elementary
Sprawling Learner Elementary

Three of the six superintendents, Thriving Children, Blooming Worker, and Sprawling
Learner, stated that their districts begin interventions in elementary school. Two
superintendents, Concrete Tester and Asphalt Student, stated that interventions begin in
their districts in the middle school. Only one superintendent, Urban Thinker, stated that
interventions began in high school— because Urban Thinker is only a high school
district, and so begins its interventions in the ninth grade. Urban Thinker looked at 6
th
-
grade data from the feeder school districts, talked to 7
th
-grade students labeled as needing
intervention, and talked to 8
th
-grade parents about what they would expect when they

107
entered Urban Thinker School District. The Assistant Superintendent of Educational
Services of Sprawling Learner stated that:
We’ve got to back it all the way down kindergarten and first grade making
sure that these kids are mastering the standards that are appropriate for
those grade levels as they move on up then if we do a good job back filling
all those then were not left with a big huge CAHSEE problem.

By intervening as early as needed, Blooming Worker, Thriving Children, and Sprawling
Learner superintendents felt that there was a greater likelihood of catching them up to
grade-level in English/language arts and mathematics. Although intervention is key to the
districts’ success, whether students were required to take those interventions is of equal
importance.
Interview Question 6:
Is the intervention strategy voluntary or mandatory?

108
Table 38
Intervention Options and Participation
District Name Integrated Stand-Alone Voluntary or Mandatory
Thriving Children Yes Yes Mandatory
Concrete Tester No Yes Voluntary then Mandatory
Asphalt Student Yes Yes Waiver
Urban Thinker Yes Yes Waiver
Blooming Worker Yes Yes Mandatory
Sprawling Learner No Yes Waiver

There are two different ways to intervene on students, either integrated in the curriculum
or a stand-alone class. There are also two different ways for students to participate:
mandatory or voluntary. Four of the six superintendents have interventions integrated
into their core classes whereas six out of six superintendents stated that interventions are
done as stand-alone classes. Two superintendents, Thriving Children and Blooming
Worker, stated that their interventions were mandatory whereas three out of the six
superintendents, Asphalt Student, Urban Thinker, and Sprawling Learner, use waivers to
excuse their students from California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). (A waiver is a
form that a parent can fill out that will exit the student from intervention prior to their
passing the CAHSEE or being brought to grade level. A waiver typically consists of a
statement similar to: “I realize that by taking my child out of the interventions that are
being provided there is a possibility that he/she will not pass the California High School
Exit Exam and thus not receive a diploma”). Only one superintendent, Concrete Tester,
stated that interventions begin as voluntary but change to mandatory once a student has

109
not passed the CAHSEE. As previously shown, interventions happen in all of the school
districts, but sometimes different interventions happen at different school sites. Thus,
superintendents were asked how school sites chose their interventions.
Interview Question 7:
Was it started just at one school or was it a sweeping district initiative?
Table 39
District or Site Interventions
District Name District-Initiated Site-Initiated
Thriving Children Yes No
Concrete Tester Yes Yes
Asphalt Student Yes Yes
Urban Thinker Yes Yes
Blooming Worker Yes Yes
Sprawling Learner Yes Yes

Six of the superintendents stated that the chosen interventions were, in fact, chosen by the
districts but then implemented at the sites. Besides those interventions, five of the six
superintendents stated that there were also site-based interventions happening in their
districts. The procedure of “Focus Lessons” began at one school site in Urban Thinkers
but eventually spread district-wide when the data showed it was successful. Thriving
Children and Blooming Worker’s superintendents both stated that the core interventions
are the same at all sites within the district but that the pyramid of interventions that reach
beyond that core intervention are up to the sites. Asphalt Student and Concrete Tester’s

110
superintendents give autonomy to the sites to determine what interventions occur at the
sites, whereas Sprawling Learner’s Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services
stated that “you can’t have everyone doing the garden variety whatever you feel like
doing. We’ve all become focused.” Although intervention programs and strategies are
specifically for the CAHSEE, the standards on the CAHSEE are broad and varied;
therefore, superintendents were asked if their interventions became targeted.
Interview Question 8:
While students are in the programs, are they given diagnostic tools to
target the interventions?
• If so, what is the diagnostic tool that is being used?
Table 40
Diagnostics in Use
District Name Diagnostic Used
Thriving Children Yes
Concrete Tester Yes
Asphalt Student Yes
Urban Thinker Yes
Blooming Worker Yes
Sprawling Learner Yes

Six out of six superintendents stated that diagnostics were in use in their district.
Superintendents were sure diagnostics were in use because the interventions programs
chosen for the district have them built in. Only Urban Thinker recognized that the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) itself is a diagnostic tool that breaks down

111
the CAHSEE standards into skill sets that need to be taught. Because interventions are
happening in the school districts, a question remained as to how long a student stays in
the intervention.
Interview Question 9:
Once students are identified as in need of intervention, do they remain
there until the passing of the CAHSEE exam, or can they exit intervention
based on some other criteria?
• If they can exit, what criteria are used to facilitate that?
Table 41
Length of Interventions

District Name Ability to Exit
Thriving Children Yes
Concrete Tester Once Passed
Asphalt Student Yes
Urban Thinker Once Passed
Blooming Worker Once Passed
Sprawling Learner Once Passed

Four of the six superintendents, Concrete Tester, Urban Thinker, Blooming Worker, and
Sprawling Learner, stated that students may exit interventions once they have passed the
CAHSEE. Two of the superintendents, Thriving Children and Asphalt Student, said that
students may exit interventions as soon as they are up to grade-level proficiency.
Thriving Children’s superintendent described the intervention programs by saying: “It’s
very fluid because it’s based on skill.”

112

Personnel for Testing
Research question three asks: “What personnel are involved in determining the
need for interventions strategies within the school district?” Although survey question 7b
was analyzed previously when reviewing types of interventions, this portion of the study
reanalyzes it in order to address the personnel involved in implementing intervention
strategies.
Table 42
Survey Question #7b
Question 7b: At a designated district site where all students in
this category attend as a group?
Success Ranking

Average Score
%
Successful Yes (22/26) 85
Successful No (4/26) 15
Limited Growth Yes (9/10) 90
Limited Growth No (1/10) 10
Unsuccessful Yes (5/7) 71
Unsuccessful No (2/7) 29

As Table 42 indicates, 22 of the 26 successful superintendents, 9 of the 10 limited
growth superintendents, and 5 out of the 7 unsuccessful superintendents said that
remediation interventions were held at a centralized district location for students that

113
have aged out of the system; whereas 4 out of the 26 successful, 1 out of the 10 limited
growth, and 2 out of the 7 unsuccessful superintendent groups said that it did not occur at
a centralized district site. Because one person must be on site to run the intervention
strategies, it can be inferred that all of the above superintendent groups that stated that
interventions are held at a district employ at least one person for intervention on the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
Table 43
Survey Question #12
Question 12:
Does your district employ a testing coordinator?
Success Ranking

Average Score
%
Successful Yes (29/33) 88
Successful No 4/33) 12
Limited Growth Yes (9/10) 90
Limited Growth No (1/10) 10
Unsuccessful Yes (8/8) 100
Unsuccessful No (0/8) 0

Only one group of superintendents, the unsuccessful group, unanimously stated that it
employed a testing coordinator for the school district. Twenty-nine out of the 33
successful and 9 out of the 10 limited growth superintendents said they employ a testing
coordinator; whereas 4 out of 33 successful and 1 out of 10 limited growth
superintendents said that they do not.

114
Table 44
Survey Question #13
Question 13: Does your district employ an
intervention specialist?
Success Ranking

Average Score
%
Successful Yes (16/33) 48
Successful No (17/33) 52
Limited Growth Yes (4/10) 40
Limited Growth No (6/10) 60
Unsuccessful Yes (4/8) 50
Unsuccessful No (4/8) 50

None of the superintendent groups unanimously stated that it employed an intervention
specialist. Sixteen out of 33 successful, 4 out of 10 limited growth, and 4 out of 8
unsuccessful superintendents said they do employ an intervention specialist; 17 out of 33
successful, 6 out of 10 limited growth, and 4 out of 8 unsuccessful superintendents said
they do not employ an intervention specialist. Survey question 12 and 13 asked if the
superintendents employed a testing coordinator or an intervention specialist; survey
question 14 asks if these employees are one-in-the-same.

