University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's high -priority school: A case study

(USC Thesis Other)

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's high -priority school: A case study

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN ANALYSIS OF THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL’S ROLE IN
IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN CALIFORNIA’S
HIGH PRIORITY SCHOOL: A CASE STUDY
by
Martha Yvonne Tienda-Ayala
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2003
Copyright 2003 Martha Yvonne Tienda-Ayala
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3180782
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3180782
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This dissertation w ritten by
Martha Yvonne Tienda-A yala
under the discretion of h e r D issertation C om m ittee,
and approved by all mem bers of the C om m ittee, has
been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the
Rossier School of E ducation in partial fulfillm ent of the
requirem ents for the degree of
D octor of E ducation
May 19, 2003________
Date
hn
D issertation C om m ittee
\
C L ji
Chairperson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to the children at low performing schools. May you
be blessed with school principals with the courage to build a high quality staff, the
vision to design a school culture of high expectations, and the commitment to see
you through.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am blessed to have had the unwavering support and encouragement of my
husband, Gabriel. Your love, inspiration, and belief in me allowed me to achieve this
incredible dream. Thank you for never doubting my ability.
Thank you to my parents and siblings for nurturing my educational
foundation; to my mom for always being by my side to love and support me, daddy
for all of your sacrifices, and to my siblings for showing me the beauty of literature
and instilling in me the passion of learning. Thank you to the Ayala family, for
allowing me to pursue this achievement guilt free.
Thank you to Dr. Marsh, my chair, for your support and guidance in
completing my doctoral work. This dissertation was made possible through your
diligence and commitment to working with me.
A special thank you to Melrose Elementary School, my friends, and co
workers who encouraged and supported me throughout this endeavor.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
AB STRACT viii
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 14
Purpose of the Study 15
Importance of the Study 16
Limitations 17
Delimitations 18
Definitions 18
Organization of the Study 20
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 22
Introduction 22
Student Achievement Trends in the United States 22
Student Achievement Trends and Standardized
Testing in California 24
Achievement Gap and Trends of the Last Decade 29
Social, Economic, Political, and Moral Issues
Raised by the Achievement Gap 31
The Accountability Movement Within Standards-Based
Reform 34
School Accountability 36
Student Accountability 38
Origin of the Public School Accountability Act and
Key Features 39
Evidence of Implementation, Value, and Effectiveness 42
H-USP, HPSG, and CSR 46
Key Strategies for Implementing School Reform 50
Conclusion 63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3
v
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 66
Introduction 66
Research Design 67
Setting 68
Sample and Population 70
Instrumentation 71
Data Collection 73
Data Analysis 76
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS 77
Introduction 77
Findings by Research Question 78
Question 1 78
Question 2 93
Question 3 104
Discussion of Research Findings 110
CHAPTER 5
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 125
Introduction 125
Research Findings 127
Implications of Research Findings 137
Recommendations 140
Areas for Further Study 143
REFERENCES 145
APPENDIX A 153
APPENDIX B 155
APPENDIX C 158
APPENDIX D 168
APPENDIX E 174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table
LIST OF TABLES
vi
Page
1 I have an ethical responsibility to raise the academic
achievement of all students. 79
2 My job security is threatened if student achievement
does not increase 81
3 The API is an accurate measure of my schools’ achievement. 83
4 I am the person responsible for the increase of student
achievement. 84
5 School reform positively influences student performance. 86
6 HPSG mandates makes it challenging to maintain professional
and personal balance. 87
7 The HPSG provides the resources needed to raise student
achievement. 89
8 The HPS external entity provides valuable feedback for
Program improvement. 91
9 Principal provides resources to meet teaching needs to raise
student performance. 94
10 My school vision and leadership clearly demonstrate a plan
for school accountability. 96
11 Attend professional development on collection and effective
use of data analysis. 97
12 Principal conducts classroom observations to ensure use of
data, standards, and strategies. 98
13 External assessments are analyzed and implemented
for program modifications. 100
14 Stakeholders are well aware of the schools’ involvement
in HPSG. 101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
Table Page
15 Completed AB 466 training and found it highly beneficial. 104
16 Teachers use data to plan quality instruction. 106
17 Peer collaboration has benefited my teaching ability. 107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
viii
ABSTRACT
The legal procedures outlined in the accountability piece of reform
specifically the 1999 Public School Accountability Act (PSAA) and Senate Bill
1552 (1999) prompted the development of state reform programs including the
High Priority Schools Grant (HPSG). This state reform program includes high
stake sanctions for schools that fail to meet academic growth targets. These
sanctions hold principals directly accountable for student achievement.
However, it is unknown to politicians, educators, and the public if the state
mandates of the grant action plan are fully implemented.
The purpose of the case study is to gain new knowledge regarding the
principal’s role in effectively implementing the goals of high priority schools.
The following research questions were explored: How do principals and
teachers view high stakes accountability in High Priority School and what do
they see as the strengths and weaknesses of such an accountability system?;
What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability in their
schools?; How do teachers respond to the principal’s enhancement of high stake
accountability? Do the teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or
detrimental?
Melrose Elementary School in the Anaheim City School District was selected
for this in-depth qualitative study. The study employs the use of three levels of
reporting; a Likert scale survey instrument, interview questions, and an observation
guide. The study concludes the school principal plays numerous roles in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ix
effective implementation of the mandates of a High Priority School Grant
including the effective expenditure of HPSG funds; creating a clear vision of
accountability; planning professional development and in-classroom support; the
involvement of stakeholders in the analysis and implementation of the external
entity’s recommendations.
Policy-makers, educators, and the public have a vested interest in the success
of California’s high priority schools. The implications of the study include the
importance of acknowledging state reform schools have had a positive impact on
student accountability; there need to develop a system for retaining quality teachers;
the importance of placing restrictions on the ability to alter the external entity’s
report; a need for increased collaboration; and increased accountability for the
expenditure of the HPSG budget.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CH APTER 1
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
National Results
Over the last 30 years, the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) has been used to analyze student achievement across the nation
(Barton, 2001). Results of the standardized tests are reported for the nation and
states in terms of the Governing Board's achievement levels; basic, proficient, and
advanced. Under the NAEP, scores are disaggregated to determine student
growth. According to Barton (2001), during the years of 1990-1996 the
majority of the nation’s fourth and eighth graders made significant gains in
mathematics. However, compared to the national average, grades 4 and 8 in
California still scored below the national average in reading and mathematics
(National Center for Educational Statistics (NCSES), 2002). Although national
results suggest that students made momentous gains, the study concluded that
White students continued to drastically surpass Black and Hispanic students.
During the 1999-2000 school year, there existed a 31-point difference in the
performance of White and Black fourth grade students. In grades 8 and 12, the
achievement gap widened. The gap for eighth grade students grew from 32 to
39 points, and in grade 12 33 to 34 points (NCES, 2000).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
State Results
In response to the decline in student achievement, in 1997 the state of
California designed a new assessment system called the Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program. The STAR program was authorized through Senate Bill
376 (1997). The purpose of the STAR was to help measure how well students in
California public schools were learning basic academic skills (EdSource, 2001).
This program includes the annual administration of the Stanford Achievement Test 9
(SAT 9) and the California Standards Tests (CST). Additionally, the Spanish
Assessment of Basic Education (SABE/2) is administered to newly enrolled students
whose primary language is Spanish. Results of the CST tests are reported according
to the performance levels achieved. The five performance levels are advanced,
proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic. The state has established the
proficient level as the achievement goal for all students (CDE, 2002).
Although the STAR mandated tests are currently used as the most powerful
indicator of student achievement in the state of California, the norm-referenced
segment of the test (i.e., SAT 9) has been criticized for a lack of alignment to the
state standards. Since its induction, the STAR has evolved to include an
augmented section (i.e., CST) that assesses achievement toward mastery of the
California language arts and mathematics standards. The state of California
first reported CST content standards results for Language Arts and Mathematics
in 2001 (CDE, 2002; EdSource, 2002). The results were alarming. The
California Department of Education (CDE) (2001) reported that 34% of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
California’s students performed below the basic level in Language Arts. In
seventh grade, 36% scored below the basic level, and in grade 10 38%.
In Spring 2002,4.7 million California public school students in grades 2-11
took part in the fifth year of testing for the state’s STAR program. The SAT 9
portion of the STAR system illustrates that in the years 1998-2002, students in
grades 2-4 made incremental gains in reading. On the other hand, reading scores
for students in grades 5-7 dropped. Compared to grade 5, reading scores dipped
to a negative seven, grade 6 a negative eight, and in grade 7 a negative eight.
All students in grades 2-7 made positive gains in mathematics (CDE, 2002). In
the Spring of 2001, the CDE expanded the STAR to include a writing
assessment component for grades 4 and 7.
The legislature reauthorized the STAR program to continue through the year
2005. According to the California Department of Education: Standards and
Assessment Division (2002), the program will continue to feature three components:
the California Standards Test (CST); the norm-referenced test (NRT) which provides
data for national comparisons; and the SAB E/2 . In 2003, the California
Achievement Test, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT 6 Survey), published by
CTB/McGraw-Hill, will replace the SAT 9 (California Department of Education:
Policy and Evaluation Division [CDE: PED], 2002).
In July 2000, the CDE, in conjunction with the State Board of Education,
designed a three-year plan for the development of the state’s assessment program.
The plan proposes six principles for the full implementation of the standards-reform
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
assessment system. These principles include mastery of state content standards,
rigorous technical standards, STAR standards test as the core of the assessment
system, a norm reference test for national comparison, coordination of other state
assessments such as California English Language Development Test (CELDT),
California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE), and useful data results for
program modification (State Board of Education [SBE] & California Department
of Education [CDE], 2002).
State Accountability
One major school reform strategy for narrowing the achievement gap and
increasing student achievement is the accountability movement within standards-
based reform for elementary schools. During the 1990s, federal laws were written to
promote the development and implementation of standards and educational reforms.