115
Table 45
Survey Question #14
Question 14: Are these two positions one-in-the-same?
Success Ranking

Average Score
%
Successful Yes (25/27) 93
Successful No (2/27) 7
Limited Growth Yes (1/6) 17
Limited Growth No (5/6) 83
Unsuccessful Yes (0/7) 0
Unsuccessful No (7/7) 100

Only the unsuccessful superintendents group unanimously agreed that its testing
coordinator and intervention specialist were not one-in-the same. The successful and
unsuccessful groups of superintendents have vastly differing practices in their districts.
Twenty-five out of 27 successful and 1 out of 6 limited growth superintendents say their
testing coordinators and interventions specialists are one-in-the-same. Conversely, 2 out
of 27 successful and 5 out of 6 limited growth superintendents stated that theirs were not
one-in-the-same.
Besides the survey instrument, interviews with the six superintendents and key
district leaders helped identify what personnel are used to aid in intervention at the
district site. The following paragraphs correspond with the focus questions that were used
on the interview guide provided to the superintendents. (When analyzing the responses in
survey questions 13 and 14, there is incongruency. In survey question 13, 17 successful

116
superintendents indicated that they do not have an intervention specialist; but, in survey
question 14, 25 of them indicated that their testing coordinator and intervention specialist
were one-in-the-same. This anomaly also occurs in the limited growth and unsuccessful
superintendent population).
Interview Question 10:
What district and site personnel are either wholly or partially charged with
intervening on students at risk of not passing the CAHSEE?
Table 46
Personnel for Testing
District Name Testing Coordinator Director of Curriculum
Thriving Children Yes Yes
Concrete Tester Yes Yes
Asphalt Student Yes Yes
Urban Thinker Yes No (Assistant Superintendent)
Blooming Worker Yes Yes
Sprawling Learner Yes Yes

Six out of six superintendents indicated that they have personnel in charge of testing and
intervention. Each district had a testing coordinator, who is solely in charge of ordering
tests and gathering data. The intervention coordinator is different, however, in each of the
districts. Five of the six districts have directors of curriculum at the elementary and
secondary level; only Urban Thinker has an Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum.

117
Because the budget in the state of California is currently in such flux, this portion
of study also asked superintendents how the financial crisis was affecting the personnel
and programs they use for interventions.
Interview Question 11:
Has the current budget cut in California altered the way you have
approached increasing test scores? (Specifically the CAHSEE)
Table 47
Are CAHSEE Interventions Affected by Budgets?
District Name Budgets Affected
Thriving Children Not Sure
Concrete Tester Not Sure
Asphalt Student Yes
Urban Thinker Yes
Blooming Worker Not Sure
Sprawling Learner Not Sure

Only Urban Thinker and Asphalt Student had specific answers for this question, the other
superintendents did not have an answer because the budget was still in flux. Urban
Thinker’s superintendent stated that some of the funds being used for CAHSEE
intervention classes became “sweepable,” meaning able to be taken back by the state of
California. Asphalt Student’s Superintendent had recently had a discussion with his
district’s Budget Advisory Committee regarding the matter. He explained:
Our issue right now is funding and what we can keep…we were going
through our budget advisory committee and prioritizing what programs
stay…one thing that we heard from the group…if you choose to drop out

118
because of other things it can’t be about Concrete Tester Unified not
providing what is necessary for them to finish.

The budget may affect how Asphalt Student School District pays for its’ interventions,
but they will not get rid of them.

Autonomy of Sites
Research question four asks: “Are the interventions in those districts guided by
the site or handed top-down from the Superintendent?” To answer this question
superintendents were asked how involved they were in choosing interventions.
Table 48
Survey Question #9
Question 9: On a scale of 1 to 5, how much do you feel you are
involved in the choosing and implementing of
CAHSEE strategies at the school sites and district
level in your district?
Success Ranking Average Score
Successful (33) 3.45
Limited Growth (9) 3.22
Unsuccessful (8) 2.75

All three of the superintendents groups ranked midlevel on whether they had influence on
choosing and implementing California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) intervention
strategies, with an average of 3. Successful superintendents felt the strongest that they

119
were involved in choosing and implementing intervention strategies, but with only an
average of 3.45.
Table 49
Survey Question #10
Question 10: Do you request that specific programs or
strategies be implemented within the district for
intervention on CAHSEE standards?
Success Ranking

Average Score
%
Successful Yes (18/32) 56
Successful No (14/32) 44
Limited Growth Yes (6/9) 67
Limited Growth No (3/9) 33
Unsuccessful Yes (5/8) 63
Unsuccessful No (3/8) 37

The superintendent groups were mixed in their statements about whether they had a part
in choosing the strategies implemented at the school sites; 18 out of 32 successful, 6 out
of 9 limited growth, and 5 out of 8 unsuccessful superintendents said they had a part in
choosing the strategies implemented in their school districts. Fourteen out of 32
successful, 3 out of 9 limited growth, and 3 out of 8 unsuccessful superintendents stated
that they did not have an active role in choosing the CAHSEE intervention strategies used
in their district. These mixed averages correspond directly to the low averages found in
survey question 9.

120
Table 50
Survey Question #11
Question 11: If you were a Superintendent prior to coming to
your current district, did you bring an
intervention plan with you when you entered the
district?
Success Ranking

Average Score
%
Successful Yes (22/26) 85
Successful No (4/26) 15
Limited Growth Yes (1/6) 17
Limited Growth No (5/6) 83
Unsuccessful Yes (0/5) 0
Unsuccessful No (5/5) 100

One group of superintendents, the unsuccessful group, stated unanimously that it did not
bring intervention plans when it entered the district. Successful and limited growth
superintendents were more mixed on whether they had brought an intervention plan when
they entered the district. Twenty-two out of 26 successful and 1 out of 6 limited growth
superintendents said they did bring an intervention strategy with them upon entering the
school district; conversely, 4 out of 26 successful and 5 out of 6 limited growth
superintendents said that they did not bring a strategy with them. As illustrated,
successful superintendents overwhelmingly brought an intervention plan with them when
they began their position in their school district.

121
Besides the survey instrument, interviews with the six superintendents and key
district leaders helped to identify what personnel aids in intervention at the district site.
The following paragraphs correspond with the focus questions used on the interview
guide provided to the superintendents.
Interview Question 12:
Are principals at school sites given leeway to determine which
intervention strategy they will be implementing at their school sites?

122

Table 51
Autonomy of School Sites
District Name

Are School
Sites Autonomous?
Thriving Children Yes
Concrete Tester Yes
Asphalt Student Yes
Urban Thinker Yes
Blooming Worker Yes
Sprawling Learner Yes

Six out of six superintendents indicated that they give their site leaders some latitude in
choosing which program to implement. The Thriving Children Elementary School
Principal says of her superintendent that he
has his overall vision for success but he’s not hog-tying anybody to a specific plan
as long as we continue to make success because he doesn’t want to take away the
artistry of running a school because each site is different.

The Thriving Children Elementary School Principal enjoys the support of the
superintendent when making decisions for her site. The Blooming Worker
Superintendent said it more succinctly: “I don’t implement, I don’t design, but what I do
is create a system that holds people accountable.” Concrete Tester and Asphalt Student
superintendents allow site leaders to choose from an array of options approved by the
central district; that is how they provide autonomy. Sprawling Learner admitted that its
sites used to have a lot more autonomy. The situation changed once it entered Year 3 of

123
Program Improvement. The four previous sections dealt with the study’s research
questions, two other factors warrant in-depth analysis: budget allocations and
implementation.

Budget Allocations
When deciding how and when to implement an intervention program, money is a
factor.
Table 52
Survey Question #15
Question 15: Are specific fiscal resources set aside to
implement any intervention strategies that are
deemed integral to your district to success on the
CAHSEE?
Success Ranking

Average Scores
%
Successful Yes (30/31) 97
Successful No (1/31) 3
Limited Growth Yes (10/10) 100
Limited Growth No (0/10) 0
Unsuccessful Yes (8/8) 100
Unsuccessful No (0/8) 0

Two of the three superintendents groups, limited growth and unsuccessful, unanimously
stated that specific fiscal monies were set aside to pay for California High School Exit

124
Exam CAHSEE) strategies in place in their district. The only group that had a mixed
response was the successful superintendents, where 30 out of 31 said “Yes” they had
financial resources set aside, whereas 1 out of 31 said they did not have financial
resources set aside. After deciding how much money to spend on interventions, who
implements the intervention is of importance.

Implementation
During the interview process, each of the six superintendents indicated that
besides the specific intervention program, the most important part of increasing test
scores is the level of professional development that goes into implementing the program
and into choosing the staff to implement it. The elementary school principal in Thriving
Children shared the following:
teachers sit every single Wednesday…going over data. What do we want
to work on for the next two weeks? What do we want to work on for the
next month? What do we want to work on for the quarter? And, what are
our goals for the end of the year.

Besides data guiding the staff in what is working and what is not, Blooming Worker’s
superintendent regards the process from a broader perspective, explaining: “In order for
us to expect the outcomes that we expect we need to support teachers so we do a lot of
training and the professional development department is a very important support piece.”
Any district can buy an intervention program. Who delivers that material and to whom is
also important.

125
Discussion
The findings presented in this study were developed and presented by reviewing
the data from 51 surveys and six district interviews. The purpose of this section is to
make sense of the findings in ways that provide purpose and meaning to the actions under
study.
Intervention at an Early Age
With the implementation of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE),
schools and districts were expected to have students master a minimum set of skills by
the time they exit high school (Griffin & Heidorn, 1996). However, the standards on that
exam only include prealgebra for mathematics and 7
th
through 10
th
grade for English
language arts. Should students be identified as unable to pass that exam, either prior to
the exam or after initial failure, it is the duty of the school site and district to intervene on
behalf of those students. Although the districts interviewed were quick to identify the
specific programs they used for intervention on the CAHSEE, they felt it was important
to discuss and reiterate the importance of intervention in mathematics and English
language arts at an early age— well before the CAHSEE is even in the picture. All six
superintendents agreed that interventions needed to be broader than the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) standards; intervention should encompass English
language arts and mathematics, and should be done at the elementary level or— at the
latest— the middle school level.
Although all six superintendents agreed that interventions could happen at any
time of day (Jimerson et al., 2006), those happening during the school day were more

126
effective. To rely on a student to come before or after school put the motivation for
learning exclusively into the hands of the student or parent; however, if the school site or
district is the entity being graded on achievement levels, interventions on the standards
need to take place when all students are guaranteed to be there— during the school day.
By virtue of having interventions during the school day, the district and school site can
make them mandatory (Rahn et al.,1997). (Mandatory being defined as before a parent
has the ability to sign a waiver to excuse their student from the intervention should it
conflict with some element of his/her schedule, i.e., music, art, etc.).
When students receive earlier interventions, they should, and do, have the ability
to exit once they are brought to grade-level or proficiency. The four superintendents
whose interventions were happening at the elementary school stated that those students
could exit the program once the data showed they had reached grade-level standards
(James & Wahlberg, 2007; Rummell, Acton, & Costello, 1999). In the same statement,
three of the six superintendents mentioned that once the intervention switched from
prevention to remediation, exiting was no longer an option.
Remediation in the California High School Exit Exam is a priority because
passing the test is a necessary hurdle to receiving a high school diploma. Should a
student not pass the test, not only would he/she not receive a diploma, but also the high
school graduation rates of the school and district would decrease (Vaughn, Wanzek,
Murray, Scammacca, Linan-Thompson, & Woodruff, 2009). Because sanctions are so
substantial for students who do not pass the CAHSEE exam, all six of the superintendents
stated that juniors and seniors in high school were in interventions until they passed the

127
exam. In addition to agreeing that the interventions must begin at an earlier age, all six
superintendents said that those interventions needed to be focused and data-driven.

Focused and Data-Driven Strategies for Intervention
In interviews with the six superintendents and key school district personnel, a
common theme emerged regarding how data was involved in choosing and implementing
the intervention strategies being used by the districts. All six districts recognized the need
to use a diagnostic tool when intervening on their students (Cobb, 2003). All six
superintendents recognized that a diagnostic tool was mandatory for remediation
intervention but saw the usefulness of the diagnostic tools even when interventions were
done for prevention.
The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) is a minimum-skills test, but is
based on an outlined set of standards. Thus, preparing for the exam can be undertaken in
much the same way that classrooms, sites, and districts prepare for other state tests
(Cohen et al., 2007; Superfine, 2005; What is Goals 2000, 1994). If sites are able to
identify, based on a diagnostic tool, what specific standards a student is struggling with,
they can better streamline the interventions (Lissitz &Wei, 2008; Notar et al., 2008;). The
data from those diagnostic tools provide guidance to the individuals implementing the
interventions.
All six superintendents also agreed that data was not just used to help teachers
identify what standards students needed work on, but also whether the programs
themselves were working. By continually monitoring which students were taking which

128
interventions and what the success rate was on those intervention programs, the districts
were better able to make informed decisions as to whether a program should be renewed.
All six superintendents recognized that just because a student was in intervention did not
mean that he/she would become successful— especially if no one had been successful
with that particular intervention.
The obvious desired outcome of interventions is to become proficient in grade-
level standards and passing of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE); but,
how to make sure that occurs, and what happens if that does not occur, was also a subject
of debate amongst the superintendents that were interviewed.

Accountability for Autonomy and Coherence
All six superintendents stated that the site was where interventions occurred and
that their principals were thus the individuals to be held accountable (Kimball, 2009).
Should they find themselves unable to meet the needs of the students, the sites must
communicate with the district to get adequate resources allocated to them so that change
can occur (Halawah, 2005)–which may mean changing the intervention program being
used or changing the individual in charge of the school site.
Despite acknowledging that they themselves did not implement the interventions,
all six superintendents recognized themselves as agents-of-change (DuFour & Eaker,
1998; Elmore, 2000). One superintendent intimated that if teachers know that they are
being held accountable by site administrators, and site administrators know that they are

129
being held accountable by district administrators, and ultimately the superintendent, the
likelihood of positive change increases. Someone needs to be held accountable,
Because the site administrator is held accountable by the superintendent, five of
the six superintendents indicated a willingness to give their site administrators some
autonomy when choosing their interventions. (The sixth superintendent would only let
the site administrator choose from a preapproved menu of options, there was no choosing
from off that list). As long as the students were intervened on, and their scores increased,
the sites could determine what that intervention looked like.

Summary
This chapter reviewed the findings based on the data collection in the six case
studies and was followed by a detailed analysis and discussion of how those findings
related to the research questions and their roots in the relevant research presented in
Chapter Two. The chapter considered the data provided within the surveys and the in-
depth details offered by the six district superintendents and/or key district leaders that
were interviewed. Findings presented in this study were based on multiple data sources,
which served to strengthen their validity. The summary, conclusions, and implications of
this study were presented in Chapter Five.

130

Chapter Five
Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

Chapter 5 Introduction
In 2001, George W. Bush reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) and titled it “No Child Left Behind.” This document took education from
standards-based, as implemented by William Jefferson Clinton, to outcome-based. The
test was no longer about what students were learning, but have they had learned. This
document initiated an era of accountability. The federal government implemented the
accountability measure known as the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and the state of
California implemented its accountability measure known as the Academic Performance
Index (API). A key indicator in both of these accountability measures is the California
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), the minimum-skills test implemented by the state of
California. When it became clear that not all students in the state of California were able
to pass the California High School Exit Exam, interventions were implemented to
increase student passing rates. Which interventions were chosen by successful urban
superintendents, when were they implemented, and by whom all became important
secondary questions.