The purpose of the standards-based reform movement was to develop an educational
program where all children are exposed and challenged to meet the same high
expectations, and are held accountable for results (CDE, 2001; EdSource, 2000;
Tucker & Coddings, 1998). The state’s standards-based framework includes
standards, assessment, and accountability. The standards include three broad
categories; academic content standards, supplemental standards adopted by the State
Superintendent of Instruction and or local school districts, and standards reflected in
course examinations (CDE, 2001a; EdSource 2001).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
State policy-makers in California have recently adopted an
accountability system within the standards-based reform movement. Senate Bill
1552 (Chapter 3, Statutes o f 1999), the Public Schools Accountability Act of
1999 (PS A A) established a statewide accountability system which holds each
school annually accountable for making gains in student achievement. The
PSAA has three elements which include the Academic Performance Index
(API), Governor’s Performance Award (GPA), and the Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming School Program (II-USP).
Under the PSAA, all schools are ranked and expected to show
improvement in academic achievement for all students by meeting annual
growth targets as determined by the school’s Academic Performance Index and
approved by the State Board of Education (SBE). Schools that meet or exceed
their growth targets are eligible for monetary awards. During the first year of
implementation, individual awards were given to personnel at schools that
exceeded the target. Schools that do not meet or do not make significant
progress toward their growth targets as determined by Academic Performance
Index scores are subject to state sanctions and interventions (S. Bill 1552,
1999).
In California, if a school fails to meet the school target growth, or has
not shown significant progress towards meeting its annual growth target after
two years, the school could suffer the following consequences. Under state
sanctions, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction could "assume all the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
legal rights, duties, and powers of the governing board with respect to that
school . . . and reassign the principal...” (S. Bill 1552, 1999). In addition, the
State Superintendent of Public Instruction is required to take at least one of the
following seven actions: (1) revise attendance options for pupils to allow them
to attend any public school in which space is available; (2) allow parents to
apply directly to the SBE for the establishment of a charter school; (3) assign
the management of the school to a college, university, county office of
education, or other appropriate educational institution; (4) reassign other
certificated employees of the school; (5) negotiate a new collective bargaining
agreement at the expiration of the existing agreement; (6) reorganize the school;
or (7) close the school (Senate Bill 1552, 1999). However, the protections
afforded to certificated personnel under teachers’ contracts and educational and
government codes could limit the reality of reconstituting a school.
Senate Bill 1552, Section 5205 (1999) states the following:
SB 1552. 52055. Section 52054, choose from a range
of interventions for the school, including reassignment
of school personnel to the extent authorized by law,
negotiation of site-specific amendments to collective
bargaining agreements, or other changes deemed
appropriate, in order to continue implementing the
action plan approved pursuant to Section 51054, and to
make progress toward meeting the school's growth
target. (S. 1552, 1999)
Under the Public School’s Accountability Act, administrators,
intervention teams, and external evaluators are required to notify school
personnel and the community of the threat of state take over as they enter into
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
mandated standards-based reform, such as Immediate Intervention/Under
performing Schools Program (II-USP), High Priority School Grant (HPSG), and
Comprehensive School Reform (CSR). However, educators argue that this high
stakes accountability threatens the stability of the school community, places
sanctions on those who may not be directly responsible for lack of student
achievement, and has unrealistic plans for the restructuring of schools who fail
to meet growth targets. Under this legislation, principals are held directly
accountable for student achievement. However, it is not known to the public
what a school site specifically does to raise student achievement, yet the job
security of a principal is directly tied to student achievement. What do
principals do at high stakes school to raise achievement? How do principals
hold teachers accountable for teaching, and the mastering state standards?
What do teachers do to hold children accountable?
The Public Schools Accountability Act created the II-USP in 1999 to support
schools in the lowest five deciles of the Academic Performance Index ranking.
Assembly Bill 961, Chapter 747, and Statutes of 2001 also established the High
Priority Schools Grant (HPSG) for low performing schools. In 2001, Assembly Bill
961 amended the Immediate Intervention Schools Program legislation by allocating
monies to high priority schools. The HPSG and II-USP give these schools three
years to meet its Academic Performance Index growth target. In addition, the
federally funded Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) program, a federally funded
program, was adopted in 1999. School programs are required to comply with certain
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
requirements, including, but not limited to completing an action plan to improve the
academic achievement of the pupils enrolled at the school. The Immediate
Intervention/ Underperforming School Program, High Performing School Grant, and
Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Grant all have serious accountability
requirements. If the low performing/high priority school is not making significant
progress as determined by the school’s Academic Performance Index score, then the
school is subject to the aforementioned state sanctions (California Department of
Education: Public School Accountability Act [CDE:PSAA], 2002).
The sole use of the API to gauge the effectiveness of a school staff and
principal is questionable. Researchers argue that multiple measures provide a more
accurate picture of the quality of a school. Should a multiple choice tests be the
primary measure of the effectiveness of a school? Researchers argue that multiple
measures are the best indicators of a school’s success or lack of success. The
sanctions listed above could have historical implications if imposed on schools.
Consequently, the court system will be redefining the rights of teachers and
administrators as state sanctions are imposed on public schools that fail to meet
academic growth targets.
Most notably, the standards-based reform movement prompted the
design of statewide academic grade level standards. In 1999, the California State
Board of Education presented the Reading/Language Arts Framework fo r California
Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. The framework is built upon
the 1997 English-Language Arts and Mathematics Content Standards adopted by the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
State Board of Education in November 1997. Education Code 60605, Section (f)
(1999) required the new framework be aligned to the state standards. California state
standards define what students in grades kindergarten through 12 should know and
be able to do at each grade. The State Board of Education (CBE) has adopted
content standards in the areas of English language arts, mathematics, science, and
history. Additionally, other content standards, such as visual and performing arts and
English language development, have been adopted by the State Superintendent and
or local schools (CDE, 2002).
Legislation stipulates that a solid accountability system includes detailed
academic standards in each content area to address what students should master;
collect specific, objective data through tests aligned with state standards; use
test data to identify strengths and weaknesses in the system; report school
condition and progress to parents and communities; empower parents to take
action based on school information; celebrate schools that make real progress;
and direct changes in schools that need assistance (CDE, 2002). However,
when filtered down to the school and student level, the interpretation of what
school and student accountability is varies greatly. Some educators rely solely
on norm-referenced tests, such as the Stanford 9 or Terra Nova. Other schools
use multiple measures such as student portfolios, writing rubrics, district
trimester tests in core areas, and a variety of other informal assessments to
ensure accountability. Overall, it is not known how principals hold staff
accountable for student achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
There exist strengths and weaknesses to the argument that accountability will
make a positive difference in student achievement. The strengths include consistency
in what is taught in the classroom through statewide content standards, state and
school local accountability, and high expectations for all children. On the other
hand, API measures originally relied solely on SAT 9 scores. However, the SEE
recently approved a system for the incremental inclusion of state standards. In 2001,
the base API included results from the California Standards Test (CST) in English
Language Arts. The base API of 2003 is expected to include the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) as well as academic standards tests in mathematics
and social science (CDE, 2001b; CDE, 2002).
Another issue which has been raised by the PSSA committee is the need to
include graduation rates, as well as staff and student attendance, into the API score.
The presentation of these factors could pose new difficulties in accountability. The
performance model that is used to calculate the API is believed to have the potential
to cause technical difficulties if used to factor in attendance rates. Critics argue that
the year-to-year target growths are yet another shortcoming. Studies dispute that a
multiple year approach to increased student achievement is more reliable. An
argument regarding the expectation that all subgroups make the same amount of
growth, and that the test is culturally biased also exists. Critics question the fairness
of the fact that low scoring students are expected to make the same gains as high
scoring subgroup.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
Role of the School Principal in State Reform
The standards-based reform movement has prompted school principals to
reevaluate their role as educational leaders and analyze factors affecting the
implementation of education reform. Current research asserts that high quality
schools are multidimensional focusing on continual assessment of staff,
programs, policies, and the inclusion of all stakeholders in the decision-making
process. Consequently, the school principal plays a significant role in the
success of the implementation and adoption of school-wide reform. However, it
is unknown what principals and teachers are actually doing to reform low
performing schools, and how staff is held accountable for student achievement.
California’s accountability system poses high stakes accountability
for teachers as well as principals. Under the Public School Accountability
Act, the district go verning board of any school that fails to meet its annual
growth target after the first full year of implementation is required to hold a
public hearing to ensure that members of the school community are aware of
the lack of progress (S. Bill 1552, 1999). The governing board is then
required to intervene, as specified, in order to assist the school in making
progress toward meeting the school’s growth targets.
Author Negroni (2000) asserts principals must play a new role in
leadership. The school accountability of today necessitates standards-based,
data driven instructional leadership as opposed to the managerial style of the
past. Negroni argues that principals must become “head teachers” and design
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
roadmaps delineating educational goals. Therefore, principals must become
skilled in identifying and analyzing quality lessons and data. Tucker and
Coddings (1998) argue that schools must have the information, skills, authority,
and resources needed to implement a standards-based system.
Leaders seeking reform must also understand theoretical research on
educational change and factors affecting the adoption, implementation, and
evaluation of public school reform. In an effort to raise API scores and meet
yearly academic growth targets, school districts regularly invest in education
reform grants, programs, or initiatives to raise student achievement. However,
many variables such as the ability to “change” influence the adoption and the
success of school reform. Therefore, the principal’s understanding of the
dynamics of change is crucial in the implementation, facilitation, and evaluation
of educational reform projects. Congruent with research literature on reform, Sizer
(1992) postulates that powerful support and collaboration with administrators,
teachers, students and their families are necessary to reshape the way schools run
(Fullan, 1993; Lieberman & Miller, 1981; Tucker & Coddings, 1998).