131
Chapter 5 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to identify and analyze California High School Exit
Exam strategies being implemented by large urban school districts in the state of
California and report on the level of effectiveness they have had for the nonpassing
student population. The researcher analyzed different policies such as allocation of
human resources, how students are identified as needing intervention, use of prevention
or remediation strategies, and site-based intervention strategies versus district-based
intervention strategies.
This study identified the “best practices” of six superintendents and their school
districts. To this end, four research questions were studied. The research questions were
as follows:
1) What types of intervention programs do successful California urban
superintendents use to decrease the amount of students that do not pass the
California High School Exit Exam?
a. Are the strategies of intervention those of prevention or remediation?
2) How are students in those districts identified as in need of intervention?
3) What personnel are involved in determining the need for intervention strategies
within the school district?
4) Are the interventions in those districts guided by the sites or handed top-down
from the Superintendent?

132

Methodology
This study used a mixed-methods approach to determine the level of effectiveness
of intervention strategies in large California urban school districts. The term mixed-
methods refers to using both quantitative and qualitative data when conducting a research
study (Patton, 2002).
This study first used quantitative data to determine which superintendents would
receive a survey asking about the intervention strategies being used within their school
districts for the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). The pass rate within a
school district as well as whether their pass rates have significantly improved in recent
years were determined who would receive an official screening survey.
The study then sent out a descriptive survey to determine which intervention
strategies were being used within the school districts to increase the passing rate on the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). To determine levels of responses by the
superintendents, the survey used a Likert scale, which is also quantitative in nature. The
final portion of the study involved interviews with school district superintendents and/or
key district personnel to learn more about the strategies being implemented in their
school districts; this portion was qualitative in nature.
By using both quantitative and qualitative data in this study, the researcher can
achieve triangulation. Triangulation refers to using multiple data collection techniques to
study the same setting, issue, or program. Triangulation served to “elucidate
complementary aspects of the same phenomenon” (Patton, 2002, p. 558).

133
Sample
Fifty-one superintendents were surveyed and six school district superintendents
and/or key personnel were interviewed for the purpose of this study. The 51
superintendents surveyed were culled from a set of 88 superintendents who were
contacted to participate in the survey. Six large urban school districts were chosen based
on their participation in the survey and their success in increasing student passing rates on
the California High School Exit Exam.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data was collected for this survey in two different phases. The quantitative data,
including California High School Exit Exam scores and survey replies were collected
from August to November of 2009. The qualitative data, including interviews with six
school district superintendents and/or key personnel, was collected in December of 2009.
Two instruments were developed and provided a foundation for data collection
and analysis:
1) The Superintendent Survey (Appendix B) framed each of the research questions
to elicit a Likert-scale response or a yes/no answer.
2) The Superintendent Interview Guide (Appendix C) correlated each interview
question to its related research question and established a process for coding the
collected interview data .
In order to support validity, a variety of data collection tools and a diverse group
of study participants were engaged to support methodological and data triangulation from
multiple sources.

134

Selected Findings
The data collection processes relating to the research question produced several
key findings. This section summarizes those findings.
Research Question 1: Intervention Strategies Implemented by Successful
Superintendents

When analyzing intervention strategies, the researcher found that all six districts
used Read 180 and four out of six districts used Language! as an intervention program for
students who had not passed the English/language arts portion of the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Four out of the six districts used Measuring Up to
intervene on the mathematics portion. Interventions were taking place before school,
after school, and during the school day, but interventions during the school day had the
greatest opportunity to be successful. Districts used data to track their student’s level of
success in those programs in order to determine whether intervention was still a necessity
or whether the program itself was serving their students. Identification of intervention
was mandatory, but inclusion in the programs was voluntary, mandatory, or even offered
the opportunity for students to be waived out, depending on their proficiency level.
All six districts implemented both prevention and remediation types of
intervention specifically for the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) but
recognized that if students were intervened earlier in English/language arts and
mathematics, intervention for the CAHSEE may not be necessary. Prevention strategies
tended to be more voluntary whereas remediation strategies were mandatory.
Research Question 2: Choosing of Students

135
All six districts used data to identify students in need of interventions. Five out of
the six districts interviewed used California Standards Test’s to identify students and
three of six used district created benchmarks. Data was used to determine which students
received interventions, as well as which standards to intervene on. These efforts were
undertaken using diagnostic tools. All six districts used diagnostic tools to pinpoint
exactly what standards and strands should be focused on when intervening on students.
Research Question 3: Personnel Used for Intervention
All six districts employed a testing coordinator and identified their directors of
curriculum as the intervention specialists in their school districts. Both of these positions
are needed at the district level to ensure proper implementation and directed intervention.
Research Question 4: Autonomy versus Directed Implementation
All six districts indicated that the districts chose the interventions in place at the
school site, but five of the six also indicated that the district gave them some autonomy to
implement interventions at the school site. The survey instrument indicated that
superintendents did have a say in what intervention programs/strategies were being used,
but they did not mandate what that implementation looked like.

Chapter 5 Conclusions
Based on the data and the methodologies, the study indicated the following
conclusions about the strategies implemented to increase the passing rate on the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Interview and survey data identified four
strategies that should be implemented by a superintendent and district whose goal is to

136
increase the passing rates on the CAHSEE. These include: (a) a clear delineation of
accountability, (b) data should inform decision-making, (c) professional development
needs to be done to implement the chosen strategies that are chosen, and, (d) intervening
should begin at an early age.
All six superintendents agreed that their site administrators needed to know they
were being held accountable for what happened at their school sites. Urban Thinker
School District Superintendent has his high school principal’s come to a high school
summit and present to the district administrators, and the public, what specifically is
happening at their site. Urban Thinker’s Superintendent requires his site administrators to
increase their passing rates on the California High School Exit Exam every year and
expects, on a broader scale, their proficiency rates on English language arts exams and
mathematics to increase every year. (The second expectation is for all levels, not just high
school). According to Urban Thinker’s superintendent, all of his site leaders can
verbalize this expectation and are aware that their tenure is contingent upon realizing that
expectation. It is clear.
All six superintendents use data to inform their decision-making. Data is used in
three forms: to determine which students are in interventions, to show what targeted
interventions should take place, and the to determine whether an intervention is useful.
Knowing exactly which students should be kept for intervention is the first step in
implementing an effective intervention program. Not all students belong in interventions,
only those not at grade-level or those significantly below grade-level. The cut-off for

137
inclusion is a decision made at the district level. Once a student is identified as in-need,
the district establishes what they should be intervened on.
Once a student has been identified as in need of intervention, diagnostic tools help
determine which standards to focus on. A more targeted approach at intervention will
produce more numerically significant results. Data must be used to determine the
effectiveness of the intervention strategy. If a student has been in intervention for a year
but made no significant gains, the intervention program may not be a match. Success is
not only about getting the correct students studying the correct material, but it is also
about the intervention program itself.
Superintendents recognize that an intervention program is only as successful as
the individuals who implement it. All six superintendents stated that ongoing
professional development is necessary to making sure that the intervention program is
being implemented correctly. If a teacher is handed an intervention program but given no
guidance on how to conduct that program, intervention will not be successful.
Although all six superintendents recognized the importance of training teachers in
California High School Exit Exam interventions strategies, they also said that
intervention strategies needed to begin much earlier in a student’s career. If a student is
identified in 2
nd
grade as below grade-level in English language arts or mathematics then
intervention should occur in the 3
rd
grade. The 3
rd
grade standards are not California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) standards but they are the building blocks to the CAHSEE.
If that student continues to fall behind grade-level standards, he/she will eventually be in
the 10
th
grade and not at grade-level and then need to be intervened on for the CAHSEE.

138
All grade levels are involved in making sure that students are proficient by the time they
make it to high school and need to pass the CAHSEE to get a diploma.

Implications for Practice
The findings and conclusions from this study can provide instructive guidance to
those responsible for increasing the passing rates on the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE). The implications listed below are presented as they relate to specific
areas of responsibility, including implications for district administrators, school
administrators, and teachers in the classroom.
Districts Administrators Must:
1) Intervene as early as possible. By intervening on a student the moment he/she is
found to be not at grade level, or even sooner, when they are struggling on a topic,
the likelihood of needing a concerted effort of intervention specifically for the
California High School Exit Exam decreases.
2) Use data to inform decision-making. Data can be used two ways to aid in the
interventions of students: One, data can help narrow-down which students are
needed to be intervened on; and two, data can inform whether or not the
intervention program being used is successful. Data must be continuously
reviewed to ensure that students are increasing their skills and that the program is
truly adequate.
3) Hold sites accountable but be flexible. The site is the first-line connection to a
student and can, at times, be the most knowledgeable about what their students

139
need. The district can use its various resources to support the school site and
mandate what is expected, but giving the site some latitude on what those
interventions look like is essential. This flexibility needs to be allowed at all
levels: elementary, middle school, and high school.
4) Set clear expectations. A site needs more direction than just “increase passing
rates.” District administrators need to be specific about what that increase looks
like. Is it a 2% increase every year until the school average passing rate is higher
than the state average passing rate? Should all students not at grade-level, and
thus in danger of failing the California High School Exit Exam, be enrolled in an
intervention course during the school day? Whatever the expectation, it must be
specific and measurable.
Sites Administrators Must:
1) Develop a highly qualified staff. Through professional development and quality
hiring practices, the site administrator has the duty to ensure having the proper
staff to implement the necessary changes. Should what they need not match what
the district has provided, the site administrator must communicate what the needs
are and where the gap remains so that he/she can receive guidance on bridging the
gaps.
Create a master schedule that reflects the needs of the students. If a student is in need of
intervention, the site is responsible for ensuring access to intervention. By creating a
master schedule that reflects the needs of the students, the school as a whole can move
forward.

140
Recommendations for Future Research
The data collection and analysis processes indicated several areas for future
research:
1) Using school-site data and looking at school sites rather than district-level data.
2) Studying how program improvement status and restrictions shape intervention
policies.
3) Considering how superintendents new to their districts choose to implement
California High School Exit Exam intervention strategies differently from those in
their districts for multiple years.

141

References

(1994). What is Goals 2000: The Educate America Act? Teaching Exceptional Children,
27, 78-80.

(2006). NAEP urban school results: Reason to believe. American Teacher, 90(5), 18.

Adams, J. (2006). [The World Is Flat]. Planning for Higher Education, 34(3), 60-1.

The American heritage dictionary of the English language (4th ed.). (2003). New York:
Houghton Mifflin Company.

Baptiste, H., & Sanchez, R. (2003). American presidents and their attitudes, beliefs, and
actions surrounding education and multiculturalism. Multicultural Education,
11(2), 35-41.

Bolman, L., and Deal, T. (2003) Reframing Organizations. (Rev. ed.) San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Bredeson, P., & Kose, B. (2007). Responding to the education reform agenda: A study of
school superintendents' instructional leadership. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 15(5), 1-24.

Brown, K., Morris, D., & Fields, M. (2005). Intervention after grade 1: serving increased
numbers of struggling readers effectively. Journal of Literacy Research, 37(1),
61-94.

Brunner, C. (1998). The new superintendency supports an innovation: Collaborative
decision making. Contemporary Education, 69(2), 79-82.

Campbell, C. (2008). Beyond the standards movement: Defending quality education in an
age of tests. Childhood Education, 84(3), 186.

Carr, N. (2006). New rules of engagement. The American School Board Journal, 193(4),
66-8.

Carr, N. (2007). Communicating what you teach. The American School Board Journal,
194(11), 44-5.

Cavanagh, S. (2008). U.S. urban students found to be middling vs. foreign peers.
Education Week, 28(10), 9.

142
Choi, K., Seltzer, M., Herman, J., & Yamashiro, K. (2007). Children left behind in AYP
and non-AYP Schools: Using student progress and the distribution of student
gains to validate AYP. Educational Measurement, 26(3), 21-32.

Clark, R.E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning Research into Results: A guide to selecting to
right performance solution. Atlanta: CEP Press.

Cobb, C. (2003). Effective instruction begins with purposeful assessments. The Reading
Teacher, 57(4), 386-8.

Cohen, D., Moffitt, S., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American
Journal of Education, 113(4), 515-48.

Debray-Pelot, E. (2007). School choice and educational privatization initiatives in the
106th and 107th congresses: An analysis of policy formation and political
ideologies. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 927-72.

DeCusati, C., & Johnson, J. (2004). Parents as classroom volunteers and kindergarten
students' emergent reading skills. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(5),
235-46.

Donlevy, J. (2006). A new year's resolution for 2006: Closing the achievement gap.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(1), 1-3.

DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Indiana: National Educational
Service.

Elmore, R. (2005). Accountable leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 134-42.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:
The Albert Shanker Institute.

Escalante, Michael Frederick (2000). Communication techniques utilized by
superintendents with their governing boards that develop trust, unity, and a clear
understanding of roles and responsibilities. Dissertation Abstract International,
64(6), 1920A, (UMI No. AAT 3094326). Retrieved January 14, 2009, from
Dissertation and Theses database.

Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New
York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Fusarelli, L. (2002). The political economy of gubernatorial elections: Implications for
education policy. Educational Policy, 16(1), 139-60.

143

Garcia, P. (2003). The use of high school exit examinations in four southwestern states.
Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 431-50.
Gittell, M., & McKenna, L. (1999). Redefining education regimes and reform: The
political role of governors. Urban Education, 34(3), 268-91.

, L. (2006). Evaluating a state-sponsored school improvement program through an
improved school finance lens. Journal of Education Finance, 31(4), 395-419.

Greene, G., Huerta, L., & Richards, C. (2007). Getting real: A different perspective on
the relationship between school resources and student outcomes. Journal of
Education Finance, 33(1), 49-68.

Griffin, B., & Heidorn, M. (1996). An examination of the relationship between minimum
competency test performance and dropping out of high school. Educational
Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 18, 243-52.

Guthrie, J. (2008). Next needed steps in the evolution of american education finance and
policy: Attenuating a judicially imposed policy distraction, activating, a balanced
portfolio of k-12 school reforms, advancing rationality as a goal in pursuing
productivity, advocating change in a responsible and effective manner. Peabody
Journal of Education, 83(2), 259-84.

Hajnal, P. I. (2007). The G8 system and the G20: Evolution, role and documentation
Vermont: Ashgate.
Halawah, I. (2005). The relationship between effective communication of high school
principal and school climate. Education, 126(2), 334-45.

Hanushek, E., Jamison, D., Jamison, E., & Woessmann, L. (2008). Education and
economic growth. Education Next, 8(2), 62-70.

Hess, D. (2008). Democratic education to reduce the divide. Social Education, 72(7),
373-6.

Ho, A. (2007). Discrepancies between score trends from NAEP and state tests: A scale-
invariant perspective. Educational Measurement, 26(4), 11-20.

James, D., & Wahlberg, M. (2007). The limits of tutor intervention: Understanding
improvement in a cultural view of FE learning and teaching. Educational Review,
59(4), 469-82.

144
Jimerson, S., Pletcher, S., & Graydon, K. (2006). Beyond grade retention and social
promotion: Promoting the social and academic competence of students.
Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 85-97.

Johnson, J. (2006). Mind the gap: Educating the globalized student. Knowledge Quest,
35(2), 68-72.

Katisyannis, A., Zhang, D., Ryan, J., & Jones, J. (2007). High-Stakes testing and students
with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(3), 160-7.

Kimball, S., & Milanowski, A. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and
leadership decision-making within a standards-based evaluation system.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 34-70.