It is argued that the principal’s role in educational reform should also
include goals for fostering quality teachers. Research has shown the single
most important indicator of a high achieving school is a highly qualified
teaching staff. Effective teaching has the highest potential for reforming
education and increasing student achievement. Researchers have identified
commonalties of an effective teacher; these include the ability to motivate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
students (Peart & Campbell, 1999); teacher expectations and racial impartiality
(Peart & Campbell, 1999; Rist, 2000); teacher knowledge and clarity in the
organization, planning, and delivery of lessons (Foote, Vermette, Wisniewski,
Agnello & Pagano, 2000; Wray, Medwell, Fox & Poulson, 2000) and
interpersonal skills (Foote et al., 2000; Frymier & Houser, 2000; Peart &
Campbell, 1999; Slavin, 1994). Principals can pave the way for developing
effective teachers by building a climate and culture of raised expectations and
motivation by providing in depth and continual communication between
students, teachers, administrators, and parents. As educational leaders, one
must focus aspirations, staff development, and research on cultivating effective
classroom teachers. Learning from the failure of previous school reform
programs, one must provide the opportunity and environment for educational
change to take place, which involves risk, conflict, and restructuring of power
in schools (Fullan, 2000; Lipman, 1997).
Additionally, Houston and Bryant (2002) support the need for principals
to build a shared vision, communicate clear expectations, and model courage to
lead during the changing times in education. The principal should make
priorities clear and have a data based school action plan. If the leader of the
organization is not clear about the vision and does not have a plan, then the
organization can only assume what the organization wants to accomplish. In
turn, to successfully achieve this goal the leader must plan to collaboratively
develop a focused mission, a timeline for implementation and an assessment
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
process including opportunities to regularly communicate both informally and
formally.
Statement of the Problem
The legal procedures outlined in the accountability piece of reform
specifically the 1999 Public School Accountability Act (PSAA) and Senate Bill
1552 (1999) prompted the development of state reform programs including
Immediate Intervention/Under performing Schools Program (II-USP), High
Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP), and Comprehensive School Reform
Design (CSR). These state reform programs include high stake sanctions for
schools that fail to meet their school’s academic growth target. Within these
sanctions, principals are held directly accountable for student achievement.
The PSAA has prompted the monitoring of site level accountability to
meet state mandates. Principals are required to hold staff accountable for the
implementation of state standards, improved student achievement through state
standardized testing in conjunction with ongoing site level data analysis, and
simultaneously manage the change process within the educational organization.
However, it is unknown how principals and teachers view either high stakes
accountability or what they do to enhance high stakes accountability (EdSource,
2000).
The High Priority School Grant requires the submittal, approval, and
implementation of an action plan which specifies the proposed steps taken to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
turn around a low performing school. However, it is unknown to politicians,
educators, and the public if these action plans are fully implemented or if the
plan will meet the needs of students and school stakeholders. What are
principals and teachers doing to execute the plan? Are principals’ and teachers’
actions helpful in increasing student achievement?
State reform programs are significantly redefining the role of public
school principals in the effective implementation and monitoring of state
accountability programs. However, it unknown whether state reform plans are
effective and how they are implemented. The need to know how effective action
plans are implemented is critical to the state’s goal of increased student
achievement as measured by the designated norm referenced test, California
Standards Test, and the Academic Performance Index.
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of this case study is to gain new knowledge
regarding the principal’s role in effectively implementing the goals of the high
priority school grant. This includes accountability for the effective expenditure
of the additional budget associated with low performing schools. Today’s high
stakes accountability makes it imperative to conduct research to better
understand how and what principals and teachers are doing at state reform
schools to raise student achievement specifically for low performing students;
students who are at-risk, living in poverty, and or of a minority group.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
With this in mind, the following research questions will be explored:
1. How do principals and teachers view high stakes accountability in
High Priority Schools and what do they see as the strengths and
weaknesses of such an accountability system in their own schools?
2. What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability
in their schools?
3. How do teachers respond to the principal ’ s enhancement of high stake
accountability? Do the teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial
or detrimental?
Importance of the Study
Since 1966, American taxpayers have spent more than $321 billion on
public education (CDE, 2000). California schools are under increasing pressure
to effectively reform schools. Consequently, educators feel an increased sense
of urgency to meet state demands to produce students who have mastered the
academic standards and can produce and compete in today’s society. The state
of California understands academic standards are a roadmap to reform used to
direct schools toward common academic goals. However, the activities in which
principals and teachers engage to meet state accountability mandates under the
goals of the Public School Accountability Act is unknown. The purpose o f this
study is to examine the critical role of the principal at High
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Priority Schools in raising student achievement under high stakes
accountability.
Educators, policy-makers, and the public have a vested interest in the
success of its children. The author anticipates this study will present insight
into the role in which principals and teachers take part to raise student
achievement, narrow the achievement gap, and design high performing schools.
The data collection and analysis of this case study will contribute to the
research needed to continue to make well informed, research-based decisions in
education to raise student achievement. This body of research will enable
schools to more effectively target strategies for increased student achievement
and abandon ineffective strategies. This understanding will enable policy
makers and school districts to allocate resources of time, money, and personnel
on the most promising strategies. Furthermore, a better understanding of the
critical role of principals and teachers in raising student achievement will help
in the design; development; and or refinement of state reform programs,
policies, and funding.
Limitations
The following are possible limitations to this study:
1. The information collected in the surveys and interviews is dependent on
the honesty of the participants.
2. Group and individual interviews are subjective.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
3. The case study presents a relatively small number of participants from
which generalizable conclusions will be drawn.
Delimitations
The following are possible delimitations to this study:
1. This study was confined to an urban, elementary school in Southern
California with promising leadership.
2. The participants in the interviewing process were delimited to school
leaders and selected teachers.
Definitions
Achievement gap: The existence of significant negative differences in
the achievement of students from diverse backgrounds as opposed to
mainstream society (Au & Rafael, 2002).
Accountability: The extent to which an individual, group or institution
is held responsible for actions or academic performance (CDE, 2003).
Academic Performance Index (API): The academic performance index is
“cornerstone” of the Public School Accountability Act of 1999 which is used to
measure the academic performance of schools. It is a numeric measure that
ranges from 200 to 1000 (CDE, 2003).
Data: Records and reports of formal and informal observations,
experiences, events, facts, and figures from which conclusions may be drawn.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
GPA: Governor’s Performance Awards
High Stakes Accountability: This term relates to the state sanctions
under Senate Bill 1552.
HPSG: High Priority School Grant. Assembly Bill 961, Chapter 747,
Statutes of 2001, established the High Priority School Grant to monetarily assist
low performing schools as measured by the Academic Performance Index.
Mandates: This term refers to the education codes which specify the
rules, procedures, and regulations that must be applied when participating in
state reform programs such as the High Priority School Grant.
Norm-referenced test: These assessments compare student’s
performance to the performance of a larger group. The bell shape curve results
from this assessment.
Principal: The chief executive officer of a school. This person is
entrusted with the leadership and management of the school.
PS A A : Senate Bill 1552: The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999
established a statewide accountability system which holds each school annually
accountable for making gains in student achievement.
Rewards: This term refers to the four programs used to reward high
performing schools which include the California School Recognition Program,
Governor’s Performance Awards, Blue Ribbon School Program, and School
Site Employees Performance Bonus (CDE, 2003).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
Sanctions: A school failing to meet API targets for more than two years
is subject to seven state sanctions. Under state sanctions, the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction could "assume all the legal rights, duties,
and powers of the governing board with respect to that school. . . and reassign
the principal...” (S. 1552, 1999).
California Academic Standards: Define what students in grades
kindergarten through grade 12 should know and be able to do at each grade
level.
STAR: Authorized through Senate Bill 376 (1997), the Standardized
Testing and Reporting System has three components: The California Standards
Tests, the California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT 6), and the
Spanish Assessment of Basic Education (SABE/2).
Standards-hased reform: standards based reform involves the adoption of
state academic standards along with the establishment of an effective system for
monitoring student achievement through assessments, instructional
improvement and accountability.
Organization of the Study
C hapter 1 provides the background and problems which led to current
state reform mandates including high stakes accountability and the High
Priority School Grant. Chapter 1 describes the problem, purpose of the study,
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
importance of the study, research questions, limitations, delimitations and
definitions of key terms.
Chapter 2 is dedicated to a review o f the literature beginning with
student achievement trends in the United States, the accountability movement
within standards-based reform, the origin of the Public School Accountability
Act of 1999 focusing on current state reform programs, and key strategies for
implementing reform.
C hapter 3 describes the methodology used in this qualitative case study.
It specifies the sample and population as well as the criteria used for the
selection. It elaborates on the process used to collect and analyze the data, the
development of the instrumentation and statistical analysis.
Chapter 4 sets forth the findings of the research study. The findings are
organized by the three research questions. Data presented were gathered
through surveys, interviews, and school observations. A discussion follows
each of the findings providing interpretation of the data.
Chapter 5 provides a summary of the study, interpretations and
conclusions based on the research, and implications of the study. It also
includes recommendations for further research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
CHAPTER 2
R E V IE W OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
The purpose of the literature review is to provide information of the
principal’s role in effectively implementing school accountability within California’s
High Priority Schools. The literature review focuses on four major themes: student
achievement trends in the United States, the accountability movement within
standards-based reform, the origin of the Public School Accountability Act of 1999
focusing on current state reform programs, and key strategies for implementing state
reform.
Student Achievement Trends in the United States
The last five years in education have witnessed the most sweeping
changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was
enacted in 1965. On January 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the most
recent effort to reform America’s schools. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 2001) presents an education reform plan to
ensure all children meet academic standards. This recent reform law increases
the federal government's role in grades kindergarten through twelfth grade by
holding American schools accountable for student achievement. The act contains
President Bush’s four basic education reform principles which include stronger
accountability for results, increased flexibility and local control, expanded
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
options for parents, and an emphasis on using research based teaching strategies
(NCLB, 2G01).
Research indicates the trends to aggressively raise student achievement as
measured by standardized achievement tests in the United States is linked back to
the 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, issued by the National Commission on
Excellence in Education under the presidency of Ronald Reagan (California
Department of Education (CDE), 1998). A Nation at Risk reported an alarming
concern about the lack of academic progress made by students in public
education as evidenced by national standardized tests (Fullan, 1993; Peeples &
Stanton 2000; Thurlow, 2000). Far too many young people were struggling
through school without having mastered the most essential basic skills in reading.
The lack of student achievement was most evident among the disadvantaged
groups of students. Au and Rafeal (2000) define this group as students who
differ from mainstream society’s ethnicity, primary language, and social class.
Two decades later, this achievement gap still exists.