Kizilgunes, B., Tekkaya, C., and Sungur, S. (2009). Modeling the relations among
students' epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement.
The Journal of Educational Research, 102(4), 243-55.

Kramer, L. (2002). Achieving equitable education through the courts: A comparative
analysis of three states. Journal of Law & Education, 31(1), 1-51.

LaFee, S. (2009). Transparency. School Administrator, 66(1), 10-15.

Lennon, J., & Markatos, B. (2002). The same high standards for migrant students:
Holding title I schools accountable. Volume II: Title I schools serving migrant
students. Recent evidence from the national longitudinal survey of schools. Final
report. Maryland: Education Publications Center.

Lissitz, R. W. & Wei, H. (2008). Consistency of standard setting in an augmented state
testing system. Educational Measurement 27(2), 46-56.

Marchant, G., & Paulson, S. (2005). The relationship of high school graduation exams to
graduation rates and SAT scores. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(6), 1-
15.

Marzano, Robert J. and Waters, Timothy. (2006). District Leadership that Works:
Striking theRight Balance. Indiana: Solution Tree Press.

McCallum, G., Lerchenmuller, C., & Van Putten, D. (1988). Turning an inner-city school
into an effective California distinguished and a nationally recognized secondary
school. The Journal of Negro Education, 57, 335-46.
Meyer, D., Turner, J., & Schweinle, A. (2009). Understanding young adolescents'
optimal experiences in academic settings. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 77(2), 125-43.

145

Miretzky, D. (2004). The communication requirements of democratic schools: Parent-
teacher perspectives on their relationships. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 814-
51.

Morgan, Scott and Kathleen (Eds.). (2009). State Rankings 2009: A Statistical View of
America. Lawrence, Kansas: CQ Press.

Myers, V., & Kline, C. (2001). Secondary school intervention assistance teams: Can they
be effective? The High School Journal, 85(2), 33-42.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983) A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Educational Reform: A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of
Education United States Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.

Neubauer, D. (2007). Globalization, interdependence and education. Frontiers of
education in China, 2(3), 309-24.

Noell, George H. and Gansle, Kristin A. (2009). Moving from Good Ideas in Educational
Systems Change to Sustainable Program Implementation: Coming to Terms with
Some of the Realities. Psychology in the Schools, 46(1), 78-88.

Notar, C., Herring, D., & Restauri, S. (2008). A web-based teaching aid for presenting
the concepts of norm-referenced and criterion-referenced testing. Education,
129(1), 119-24.

Olson, L. (1999). Report cards for schools. Education Week, 18(17), 27-8.

Perner, D. (2007). No Child Left Behind: Issues of assessing students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 42(3), 243-51.

Peterson, Kavan. (May 23, 2005).High School Exit Exams on the Rise. In State Policy
and Politics. Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.stateline.org.

Peterson, P., & Hess, F. (2008). Few states set world-class standards. Education Next,
8(3), 70-3.

Peterson, P.E. & West, R. (Eds.). (2003). No child left behind?: The politics and
practice of school accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Petrilli, M. (2006). If the world is flat why does American education go in circles?
Education Next, 6(1), 72-3.

146

Porter, A., Linn, R., & Trimble, C. (2005). The effects of state decisions about NCLB
adequate yearly progress targets. Educational Measurement, 24(4), 32-9.
Powers, J. (2004). High-Stakes accountability and equity: Using evidence from
California's public schools accountability act to address the issues in Williams v.
state of California. American Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 763-95.

Rahn, M., Stecher, B., & Goodman, H. (1997). Making decisions on assessment methods:
Weighing the tradeoffs. Preventing School Failure, 41, 85-9.

Ramanthan, A. (2008). Paved with good intentions: The federal role in the oversight and
enforcement of the individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) and the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Teachers College Record, 110(2), 278-321.

Rummel, A., Acton, D., & Costello, S. (1999). Is all retention good? An empirical study.
College Student Journal, 33(2), 241-6.

Schafer, W., Liu, M., & Wang, H. (2007). Content and grade trends in state assessments
and NAEP. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(9), 1-25.

Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge
of leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy,
22(1), 181-203.

(September 2, 2009). California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). In California
Department of Education. Retrieved January 14, 2009, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov.

Shim, S., Ryan, A., & Anderson, C. (2008). Achievement goals and achievement during
early adolescence: Examining time-varying predictor and outcome variables in
growth-curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 655-71.

Silva, C., Weinburgh, M., Smith, K., Barreto, G., & Gabel, J. (2008). Partnering to
develop academic language for English language learners through mathematics
and science. Childhood Education, 85(2), 107-12.

Sirotnik, K.A. (Ed.). (2004). Holding accountability accountable: That ought tomatter
in public education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sofo, R. (2008). Beyond NCLB and AYP: One superintendent's experience of school
district reform. Harvard Educational Review, 78(2), 391-409.
Southworth, G., & Du Quesnay, H. (2005). School leadership and system leadership. The
Educational Forum, 69(2), 212-20.

147

Spring, J. (2008). Research on globalization and education. Review of Educational
Research, 78(2), 330-63.

Stecher, B.M. (Ed.). (2008) Pain and gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in three
states, 2004-2006. Santa Monica, California: RAND Corporation.

Sunderman, G.L. (Ed.). (2008). Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability,
equity, & school reform. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Superfine, B. (2005). The politics of accountability: The rise and fall of Goals 2000.
American Journal of Education, 112(1), 10-43.

Tucker, M. (2007). Charting a new course for schools. Educational Leadership, 64(7),
48-52.

Tucker, M. (2007). Making tough choices. The Education Digest, 73(3), 4-9.

United States House of Representatives. (1787). The U.S. Constitution. Retrieved from
http://www.house.gov.

Vail, K. (2007). Tough choices or tough times. The American School Board Journal,
194(2), 6-7.

Valverde, L. (2004). Equal educational opportunity since Brown: Four major
developments. Education and Urban Society, 36(3), 368-78.

Vaughan, A. (2002). Standards, accountability, and the determination of school success.
The Educational Forum, 66(3), 206-13.

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Murray, C., Scammacca, N., Linan-Thompson, S., & Woodruff,
A. (2009). Response to early reading intervention: Examining higher and lower
responders. Exceptional Children, 75(2), 165-83.

Vinovskis, Maris. (2009) From a Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind: National
education Goals and the creation of federal education policy. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Viteritti, J. (2004). From excellence to equity: Observations on politics, history, and
policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1), 64-86.

148
Wong, K., & Nicotera, A. (2004). Educational quality and policy redesign: Reconsidering
the "NAR" and federal title I policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1), 87-
104.

Zaman, A. (2006). Parental roles in the acquisition of primary level skills: An exploratory
view on the low-income Hispanic-American families with 3 and 4-year old
children. Education, 127(1), 73-82.

149

Appendix A

Superintendent Letter

Caroline Sweeney, M.A.
3130 Dawnview Ave
Pomona, Ca. 91767
(562) 708-4619
csweeney@usc.edu

Dear Superintendent of Schools:
You have been identified as a part of a small population of successful California urban
Superintendents, which makes you essential to this study. I know your time is highly
valued and that is why I am hoping you will take ten minutes to participate in my survey
and follow up with an interview at a time of your convenience.

I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California, studying under the
tutelage of Dr. Rudy Castruita, and am conducting research on the implementations of
interventions for the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). As you are well
aware, testing and accountability is a major thrust in education and your district has
shown positive strides in that realm.

The survey included is designed to get your perceptions of intervention policies for the
CAHSEE exam and how those perceptions have been communicated and incorporated at
the school sites. The survey results will be reported and published anonymously in
aggregate form and no specific district or superintendent responses will be identified.

After the survey has been recorded I would like to conduct a follow-up interview with
you to complete a thorough analysis of what you and your district have done to
successfully target the CAHSEE and improve test scores.

I will be glad to share the survey results with you if you would like. Please indicate your
interest at the end of the survey. I can also send you a transcript of your interview if you
so chose.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (562) 708-4619.

Please complete the survey by Friday, October 2, 2009. After the surveys have been
compiled I will contact you for an appropriate time for a follow-up interview.

With Appreciation,

Caroline Sweeney, M.A.

150
Appendix B

CAHSEE Survey

Superintendent Choice of Intervention Strategies
for California High School Exit Exam Students

The following survey is meant to provide the researcher with a brief overview of what practices
are in place in your district that have contributed to your success on the CAHSEE exam. Some
questions are scaled, while other are yes and no. There is also one fill-in-the blank. Take your
time. Your response to these questions will determine whether or not you will be contacted for an
interview.

Prevention Intervention Strategies: Prevention Intervention refers to interventions that
happen before a student has actually failed the exam

Does not
Occur
Almost
Never
Occurs
Doesn't
Often
Occur
Sometimes
Occurs
Occurs
Often

1) Do you have
prevention
intervention for
CAHSEE
standards at the
middle
school/junior high
school level? (In
general)
1 2 3 4 5
a. In Mathematics
Pre-Algebra
standards?
1 2 3 4 5
b.
In 7th grade
English/Language
Arts Standards?
1 2 3 4 5

2) Do you have
prevention
intervention for
CAHSEE
standards at the
high school level?
(In general)
1 2 3 4 5
a. In Mathematics
Pre-Algebra
standards?
1 2 3 4 5
b.
In 7th grade
English/Language
Arts Standards?
1 2 3 4 5

151

Middle-School:
a. During the school
day, integrated
into current
classes?
1 2 3 4 5
b. During the school
day, specifically
for the purpose of
CAHSEE
intervention?
1 2 3 4 5
c. After school,
targeted on
CAHSEE
standards?
1 2 3 4 5
High School:
d. During the school
day, integrated
into current
classes?
1 2 3 4 5
e. During the school
day, specifically
for the purpose of
CAHSEE
intervention?
1 2 3 4 5
f. After school,
targeted on
CAHSEE
standards?
1 2 3 4 5

4) Are there
currently no
prevention
intervention
strategies
happening within
your school
district?
Yes No

152
Remediation Intervention Strategies: Remediation Intervention refers to interventions that
occur after the test has been taken and failed.
Does not
Occur
Almost
Never
Occurs
Doesn't
Often
Occur
Sometimes
Occurs
Occurs
Often
5) Do you have
remediation
intervention for
CAHSEE
standards at the
high school level?
(In general)

1

2

3

4

5
a. In Mathematics
Pre-Algebra
standards?

1 2 3 4 5
b. In 7th grade
English/Language
Arts Standards?

1 2 3 4 5

6) If there are
remediation
intervention
strategies, when
do they occur?

a. During the school
day, integrated
into current
classes?

1 2 3 4 5
b. During the school
day, specifically
for the purpose of
CAHSEE
intervention?

1 2 3 4 5
c. After school,
targeted on
CAHSEE
standards?

1 2 3 4 5

7) Are there
remediation
intervention
classes available
in your district for
students that have
aged out of your
system but have
not yet passed the
CAHSEE?

Yes No

If yes, where are
they housed?

153
a. At the school site
where the student
previously
attended?

Yes No
NA (Not
Offered)

b. At a designated
district site where
all students in this
category attend as
a group?

Yes No
NA (Not
Offered)

8) Are there
currently no
remediation
intervention
strategies
happening within
your school
district?

Yes No

Superintendent Knowledge: To what extent are you involved in intervention implementations
in your district.
Not
Involved
Peripherally
Involved
Somewhat
Involved
Highly
Involved
Fully
Involved
9) On a scale of 1 to
5, how much do
you feel you are
involved in the
choosing and
implementing of
CAHSEE
strategies at the
school sites and
district level in
your district?

1 2 3 4 5

10) Do you request
that specific
programs or
strategies be
implemented
within the district
for intervention
on CAHSEE
standards?

Yes No

154
11) If you were a
Superintendent
prior to coming to
your current
district, did you
bring an
intervention plan
with you when
you entered the
district?

Yes No

Personnel Used for
Implementation:

12) Does your district
employ a testing
coordinator?

Yes No

13) Does your district
employ an
intervention
specialist?

Yes No

14) Are these two
positions one-in-
the-same?

Yes No
NA (My
district
has
neither a
testing
coordinato
r nor an
interventi
on
specialist.)

15) Are specific fiscal
resources set
aside to
implement any
intervention
strategies that are
deemed integral
to your district to
success on the
CAHSEE?

Yes No

Additional
Information:

Fill-in-
the-blank

155
16) What are your
combined years of
Superintendent
experience across
any districts in
which you have
served?

________

156

Appendix C

Interview Guide

Interview Questions for Superintendents

The purpose of my dissertation is to identify best practices that
successful urban Superintendents are using to decrease the amount
of students that do not pass the California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE). Through raw data, I have identified your district as
having shown promising improvement in increasing your
CAHSEE test scores. The following interview guide is based on
the four research questions that guide this study:

1) What types of intervention programs do successful California urban
Superintendents use to decrease the amount of students that do not
pass the California High School Exit Exam?
a. Is the strategy of intervention in those districts one of
prevention or remediation?

• Is there a specific program that your district uses to teach CAHSEE standards?
o If so, what are those programs?
o If not, what strategies do you/did you use to intervene on those students
that were in need?
o Were the strategies and programs implemented before the students had
taken the CAHSEE in the 10
th
grade, or after?
• Is data kept on the students that participate in those programs?
• When you (as the Superintendent) entered the school district, was improving
CAHSEE test scores on your agenda, or is it a biproduct of some larger vision that
was implemented?
o If so, what is/was that vision?
• Did your district base your interventions on data you had seen from another
district?
o If so, do your results mirror the data that you had been shown?

2) How are students in those districts identified as in need of
intervention?

157

• At what age/grade level are students identified as in need of intervention?
o And how? (Through test scores, a diagnostic test, etc.)
• Is the intervention strategy voluntary or mandatory?
o If it was voluntary, what percentage of students participated?
• Was it started just at one school or was it a sweeping district initiative?
• While students are in the programs, are they given diagnostic tools to target the
interventions?
o If so, what is the diagnostic tool that is being used?
• Once students are identified as in need of intervention, do they remain there until
the passing of the CAHSEE exam, or can they exit intervention based on some
other criteria?
o If they can exit, what criteria is used to facilitate that?

3) What personnel are involved in determining the need for
intervention strategies within the school district?

• What district and site personnel are either wholly, or partially charged with
intervening on students at risk of not passing the CAHSEE?
• Has the current budget cut in California altered the way you have approached
increasing test scores? (Specifically the CAHSEE)

4) Are the interventions in those districts guided by the sites or handed
top-down from the Superintendent?

• Are principals at school sites given leeway to determine which intervention
strategy they will be implementing at their school site?
o If so, are they allotted (by the Superintendent) a specific amount of money
to successfully implement that intervention?
o If not, why not? (Does data show that one particular strategy is successful,
etc)
• Are their sites within the district whose interventions have been more or less
successful than other sites?
o If so, what differs in their implementation of interventions?