Over the last 30 years, the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) has been used to analyze student achievement across the nation (Barton,
2001). Results of the standardized tests are reported for the nation and states in
terms of the governing board's achievement levels; basic, proficient, and
advanced. Under the NAEP, scores are disaggregated to determine student
growth.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
According to Barton (2001), during 1990-1996 NAEP results suggest the
majority of the nation’s fourth and eighth graders made significant gains in
mathematics. However, compared to the national average, grades 4 and 8 still scored
far below the national average in reading and mathematics (National Center for
Educational Statistics (NCES), 2002). Although results confirm students made
momentous gains, the study also concluded White students continued to drastically
surpass Black and Hispanic students. During the 1999-2000 school years, there
existed a 31-point difference in the performance of White and Black fourth grade
students. In grades 8 and 12, the achievement gap widened. The achievement gap
for eighth grade students grew from 32 to 39 points, and in grade 12 33 to 34 points
(NCES, 2002).
The NCLB Act (2001) addresses the alarming achievement gap amid
disadvantaged youth in section 101. This law amended the Title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) in an effort to
improve the academic achievement of the disadvantaged. The purpose of the
amendment was to provide an equal, fair, and challenging education to all children
specifically those at-risk, living in poverty, and or minorities.
Student Achievement Trends and Standardized Testing in California
In response to the decline in student achievement, the state of California
embarked on an ambitious multiple year venture to raise the academic
achievement of students. The state of California designed a new assessment
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
system in 1997 titled the Standardized Testing and Reporting system (STAR).
The STAR program was authorized through Senate Bill 376 (1997). The purpose
of the STAR program was to help measure how well all students in California
public schools were learning basic academic skills. This high stakes
accountability system requires annual administration of the Stanford
Achievement Test 9, otherwise known as the SAT 9. Results of these tests are
reported according to the performance levels achieved. The five performance
levels are advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic. The state
has established the proficient level as the achievement goal for all students. In
2003, the CAT 6 will replace the SAT 9 norm-referenced test. The CAT 6 will
assess achievement toward mastery of the California’s language arts and
mathematics standards. (California Department of Education (CDE), 2000; CDE
2001; CDE 2002; California Department of Education: Standards and Assessment
Division (CDE: SAD), 2002).
The legislature reauthorized the STAR program to continue through the
year 2005. According to the California Department of Education: Standards and
Assessment Division (2002), the program will Continue to feature three
components: the California Standards Test (CST); the norm-referenced test
(NRT) which provides data for national comparisons; and the SAB E/2 for newly
enrolled students whose first language is Spanish (CDE, 2002).
In July 2000, the CDE in conjunction with the State Board of Education
(SBE) designed a three-year plan for the development of the state’s assessment team.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
The plan proposes six principles for the full implementation of the standards-reform
assessment system. These principles include mastery of state content standards,
rigorous technical standards, STAR standards test as core of assessment system, a
norm reference test for national comparison, coordination of other state assessments
such as California English Language Development Test (CELDT) and California
High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE), and useful data results for program
modification (CDE: SAD, 2002; State Board of Education (SBE) & CDE, 2002).
During the 1990’s, federal laws were written to promote the development and
implementation of academic standards and educational reform programs. The
purpose of the standards-based reform movement was to develop an educational
program where all children are exposed and challenged to meet the same high
expectations, and are held accountable for results (EdSource, 2000; Tucker &
Coddings, 1998). The state’s standards-based framework includes standards,
assessment, and accountability. The standards include three broad categories;
academic content standards, supplemental standards adopted by the State
Superintendent of Instruction and or local school districts, and standards reflected in
course examinations (CDE, 2002; EdSource 2001; Paige, 2002).
Current law requires the state to design an accountability system that
steadily increases the percentage of students who score "proficient" or above on
standardized tests. Legislation stipulates that a solid accountability system should
include detailed academic standards in each content area for what students should
master; a system for data collection which is aligned with state standards; test
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
data to identify strengths and weaknesses in the system; a report of school
conditions and progress to parents and communities; empower parents to take
action based on school information; celebrate schools that make real progress;
and direct changes in schools that need assistance (CDE, 2002).
In Spring 2002, 4.7 million California public school students in grades 2
through 11 took part in the fifth year of testing as mandated by the state’s STAR
program. SAT 9 data from 1998-2002 conclude that students in grades 2-4 made
incremental gains raising the number of those reading at or above the 50th
percentile. In grade 2 reading scores were up 8 points, grade 3 increased by 10
points, and grade 4 a total of 9 points. On the other hand, students in grades 5-7
reading scores dropped. In grade 5, reading scores dipped to a negative seven,
grade 6 a negative eight, and in grade 7 a negative eight. In 2001-2002, most
grade levels made incremental gains in the percentage of students scoring at or
above the proficient level in English language arts. Grades 2, 6, and 8 made zero
growth. Grade 7 dropped one point. All students in grades 2-7 made positive
gains in mathematics. In the spring of 2001, the California Department of
Education expanded the STAR to include a writing assessment component for
grades 4 and 7 (CDE, 2002).
The state of California first reported results of the California Standards
Test for Language Arts and Mathematics in 2001. The results were disturbing.
The California Department of Education (2001) reported that in 2002, only 31%
of California’s fifth, sixth and eleventh grade students scored at or above the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
proficient level in language arts. In grades 2 and 8, 32%, and grades seven, nine,
and ten 33%. In mathematics, second grade had the highest number of students
scoring at or above the proficient level with 43% of students scoring in these
bands. In the elementary grades, fifth grade students had the lowest number of
students scoring at or above the 50th percentile. In grade 5, only 29% of students
scored at or above proficiency (CDE, 2002).
An analysis of California’s subgroups of students suggests that Hispanics
have made the most gains among all ethnic groups. The Academic Performance
Index (API) data from 1999 to 2001 assert Hispanic students increased their API
score by 55 points. However, overall Hispanics still scored significantly less than
other subgroups. This data also suggests that other disadvantaged groups
including English learners and economically disadvantaged students made gains
comparable to those of all students. According to EdSource (2002), some test
results suggest that California may be making progress in narrowing the
achievement gap however others disagree.
Although the SAT 9 is currently used as the most powerful indicator of
student achievement in the state of California, the norm referenced standardized test
has been criticized for its lack of cultural sensitivity and lack of alignment to state
standards. The state’s standardized test has been accused of superficially addressing
the state’s diverse student population. According to Bernal and Valencia (2000), to
achieve equity standardized test must be multicultural meaningful to all groups. Au
and Rafeal (2000) also argue whether the state’s test is a measure of student literacy
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
or the inability to meet the needs of students from diverse backgrounds. Previous
research has argued that the socioeconomic status of students is an important
indicator of student achievement. Caldas and Bankton (1997) declare family poverty
as measured by participation in the federal free and program had a highly significant
negative impact on student achievement.
Achievement Gap and Trends of the Last Decade
Over the last decade, numerous reform efforts and policies were
implemented in public schools in an effort to improve student learning. Within
this reform, the lack of achievement among minority students has been unveiled.
Across the nation, non-minority students have consistently outperformed
students from most other ethnic backgrounds and impoverished families. This
disparity in educational and economic outcomes between minority and non
minority students has become known as the “achievement gap” (CDE 2002;
NCLB 2002; Public Schools of North Carolina, 2000). Au and Rafael (2002)
explored the concept of equity and literacy in the next millennium. These
researchers argue that there exists a significant negative difference in the
achievement of students from diverse backgrounds as opposed to mainstream
students. Students from diverse backgrounds are defined as those with diverse
ethnicity, color, or social class as the mainstream society. In California, these
groups often translate to African-American, Latino, and or those with a primary
language other than English. According to Au and Rafael (2002), the NAEP
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
scores for these disadvantaged groups suffer greatly in reading and writing. On
the other hand, Au and Rafael (2002) also question the validity of standardized
literacy tests. These researchers argue that people have multiple literacy
capabilities; however, standardized tests only measure one form.
According to EdSource (2002) in the years 2000-2001, the Kindergarten
through 12th grade public school student enrollment totaled 6,050,895. White
students made up 36% of the state’s student population. Hence, the state’s
Hispanic population has surpassed the number of White students consequently
becoming the largest ethnic group in the state. The year 2000-2001, also found
25% of the student population to be made up of English language learners
(EdSource, 2002). The California Department of Education, Educational
Demographics Unit, reported an alarming number of dropouts in California
Public Schools. In grades 9-12, there existed 11,366 White students who dropped
out of high school and 7,118 Black students (CDE, 2002). Most disturbing is the
variance between ethnic groups. In 2000-2001, the total number of Hispanic
dropouts in grades 9-12 totaled 24,976. Hispanic students make up the majority
of high school dropouts. According the California Department of Education,
Hispanics currently represent over half of the current student population in the
state of California. With this in mind, the state of California’s economic power is
threatened by the growing number of Hispanic dropouts, which could have
irrevocable repercussions for the state’s economy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Data presented by the National Center for Education Statistics (2000) show
evidence that the achievement gap has been widening since 1988. The rates and
statistics are truly alarming. The 1999-2000 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) showed that high school aged Black children scored an outrageous
31 reading points lower than the same aged White child. More disturbing is the fact
that Black student scores were 11 points lower in 2000, than in 1988. In
mathematics, scores for Black students were down 12 points (Green, 2001; Hoff,
2000), According to Kahlberg (2000), the average twelfth grade low income,
minority student reads at the same level as the average eighth grade middle-class
white student. This lack of academic achievement is also evident in students’ grades,
test scores, dropout rates, college entrance rates, and college graduation rates (Blair,
2000; National Center for Education Statistics 2000).
Although scores for English learners and other subgroups are increasing,
there remains an undeniable gap between groups of students. Results of California’s
2002 STAR tests challenge educators to focus attention on state reform schools and
low-performing students where the gaps are the greatest. There exists a dire need to
ensure that school principals and teachers provide all students with the access and
mastery of a standards-based education.
Social. Economic. Political, and Moral lssues Raised by the Achievement Gap
Education is the foundation of democracy. As such, all people have the
right to receive a free and challenging education that pushes people to reach their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
full potential. If the achievement gap in not eliminated and the drop out rate
continues to grow, Californians stand to loose the freedom o f economic
opportunities to only the well educated. These social and economic
consequences could lead to moral and ethical consequences as well. One can only
imagine the repercussions of a society where the majority of its people lack basic
reading and mathematics skills.
It is generally acknowledged that a college degree increases one’s earning
potential. A well-educated population is essential if the state of California is to
continue to be competitive in the global economy. Education is essential to the
economic survival of the state. Benner, Brownstein, and Dean (1999) argue that
within the next decade the majority of jobs will require higher education or
postsecondary training. In 2001, 34% of new jobs required a minimum of a
bachelor’s degree, and a reported 90% of jobs required at least a high school
reading and math skill level (Benner et al., 1999; Business Coalition for
Education Reform (BCER), 1999; CDE, 2002; National Association of Business
(NAB), 1998). Current college enrollment trends indicate that white children will
be nearly twice as likely as their African-American classmates, and three times as
likely as their Hispanic classmates, to have a college degree.
The lack of a college degree is negatively effecting these students’
employment and earning potential, with more of the minority students heading
toward low-paying jobs (Johnston & Viadero, 2000). Approximately half of the
children in California live at or below the poverty line (CDE, 2000). As the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
population of those living in poverty increases together with the increasing
number of high socioeconomic people, the state stands to divide its people into
two groups, the “haves” and “have nots” (Fullan, 1993). This division has the
potential to cause moral and ethical issues. All people need the opportunity to
develop skills and education needed to become contributing members of society,
and to maintain the nation’s economic freedom and democracy.
Two decades later the achievement gap still exists. As the state of
California’s populous of minority students continues to grow, as does the high
school dropout rate, California is under increasing pressure to reduce and or
eliminate the achievement gap. Cook and Evans (2000) and Johnson and Neal
(1998) argue that if the achievement gap persists, minority students will be on the
wrong side of America’s economy; in employment, salary, future earnings, and
earning potential. This lack of basic skills limits the earning potential of its
people, hence the state’s economic stability is in danger. These consequences
threaten to negatively affect the social, economic, political, and moral standing of
disadvantaged people. According to Lucas (2000) and Gordon (2000), these
statistics are showing a disturbing trend of what these authors term
“institutionalized discrimination” (Gordon, 2000; Lucas, 2000).
Research clearly indicates that there is a serious achievement gap between
minority and White students, which is having devastating effects on society. The
nation's children are graduating from school or dropping out without the most
essential basic skills needed to positively contribute to society. Minority children
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
in particular are leaving school without high school diplomas and the ability to
read, write, and do simple math. African Americans, Latinos, and immigrants for
whom English is not a first language lag behind English-speaking, native-born,
white students (Cook & Evans, 2000; Johnson & Neal, 1998).
Since 1966, American taxpayers have spent more than $321 billion on public
education (EdSource, 2002). The United States has the most diverse group of
students in its history, and demographic trends indicate the diversity will become
even greater. There is only a generation before the country’s school aged children
becomes majority non-White. Hence, California schools are under increasing
pressure to effectively reform schools. Consequently, educators feel a sense of
urgency to meet state demands to produce productive students who can produce and
compete in the global economy. As such, educators, policy-makers, and the public
have a personal stake in the success of their children. However, societal issues are at
stake if the achievement gap is not narrowed in the near future. This achievement
gap could have serious social, economic, political and moral consequences (Cook &
Evans, 2000; Gordon, 2000; Johnson & Neal, 1998; Lucas, 2000).
The Accountability Movement Within Standards-Based Reform
Over the past decade numerous reform efforts and policies have been
implemented in public education to improve instruction and student learning. Over
the last three years, the state of California has embarked on an ambitious endeavor to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
raise the academic achievement of all students. The State Board of Education has
adopted a standards-based educational framework to radically reform education. One
major school reform strategy for raising student achievement is the accountability
movement within standards-based reform. The framework includes three
interdependent components; content standards, an assessment and reporting system
and the Academic Performance Index (API) (CDE, 2001; CDE, 2002; CDE: SAD,
2002).
The standards-based reform movement prompted the design of statewide
academic grade level standards. In 1999, the California State Board of Education
presented the Reading/Language Arts Framework fo r California Public Schools,
Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. The framework is built upon the 1997
English -Language Arts and Mathematics Content Standards adopted by the State
Board of Education in November 1997. Education Code 60605, Section (f) (1999)
required the new framework to be aligned to the state standards. Grade level
academic standards rigorously define what all children should know and be able
to do in grades K-12 (E. Code, 1999; CDE, 2002). Grade level standards are
intended to prepare all children for post secondary education and professional
careers (EdSource, 2001).
The second component was designed in 1997, the state assessment system
is known as the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program. The STAR
program was authorized through Senate Bill 376 (1997). The purpose of the
STAR program is to help measure and inform the public on how well students in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
California schools are learning basic academic skills (S. 376, 1997). Assessments
within the standards-based reform movement are intended to assess students’
achievement towards and mastery of grade level standards. The Stanford
Achievement Test, Ninth Edition, Form T (SAT 9); Spanish Assessment of Basic
Education, Second Edition (SABE); and the California Standards Tests make up
the assessment component of the standards-based framework.
The third component, the accountability piece, includes the State
Academic Performance Index (API) which was placed into law in 1999 under
Senate Bill 1552 Chapter 3, the Public School Accountability Act (PSAA). The
STAR program results are used to determine the schools Academic Performance
Index by measuring the performance and progress of individual schools on the
SAT 9 and the state standards examination. It is a numeric index that ranges from
a low of 200 to a high of 1000. The state has set an Academic Performance Index
goal of 800 for all schools. Schools that fail to meet the statewide goal will be
required to meet annual growth targets, typically a growth of 5% until their goal
is achieved (CDE 2002; EdSource, 2000; S. Bill, 1999). The California
Department of Education is responsible for calculating and disseminating the
state’s API results.
School Accountability
The PSAA, Senate Bill 1552 (1999), established a statewide
accountability system that holds each school annually accountable for making
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
gains in student achievement. The PSAA has three elements: the API; Governor’s
Performance Award (GPA) program; and the Immediate Intervention/
Underperforming School Program (II-USP). The API component mandates that
all public schools be ranked according to API results. All schools performing
below 800 are expected to show improvement in academic achievement by
meeting annual growth targets as determined by the school’s Academic
Performance Index and approved by the State Board of Education (SBE). Schools
that meet or exceed their growth targets are eligible for monetary awards through
the GPA Program. Schools that do not meet or do not make significant progress
toward their growth targets as determined by Academic Performance Index scores
are subject to state sanctions and interventions including participation in state
reform programs such as II-USP.
Under the Public School Accountability Act (1999), the district governing
board of any school that fails to meet its annual growth target after the first full
year of implementation is required to hold a public hearing to ensure that
members of the school community are aware of the lack of progress (S. 1552,
1999). The governing board is then required to intervene in the school, as
specified, in order to assist the school in making progress toward meeting the
school’s growth targets.
In California, if a school fails to meet the school target growth, or has not
shown significant progress towards meeting its annual growth target after two
years, the school could suffer the following consequences. Under state sanctions,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
the State Superintendent of Public Instruction could "assume all the legal rights,
duties, and powers of the governing board with respect to that school. . . and
reassign the principal...” (S. 1552, 1999). In addition, the State Superintendent of
Public Instruction is required to take at least one of the following seven actions:
(1) revise attendance options for pupils to allow them to attend any public school
in which space is available; (2) allow parents to apply directly to the SBE for the
establishment of a charter school; (3) assign the management of the school to a
college, university, county office of education, or other appropriate educational
institution; (4) reassign other certificated employees of the school; (5) renegotiate
a new collective bargaining agreement at the expiration of the existing
agreement; (6) reorganize the school; or (7) close the school (S. Bill 1552, 1999).
Student Accountability
Traditional assessment systems focused on the overall achievement of
school districts. However, under new standards-based reform, the focus becomes
more individualistic as school API scores are published in local newspapers, and
individual student results are disseminated to parents and school staff. Students’
increasing accountability is not only notable through mandatory SAT 9, CELDT,
and SAB E/2 tests as required by the STAR program (S. 376, 1997), but also
through retention promotion laws, the California High School Exam (CAHSEE),
college placement exams including the SAT I/II and the American College Test
(ACT) (CDE, 2002; CDE: SAD, 2002). All of which include assessment o f the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
mastery or progress toward mastery of academic content standards. Hence, the
acquisition of content standards is of academic priority in passing these
examinations and in receiving a high school diploma.
Commencing in 2004, all public high school students must pass CAHSEE
to receive a high school diploma. The California High School Exit Exam is a
criterion-referenced test that is aligned to the state’s English language arts and
mathematics standards. Current law stipulates that no student will receive a high
school diploma without first passing both sections of the exam (S. Bill 376,
1997). According to the State Board of Education, students will be provided
multiple opportunities to pass the test. Students, who pass one section yet fail the
other, only have to retake the section not previously passed (CDE, 2002; CDE:
SAD, 2002). Students will also be held accountable for attendance according to
the State Board of Education. The state is expected to eventually include student
and staff attendance, graduation rates, and the number of students passing the
CAHSEE into the school’s overall API calculation. These measures reinforce
school site and individual accountability within the standards-based reform
movement (CDE, 2002; CDE: SAD, 2002).
Origin of the Public School Accountability Act and Key Features
Senate Bill IX, Chapter 3 (1999), otherwise known as the Public School
Accountability Act (PSAA), was signed into law in 1999. The PSAA authorized
the creation of a new educational accountability system for California public
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
schools. The State Board of Education asserts the primary purpose of the
legislation is to assist schools in improving the academic achievement of all
students (California Department of Education: PS A A (CDE: PS A A), 2002).
Senate Bill IX (1999), Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999, established a
statewide accountability system that holds each school annually accountable for
making gains in student achievement. Under the system, all schools are ranked
and expected to show improvement in academic achievement by meeting annual
growth targets as determined by the school’s Academic Performance Index and
approved by the State Board of Education (SBE). Schools that meet or exceed
their growth targets are eligible for monetary awards. Schools that do not meet or
do not make significant progress toward their growth targets as determined by
Academic Performance Index scores are subject to state sanctions and
interventions.