158

Appendix D

District Background
In order to have an understanding of the similarities and differences each
superintendent faced when implementing his or her “best practice” strategies for
increasing the passing rate on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), the
researcher reviewed each district.
Thinking Children School District
As previously shown, the Thinking Children School District has been successful in
increasing its passing rate on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
Table A1
Thinking Children’s CAHSEE Scores and Percent Increase Over Four Years
District
Name

2009
English
Percent
Passing
Rate
Total
Percent
Increase
on
English
Test
2009
Math
Percent
Passing
Rate
Total
Percent
Increase
on Math
Test
Combination
of Percent
Increase on
Math and
English
Success
Ranking

Thinking
Children 71 6 75 13 19 Successful

According to state websites, Thinking Children School District has seven schools
that report scores on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Of those seven
entities, three are comprehensive high schools. Within those three comprehensive high
schools, only one would be labeled Successful, with gains of 10% in English/language

159
arts and 14% in mathematics. The other two schools would be labeled limited growth and
unsuccessful.
Concrete Tester School District
As previously shown, Concrete Tester School District has been successful in
increasing its passing rate on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). (See
Table A2, below).
Table A2
Concrete Tester’s CAHSEE Scores and Percent Increase Over Four Years
District
Name

2009
English
Percent
Passing
Rate
Total
Percent
Increase
on
English
Test
2009
Math
Percent
Passing
Rate
Total
Percent
Increase
on Math
Test
Combination
of Percent
Increase on
Math and
English
Success
Ranking

Concrete
Tester 74 7 74 8 15 Successful

According to state websites, Concrete Tester School District has six schools that
report scores taken on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Of those six
entities, three are comprehensive high schools. Two of those comprehensive high schools
would be labeled as Successful with increases of 6 and 7% on the English/language arts
portion of the exam and an increase of 8 and 10% percent on the mathematics portion of
the exam. The final comprehensive high school would be labeled limited growth.

160
Asphalt Student School District
As previously shown, Asphalt Student School District has been successful in
increasing its passing rate on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). (See
Table A3, below).
Table A3
Asphalt Student’s CAHSEE Scores and Percent Increase Over Four Years
District
Name

2009
English
Percent
Passing
Rate
Total
Percent
Increase
on
English
Test
2009
Math
Percent
Passing
Rate
Total
Percent
Increase
on Math
Test
Combination
of Percent
Increase on
Math and
English
Success
Ranking

Asphalt
Student 75 6 78 8 14 Successful

According to state websites, Asphalt Student School District has nine schools that
report scores taken on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Of those nine
entities, five are comprehensive high schools. Three of the five comprehensive high
schools would be labeled Successful, with increases of 6, 8, and 9% on the
English/language arts portion of the exam and a 7, 15, and 16% increase on the
mathematics portion of the exam. The other two comprehensive high schools would be
labeled unsuccessful.

161
Urban Thinker School District
As previously shown, Urban Thinker School District has been successful in
increasing its passing rate on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). (See
Table A4, below).
Table A4
Urban Thinker’s CAHSEE Scores and Percent Increase Over Four Years
District
Name

2009
English
Percent
Passing
Rate
Total
Percent
Increase
on
English
Test
2009
Math
Percent
Passing
Rate
Total
Percent
Increase
on Math
Test
Combination
of Percent
Increase on
Math and
English
Success
Ranking

Urban
Thinker 80 5 82 6 11 Successful

According to state websites, Urban Thinker School District has 13 schools that
report scores taken on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Of those 13
entities, eight are comprehensive high schools. Six of the eight comprehensive high
schools would be labeled Successful, with five of the six having passing rates over 80%
on both portions of the exam and the sixth school having an increase of 12% in
English/language arts and 11% in mathematics. The other two comprehensive high
schools would be labeled limited growth.

162
Blooming Worker School District
As previously shown, Blooming Worker School District has had limited growth in
increasing its passing rate on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). (See
Table A5, below).
Table A5
Blooming Worker’s CAHSEE Scores and Percent Increase Over Four Years
District
Name

2009
English
Percent
Passing
Rate
Total
Percent
Increase
on
English
Test
2009
Math
Percent
Passing
Rate
Total
Percent
Increase
on Math
Test
Combination
of Percent
Increase on
Math and
English
Success
Ranking

Blooming
Worker 78 4 82 15 19
Limited
Growth

According to state web sites, Blooming Worker School District has nine schools
that report scores taken on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Of those
nine entities, three are comprehensive high schools. Of the three comprehensive high
schools, two would be labeled Successful, with one school having passing rates of 80%
on both portions of the CAHSEE and the other having an increase of 9% on the
English/language arts portion of the exam and an increase of 14% on the mathematics
portion of the exam. The third comprehensive high school has only been in existence for
two years and thus cannot be labeled.

163
Sprawling Learner School District
As previously shown, Sprawling Learner School District has had limited growth in
increasing its passing rate on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
Table A6
Sprawling Learner’s CAHSEE Scores and Percent Increase Over Four Years
District
Name

2009
English
Percent
Passing
Rate
Total
Percent
Increase
on
English
Test
2009
Math
Percent
Passing
Rate
Total
Percent
Increase
on Math
Test
Combination
of Percent
Increase on
Math and
English
Success
Ranking

Sprawling
Learner 73 4 71 12 16
Limited
Growth

According to state web sites, Sprawling Learner School District has five schools
that report scores taken on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). Of those
five entities, two are comprehensive high schools. One of the high schools would be
labeled Successful, with an increase of 6% on the English/language arts portion of the
exam and 11% on the mathematics portion of the exam. The other comprehensive high
school would be ranked Limited Growth. Besides the background of each district and
their school’s success rankings, the organizational structure of the districts is important.

164
Appendix E

Figure A1: Collective District Organizational Chart

Figure A1: Collective District Organizational Chart

Board of Education
↓
Superintendent (Supt)
↓
Business
Services
Instructional
Services/
Educational
Services
Personnel
Services/
Human
Resources
Student
Services
Administrative
Operations
Alternative
Education
6
Assistant
Supt 1 Associate Supt
6 Assistant
Supt
2
Assistant
Supts 1 Deputy Supt
1 Deputy
Supt

1 Chief
Academic
Officer (CAO)
1 Deputy Supt
3 Assistant Supts
↓

Secondary
Curriculum 9-12
(4)
↓

Assessment and
Evaluation/
Secondary
Curriculum 7-8 (5)
↓

Elementary
Curriculum K-6 (3)
↓

Language Support
Services (3)
↓

Categorical
Projects (3)
↓
Parent Involvement
↓

Student Services
(2)
↓

Staff Development
(2)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study analyzed California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) intervention strategies that were implemented by successful urban superintendents in order to determine best practices that were being used across the state of California to increase the passing rate on that exam. Four research questions were analyzed: (1) what types of intervention programs do successful California urban superintendents use to decrease the amount of students that do not pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), (2) how are the students in those districts identified as in need of interventions, (3) what personnel are involved in determining the need for intervention strategies within the school district, (4) are the interventions in those districts guided by the sites or handed top-down from the Superintendent?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Sustaining student achievement: Six Sigma strategies and successful urban school district superintendents

PDF

How successful urban superintendents in California improve student achievement

PDF

What strategies do urban superintendents utilize to address global challenges in the implementation of 21st century skills

PDF

Strategies employed by successful urban superintendents responding to demands for student achievement reform

PDF

Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions

PDF

Model leadership: discovering successful principals' skills, strategies and approaches for student success

PDF

Strategies utilized by special education local plan area directors to influence superintendents with special educations programs and services

PDF

An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study

PDF

Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by Southern California superintendents

PDF

A case study in reform: implementation strategies of one urban superintendent

PDF

Understanding the decision making process of California urban schools superintendents through Bolman and Deal's four leadership frames

PDF

Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent

PDF

Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by San Diego County superintendents

PDF

Strategies used by superintendents in developing leadership teams

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies

PDF

How urban school superintendents effectively use data-driven decision making to improve student achievement

PDF

Strategies California superintendents use to implement 21st century skills programs

PDF

The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

Superintendents' entry periods: strategies and behaviors that successful superintendents use to build strong relationships and trust with their school boards during their entry period

Asset Metadata

Creator Sweeney, Caroline Frances (author)

Core Title CAHSEE intervention strategies implemented by successful urban California superintendents

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/06/2010

Defense Date 03/23/2010

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

Tag best practices,CAHSEE,California High School Exit Exam,interventions,OAI-PMH Harvest,testing,Urban

Place Name California (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy M. (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member)

Creator Email cf.sweeney@hotmail.com,csweeney@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3022

Unique identifier UC1492324

Identifier etd-Sweeney-3653 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-340524 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3022 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Sweeney-3653.pdf

Dmrecord 340524

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Sweeney, Caroline Frances

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