The California Department of Education is responsible for the
administration of the PS A A. The PSAA has established an advisory committee
to oversee the three elements which make up the act. The three elements which
include the Academic Performance Index, an Alternative Schools Accountability
System (ASAM) for small schools, and statewide evaluations (CDE: PSAA,
2002). The committee’s primary responsibility is to monitor the state’s API
growth targets.
Under Public School Accountability Act (PSAA), the district governing
board of any school that fails to meet its annual growth target after the first full
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
year of implementation is required to hold a public hearing to ensure that
members of the school community are aware of the lack of progress (S. 1552,
1999). The governing board is then required to intervene in the school, as
specified, to assist the school in making progress in the direction of meeting the
school’s growth targets.
Schools failing to meet state growth targets and who are in the lower API
deciles are eligible for state intervention programs. Intervention programs
include Immediate Intervention/Underperforming schools Program (II-USP),
High Priority Schools Grant (HPSG), and or Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration (CSRD). In California, if a school fails to meet the school target
growth, or has not shown significant progress toward meeting its annual growth
target after two years the State Superintendent of Public Instruction (SSPI) could
"assume all the legal rights, duties, and powers of the governing board with
respect to that school... and reassign the principal...” (S. 1552, 1999).
Schools that meet or exceed the API growth criteria are eligible to
participate in the Governor’s Performance (GPA) Program. The GPA has four
award programs which include monetary awards, superintendent’s distinguished
schools award, public commendations or the school honor roll, and a waiver of
education code requirements (CDE:PSAA, 2001).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
Evidence of Implementation. Value and Effectiveness
Just and Boese (2002), CDE research staff, performed a state wide
research and evaluation study of the 430 schools in Cohort 1 of the II-USP
schools, the 80 schools funded by the federal Comprehensive School Reform
Demonstration (CSRD) program and 350 Action Plan schools to evaluate the
implementation, perceived value and the effectiveness to date of state reform
schools. In April 2002, the CDE research staff published the perceived value of
the program as well as recommendations for improvement. The data gathered
including API scores, site visitations, and surveys focused on the programs
second year of program implementation and the impact of school reform (Just &
Boese, 2002). The program effectiveness data gathered and analyzed the
programs’ “effectiveness” in the areas of school organization, governance, staff
attitudes and expectations, curriculum content, and instruction practices.
In terms of “effectiveness,” CDE (CDE, 2002) defines the term as the
operational changes in the areas- of school organization, governance structure,
staff attitudes and expectations, curriculum content and instructional practices
which lead to increased achievement. Site visitations led CDE researchers to
conclude that participation in state reform programs raised the level of awareness
of staff consequently increasing the level of academic achievement. Action Plan
schools tended to be in an “awakening” stage which is believed to have raised
teachers’ and principals’ awareness of student needs and learning potential.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
CDE researchers concluded that state reform programs often provided a
valuable comprehensive and focused structure for school reform. The majority of
schools experiencing success adopted a structured model for school reform which
incorporated specific curricula or strategies such as Success For All or direct
teaching (Just & Boese, 2002). These schools appeared to have a built-in
capacity to engage in systemic reform. Nearly one-half, 48% of state reform
schools contracted with external evaluators during the first year of
implementation (CDE: SAD, 2002).
The systemic reform encountered at successful schools provided
professional development in language arts and mathematics coupled with on-site
training and support services. The professional development provided fostered
improved teaching strategies that led to increased student achievement. Teaching
strategies were also supported by trained literacy coaches who modeled the use of
effective teaching strategies inside the classroom. Literacy coaches provided the
on-site support needed to integrate effective teaching strategies into daily
practice. Professional development encountered at successful state reform
schools emphasized collaborative decision-making and school governance.
These schools also emphasized parental and community involvement in program
decisions.
Although API data provided evidence that some reform schools made
strong API progress; over one-half did not achieve API growth targets (CDE:
Policy and Evaluation Division, 2002). Perceived problems of program
permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
implementation focused on two major barriers; the instability of administrative
staff and there also existed problems with “school-wide” reforms at the middle
and high school level.
According to Just and Boese (2002), another issue found at state reform
schools was the “perceived” and “actual” district support given to reform schools.
Data collected showed evidence that administrative support varied greatly which
consequently affected the level of implementation of state reform. The variance
in program implementation and success was often attributed to limited district
support. The CDE research staff found minimal consistency across districts.
District support was often limited to data analysis and evaluation, the needed
assistance in removing barriers to learning and funding for program
implementation was sparse. Additionally, schools struggling to meet API targets
tended to have incoherent professional development plans which were not clearly
linked to student achievement and or needs (Just & Boese, 2002).
Site visitation data suggest state reform schools are becoming more data
driven. At state reform schools, data was used to plan and monitor instruction to
meet the educational needs of individual students. Furthermore, data indicated
that teacher commitment and support highly impacted the success of the reform
implementation as well as school change. According to CDE (2002), successful
reform schools found 98% of principals concurred that teachers in state reform
schools strongly supported the school’s reform model. The effectiveness of
school reform strategies is also closely linked to implementing a program or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
teaching strategies that matches the needs of the school site. At successful
schools, 93% of principals reported the reform model selected matched the needs
of their school (CDE, 2002).
II-USP, HPSG, and CSRD schools all require the submittal of a school
action plan. Action plans are required to address the district’s governing board
policies, parental and community involvement, fiscal management, personnel
management, and curriculum management plans to raise student achievement.
However, CDE (2002) found conflicting results at the implementation stage of
state funded action plan schools. The data gathered to support this assertion
focused on the implementation of action plans, professional development, role
and support of the district, parent and community involvement, evaluation design
and strategies, effectiveness of action plans to date.
The effectiveness of participation in state reform is positive. Results
indicate that 84% of principals agreed that their school staffs were highly
satisfied in school reform participation, and 94% would recommend participation
to schools with similar characteristics. In addition, 98% of school principals
agreed that participation had benefited their reading and language arts program,
88% asserted a positive gain in parent and community involvement, 83% in
school governance. Lastly, 91% of school administrators attributed student
academic gains to state reform action plans (CDE, 2002).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
II-USP. HPSG and CSR
Senate Bill 1552, the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999,
established a statewide accountability system that holds each school annually
accountable for making gains in student achievement. The PSAA has three
elements; the Academic Performance Index; Governor’s Award (GPA) program;
and the Immediate Intervention/ Underperforming School Program (II-USP).
Schools that meet or exceed their growth targets are eligible for monetary awards
through GPA Program. Schools that do not meet or do not make significant
progress toward their growth targets as determined by Academic Performance
Index scores are subject to state sanctions and interventions including
participation in II-USP, HPSG and CSR (S. Bill 1552, 1999).
The California Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 provides for
schools in the lower half of the statewide distribution of STAR achievement tests
that are a decile 1-5 school, and did not meet their academic growth targets to be
able to participate in the Intermediate/ Underperforming Schools Program (II-
USP). II-USP schools receive two years of state funds at $200.00 per student to
fund the implementation of a state approved action plan (CDE, 2002).
II-USP schools require the involvement of external evaluators that are
hired to work with school sites and community teams to develop an action plan.
The action plan serves as a blueprint for the school and community to focus on
raising student achievement to meet the academic growth targets of the school.
The action plan must meet the requirements specified in Education Code Section
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
52054.3 (2001). The action plans must be research-based and data driven; consist
of plans for ongoing data gathering; grounded on an initial needs assessment;
community involvement; include the expectation that all children will learn and
every school can succeed; a design for a school that is conducive to teaching and
learning; and human, financial, and other resources to implement the action plan
(CDE 2002; E. Code 52054.3, 2001).
The II-USP requires the involvement of an external evaluator or other
entity. Education Code Section 5204 (2001) specifies that the external evaluator
or other entity must inform the community that the low performing school has
been invited to participate in the program; must hold a public meeting to elicit
recommendations from the school community; invite parents to submit written
recommendations for school improvement; complete a review of the school;
provide technical assistance; make recommendations for improvement; and
develop an action plan to raise student achievement (CDE 2002; E. Code 5204,
2001).
Assembly Bill 961, Chapter 747, statutes of 2001 established the High
Priority Schools Grant otherwise known as the HPSG. The purpose of this
program is to assist the lowest performing schools in the state in raising student
achievement. All schools that rank in decile 1 according the statewide API are
invited to participate in the HPSG program. However, participation in the HPSG
program automatically mandates participation in II-USP meaning HPSG schools
must also meet the entire mandate of II-USP. Therefore, HPSG schools are
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
required to submit an action plan and hire an external evaluator or other entity.
Action plans must be approved by local and state boards to receive funding (AB
961,2001).
A dollar amount of $400.00 per student with a $200.00 matching fund is
awarded to the school to assist in raising student achievement by offering
additional resources to target student intervention. The goal of the HPSG is to
ensure additional resources assist all participating schools in implementing
change that will lead to increased student achievement. Participating schools
have 24 months to meet growth targets. Schools that do not reach growth target
are required to hold a local public hearing. Lack of progress after 36 months
could result in state interventions and sanctions by the State Board of Education
and the Superintendent of Public Instruction (AB 961; CDE, 2002).
While the purpose of HPSG is the same as II-USP, the legislature has
included additional incentives to encourage decile 1 schools to participate in the
HPSG intervention program. In addition to the funding of $400.00 per pupil,
HPSG provides three years of funding, greater flexibility in the selecting external
entities, and an opportunity to modify action plans. However, along with these
additional incentives are additional requirements including Assembly Bill 466
(AB 466), Professional Development in Reading and Mathematics as well as
Assembly Bill 75 (AB 75), Principal’s Training Program (CDE, 2002).
AB 75 provides incentive funding to train school site administrators. The
training provides 80 hours of intensive training along with an additional 80 hours of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
support and or professional development. The training elements include school
financial and personnel management; academic standards; curriculum frameworks
and materials; use of assessments to plan instruction; technology; and an extension
of the preliminary administrative preparation program. AB 466 established the
Mathematics and Reading Professional Development Program. This bill provides
intensive training in the use of state adopted standards-based instructional materials.
Participating teachers are also required to attend 160 hours of professional
development and support activities (CDE, 2001; CDE, 2002).
Formerly known as the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
Program (CSRD), the program was recently renamed with the passage of the federal
law NCLB of 2001. The Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) Program offers
schools and districts the opportunity to implement school-wide research-based
reform strategies to increase student achievement. CSRD funds $200.00 per student
to implement the goals of its action plan. CSR action plans focus on basic academics
and increased parental involvement. Grants are renewable for two additional years,
however monies are contingent on federal funding and gains made in making
progress toward meeting the school's goals and benchmarks (CDE, 2001; CDE,
2002).
A CSR program must address the following components: implementation of
proven methods and strategies based on scientifically based research; a
comprehensive design with aligned components; ongoing, high-quality professional
development for teachers and staff; measurable goals and benchmarks for student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
achievement; support within the school by teachers, administrators and staff;
meaningful parent and community involvement in planning, implementing and
evaluating school improvement activities; use of high-quality external technical
support and assistance from an external partner with experience and expertise in
school wide reform and improvement; plans for the evaluation of strategies for the
implementation of school reforms and for student results; resources to support and
sustain the school's comprehensive reform effort; and significantly improve or
demonstrate evidence of progress toward raising academic achievement of students
(CDE, 2001; CDE, 2002).
Due to the recent state budget crisis, participation in CSR has been drastically
limited. The majority of schools participating in CSR and II-USP are also high
schools. HPSG have a greater number of elementary schools participating thus
creating a larger selection for a case study. All HPSG automatically initiates
participation in II-USP; therefore a study of a HPSG would include a study of II-USP
as well. Hence, two programs can be analyzed by studying a HPSG school. The
HPSG program is best suited for an accountability system in elementary schools.
Key Strategies For Implementing School Reform
The successful implementation of school reform hinges on the role and
effectiveness of the school principal. Fullan (1993) proposed four components to
effectively restructure schools: getting clear on the focus of change, making change
organizational and systemic, managing the ongoing change process, and deploying
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
state restructuring grants funds to spur change. Successful reform schools involve
school stakeholders and unify efforts through the creation of key holder focus groups
whose duties often include budget decisions; staffing and curricular decision-making
including professional development; community outreach programs; data action
walk-through teams; and other innovative approaches to empower school
communities.
Change is a constant element in education. The increasing diversity of the
school populations, the evolution of state standards for students and teachers, and
new state mandates for reforming California’s public schools contribute to this
change. Consequently, principals seeking reform must understand theoretical
research on educational change and factors affecting adoption, implementation,
and evaluation of public school reform. Unfortunately, many reform programs
that are adopted are not implemented as the adoption poses new challenges. The
process of implementing educational reform is often subject to several factors
obstructing its success.
Fullan (1991) organized these factors affecting implementation into two
categories pertaining to (1) the characteristics of the innovation or change project
and (2) the local rules. The need, clarity, complexity, and practicality of
executing a change are the fundamental and logistical characteristics that aid in
deterring implementation. The proposed change must match the needs of the
school and district personnel seeking the change. At the forefront of this list, is
the quality of educational innovations as well as access to them (Fullan, 1991).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
Additionally, the purpose and goals of reform need to be articulated to ensure
success. The local rules of the principal, district, community, principal, and
teacher determine the social conditions of the change (Fullan, 1991). Congruent
with research literature on reform, Sizer (1992) postulates that powerful support
and collaboration with administrators, teachers, students and their families are
necessary to reshape the way schools run (Lieberman & Miller, 1981).
Once again, the principal must also be knowledgeable and able to apply
strategies for implementing successful “change” presented by education reform.
As a result of research on improving America’s schools, Lieberman and Miller
(1981) cite three essential understandings about teachers. First, teachers
incrementally make strides to change. It is a process that can only be achieved
over time. Secondly, teachers who have a sense of efficacy and are empowered
to make a difference are motivated. Consequently, teachers who are motivated
desire to reform and refine their instructional practices. According to Lieberman
and Miller (1981), any school improvements must begin with the needs and
concerns of teachers and actively engage them in the improvement process to
implement successful change. This support and collaboration ensures teachers
acceptance that in turn furnishes a willingness to work diligently in the direction
of change (O’Neil, 1995). However, the principal must model the collaborative
approach for this to occur in a supportive environment.
According to Lieberman and Miller, school improvements must start with needs
and concerns of all employees and actively engage them in the improvement process in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
order to implement successful change (Klein, 1992). This support and collaboration
ensures acceptance, which in turn, furnishes a willingness to work diligently in the
direction of change (O’Neil, 995). If the above-mentioned understandings are not
addressed, they carry the potential to detour change consequently becoming obstacles.
Research compiled by the RAND study concluded the larger the
innovation, the program scope, the higher the level of change (McLaughlin &
Marsh, 1978). The RAND study attributed this finding to the level of challenge
faced by the teachers in the organizations. Results found the more teachers were
challenged, the more likely they were to change and carry out the innovation
(McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978). However, the findings cautioned not to do too
much too soon! This approach could have adverse affects on the success of the
implementation. Huberman and Miles (1987) found similar adverse results.
Their findings also cautioned that although larger innovations brought about
wanted change, it could also bring about teacher stress and bum out. This
literature links this premise to what has been coined as “ambitiousness vs.
practicality” in addressing the size of an innovation (Huberman & Miles, 1987).
State reform schools call for administrators who understand the
implementation and facilitation of change. Michael Fullan (1991) proposes six
themes in the implementation of an innovation. These themes include initiative
taking and empowerment; staff development and or resource assistance;
monitoring and or problem-solving; restructuring; vision-building; and
evolutionary planning. The first theme initiative taking focuses on sharing the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
decision-making process to empower the people affected in the innovation. The
importance of interactive staff development and resource assistance follows. The
most effective staff development is concrete, focused, and provides on-going
support. As with any innovation, assessment of the implementation is critical.
At this stage, the monitoring/problem-coping stage is used to assess the
implementation, involve stakeholders, make modifications to the implementation,
if needed, and learn from mistakes (Fullan, 1991). The restructuring stage
addresses the design/make-up of the school, meetings, etc. According to Fullan
the next stage, vision building includes two dimensions shared vision of what the
school should look like and shared vision of the change process. Finally, an
effective plan should engage in evolutionary planning to balance the fit between
the process of change and the needs of the school.
G. Hall and S. Hord (2001) designed seven gradations of concern ranging
from awareness to refocusing, Stages of Concern (Hall, 2001). In the first of
Hall’s stages, awareness, individuals are unfamiliar with the innovation, having
no interest in pursuing it. Persons in the next stage develop informational
concerns; they are not only aware of the innovation, but also curious, seeking
more information. The personal concern stage can be characterized as a
dissonance created between the individuals and their capabilities to meet the
challenges of the innovation. Having progressed through self-orientated concerns
individuals encounter task-oriented concerns. These concerns focus on the
logistics of implementing innovations. Finally, individuals proceed to impact-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
orientated concerns and the refinement of the innovations. This stage includes
the consequence stage; individuals examine the impact of innovations. This
enables them to perfect newly acquired innovations through collaboration and
modification.
For clarity, the first three stages, awareness, informational and personal,
fall under the larger umbrella of “self.” The fourth stage “management” falls
under the second umbrella of “task.” This stage includes the technical side of
implementing the innovation and the time involved. Stages five through six are
under the final umbrella of “impact.” The impact stage focuses on the refinement
of the implementation. Furthermore, the stages are assigned a numeric symbol as
follows; awareness stage 0; informational stage 1: personal stage 2, management.
Hall and Hord (2001) also designed the diagnostic tool, Level of Use, (LoU), to
assess the level of use of an innovation and its pattern. In contrast to the Stages
of Concern that addressed the affective face of change, the LoU diagnoses the
behavior related to the change process (Hall & Hord, 2001).
In an effort to raise API scores and meet yearly academic growth targets,
school districts regularly invest in education reform grants, programs, or
initiatives to raise student achievement. However, many variables specifically
the ability to “change” influence the adoption and the success of school reform.
Therefore, the principal’s understanding of the dynamics of change is crucial in
the implementation, facilitation, and evaluation of educational reform projects.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
Principals at actively restructured schools personified managers and facilitators of
change (Fullan, 1991; Hall & Hord, 2001; Wohlstetter & Mohrman, 1994).
Recent educational reform efforts also encourage principals to involve
school stakeholders including teachers, students, parents, and members of the
community in making program decisions and taking risks. Researchers Ramirez-
Smith (1995), Wohlstetter and Mohrman (1995), and Keller (1995) assert the
involvement of key players leads to higher quality, better run schools. The
involvement o f the school community’s key players promotes empowerment
consequently fostering an increased number of school leaders, and enhanced
decision-making. The involvement of key players in school site decisions
empowers leaders and fosters unifying support and efforts.
In an effort to gain advocacy from stakeholders, Ramirez-Smith (1995)
and Keller (1995) examine how schools hold monthly stakeholder focus group
meetings to gain advocacy behind an educational approach. These focus groups
are composed of administrators, teachers, students, parents, and community
members. Focus groups meet to discuss school site goals and make site-based
decisions. Focus groups can support efforts at unifying educational decisions by
eliciting the input of all key players.
Keller (1995) explored the reform efforts of an Accelerated School in
Sacramento, California that support the involvement of key players. Edison
school has adopted the Accelerated School reform program that emphasize
creative teaching equipped with a specific learning philosophy without
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
compromising the individual needs of a school. Accelerated Schools have three
unifying themes including unity of purpose, empowerment, and inclusively of all
school stakeholders. Keller (1995) additionally emphasized the importance of the
"transformation stage" when engaging in change or an adoption. Schools
successful in reaching high performance status have been found to be “ready” and
“committed” to change; included participation of all stakeholders (students,
parents, support staff, teachers, and district office personnel); had a systematic
transformation process; and an on-going support system. Specifically, district
support which is needed to maintain change.
Ramirez-Smith (1995) argue the inclusion of all stakeholders in program
decisions promote a plethora of successful results for high performing schools.
The author also examined the Comer Model founded by James Comer in
Connecticut in the 1960's. The model advocates collaborative decision-making
and consensus building. An elementary school in Virginia adopted the Comer
Model in an attempt to turn around low performing schools. Several Virginia
schools implemented the Comer Model by promoting relationships between
schools and families, making a sincere commitment to change, building
collaborative teams, actively involving parents, being risk-takers, and promoting
unity. They also built social calendars, and created a school culture of "high
expectations” (Ramirez-Smith, 1995).
Wohlstetter and Mohrman (1994) identified two types of reform schools
working in the direction of reform to become high performance schools. These
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
schools were characterized as either “actively” restructuring schools or
“struggling” restructuring schools. Actively restructuring schools were
characterized as schools that openly communicated, engaged in reflective
dialogue, were committed to reform, established decision making teams, provided
ongoing staff development, encouraged staff development, increased parent
involvement, organized time for collaboration, had district level support, and
emphasized staff recognition. District support is vital to the success of state
reform schools. In addition to building strong and supportive relationships with
the school board, supportive relationships must also be fostered with district level
personnel.
According to Wohlstetter and Mohrman (1994), struggling schools often
were caught up in power struggles. Struggling schools were often incapable of
sharing power and empowering others to make decisions. These schools found
that power was typically centralized at the top of the organizational hierarchy that
disempowered stakeholders by not allowing them to make decisions and set
goals. According to Wohlstetter and Briggs (1994), an analysis of school-based
management schools concluded that the most successful schools empowered
stakeholders. Successful schools also provided stakeholder training in the areas of
decision making and teamwork. The principals of actively restructuring schools
set school goals, disseminated information to stakeholders, and rewarded the
accomplishments of the group. Learning from the failure of previous school
reform programs, we must provide the opportunity and environment for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
educational change to take place, which involves risk, conflict, and restructuring
of power in schools (Fullan, 1993; Lipman, 1997).
Research has shown the single most important indicator of a high
achieving school is a highly qualified teaching staff. Effective teaching has the
highest potential for reforming education and increasing student achievement
(Fullan, 1993). Researchers have identified commonalties of an effective teacher;
these include the ability to motivate students (Peart & Campbell, 1999); teacher
expectations and racial impartiality (Peart & Campbell, 1999; Rist, 2000); teacher
knowledge and clarity in the organization, planning, and delivery of lessons
(Woolfolk, 2001); and interpersonal skills (Peart & Campbell, 1999; Slavin,
1994).
The educational reform movement has led to a plethora of reform
programs promising to improve student achievement. However, efforts at school
reform are said to be contingent upon a strong foundation of teacher knowledge
(Darling-Hammond, 1996; Fullan, 1993). Hence, improving the quality of
educational programs, the performance and evaluation of educators is at the
center of the educational reform movement (Fullan, 1993; Webb, 1999). If
educational reform efforts are to excel, the principal must set a standard for
identifying and retaining only highly effective teachers (Fullan, 1993).
The principal’s role in educational reform should include goals for
fostering quality teachers. Principals can pave the way for building effective
teachers by building a climate and culture of raised expectations and motivation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
by providing in depth and continual communication between students, teachers,
administrators, and parents. As educational leaders, one must focus aspirations,
staff development, and research on cultivating effective classroom teachers.
P. Houston and A. Bryant (2002) write of the dialogue between two
leading representatives who were interviewed regarding the need to improve
public support for education. The school leaders discussed the need to build
trust, respect, and better communications with school boards, and the need to
engage the school community to build a high performing school. The articles
further support the need for school leaders to build a shared vision, clear
expectations and courage to lead during the changing times in education.
However, the shared vision and expectations should be inclusive of all of the
stakeholders of the school community including the school board. Additionally,
principals should make priorities clear and have a plan. If the leader of the
organization is not clear about the vision and does not have a plan, then the
organization can only assume what the organization wants to accomplish. In
turn, to successfully achieve this goal the leader must plan to collaboratively
develop a focused mission, a timeline for implementation and an assessment
process including time to communicate regularly both informally and formally.
However, Fullan (1993) cautions that systemic plans and premature shared vision
strategies can have blind spots which could hinder the change process.
Staff development must include the details of fostering a learning/self
managed organization, as well as, sessions on organizational change, identifying the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
culture, climate, the customers, the strengths, and interests of the people of the
organizations, procedures for implementation, and program assessment. The
professional development plan should identify how to empower the organization to
share responsibility and commitment. The principal’s role as Chief Executive
Officer of an organization also includes writing and or supporting a clear plan
outlining the priorities and the process of the reform efforts; providing and
participating in professional staff development and training; and designing a process
to assess the execution of the reform and to monitor the process.
Author, P. Negroni (2000) asserts principals must play a new role in
leadership. The school accountability act of today necessitates standards-based,
data driven instructional leadership as opposed to the managerial style of the past.
Negroni (2000) argues principals must become “head teachers” and design
roadmaps delineating educational goals. Therefore, principals must become
skilled in identifying and analyzing quality lesson. Fullan (1993) argues that
through peer collaboration teachers can build quality lesson which lead to
increased student achievement.
Glickman (2002) calls for educators to come to grips with what they know
works, and does not work in schools. He places emphasis on the principal's role
as educational leader as opposed to instructional leader. Glickman (2002) asserts
that the teachers in the trenches are the experts consequently; the coaching and
instructional leadership should be left up to the teachers. The principal's role in a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
high performing school should be to coordinate the teachers' role as instructional
leader.
State sanctions of recent legislation call for courageous leaders including
board members who are willing to take risks in the endeavor to reform public
schools. Policies requiring the involvement of school stakeholders, a clearly
communicated vision focused on student achievement, and open communication
support accountability in state reform schools. Building relationships with
stakeholders, specifically the board of education and the community, is critical
when launching change in creating effective schools. Additionally, principals at
state reform schools must be skilled in monitoring and analyzing data to make
effective program decisions. Effective use of data includes the design of
standards-based benchmark tests, curriculum mapping, backward mapping, and
time for collaboration to build program consistency.
Thousands of schools across the country have begun to seriously consider
school-wide reform in an effort to raise student achievement. However,
according to Webb (1999), school reform is still in its beginning stage of
evolution. The crux of the matter is that for educational reform to have a
substantial impact, principals must focus attention on staffing highly qualified
teachers, matching the reform strategy to school needs, aligning curriculum to
student data, and build a culture of collaboration.
Principals have an ethical responsibility to place effective teachers in all
classrooms especially under-performing schools as determined by API rankings.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
Since quality teaching has the highest potential for reforming education and
increasing student achievement, educational reform projects must be tied to
building effective teachers who use data and research-based strategies to raise
student achievement, and who involve stakeholders in program decisions to
create greater empowerment. Furthermore, principals must provide the
opportunity and environment for educational change to take place, which often
involves risk, conflict, and restructuring of power in schools.
Conclusion
Recent legislation, the public’s outcry for improved test scores, and the
lack of student achievement in the state of California have led to the age of
accountability in public schools, otherwise known as the standards-based reform
movement. Assembly Bill 265 (1996) set the standards-based educational reform
in motion. The movement initiated the development of a myriad of reform efforts
in the areas of standards and curriculum, assessment, accountability, and
professional development (California Department of Education, 2000). The legal
procedures presented under the accountability piece of reform specifically the
1999 Public School Accountability Act (PSAA), Senate Bill 1552 (1999),
prompted the development of state reform programs including Immediate
Intervention/Under Performing Schools Program (II-USP), High Priority Schools
Grant Program (HPSG), and the Comprehensive School Reform (CSR).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
These state reform programs hold principals directly accountable for
student achievement. As such, the PSAA has prompted principals and teachers to
design site level accountability to ensure meeting state mandates. Principals are
required to hold staff accountable for the implementation of state standards,
improved student achievement through state standardized testing in conjunction
with on-going site level data analysis, and simultaneously manage the change
process within the educational organization. Consequently, current state reform
programs are redefining the significant role of public school principals in the
effective implementation and monitoring of site level accountability including
reducing the achievement gap to meet the goals of the PSAA.
This literature review clearly demonstrates the expectation that state
reform programs, II-USP, HPSG, and CSR will increase student achievement and
holds educators accountable for that achievement or lack of. However, it not
known how principals are implementing school accountability within California’s
High Priority Schools.
This study links the literature and state reform mandates to a high priority
elementary school. It is believed that low performing schools are using the
monies to raise student performance. The state of California has allocated over
$193 million to fund High Priority Schools. In light of the current $34.6 billion
budget deficit, it becomes increasingly important to know how state reform
monies are being used for program implementation. Are principals effectively
implementing the state reform action plans? What are the strengths and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
weaknesses of state accountability? What do principals actually do to enhance
that accountability and how do teachers respond?
The methodology used in the study is described in Chapter 3.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The intent of this qualitative case study is to gain new knowledge
regarding the principal’s and teacher’s role in effectively implementing the
goals of high priority schools specifically the implementation of strategies used
to narrow the achievement gap. This includes accountability for the effective
expenditure of the additional budget associated with low performing schools.
Today’s high stakes accountability makes it imperative to conduct research to
better understand how and what principals and teachers are doing at state
reform schools to raise student achievement specifically for low performing
students. Students who are at-risk, living in poverty, and or of a minority
group. The data collected in this study will assist educational practitioners and
policy-makers in making research-based decisions in turning around state
reform schools.
With this in mind, the following research questions will be explored:
1. How do principals and teachers view high stakes accountability in
High Priority School and what do they see as the strengths and
weaknesses of such an accountability system in their own
schools? '
2. What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes
accountability in their schools?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
3. How do teachers respond to the principal’s enhancement of high stake
accountability? Do the teachers view the principal’s efforts as
beneficial or detrimental?
The multi-tiered system for collecting and analyzing data included:
a. A study of the literature
b. A conceptual framework to address the research questions
c. Selection of data collection instruments
d. Selection of a state reform school
e. Selection of participants for surveys, interviews, and observations
f. Analysis of data to determine trends
g. Distribution and collection of surveys
Research Design
Qualitative in nature, the study employs the use of three levels of reporting to
understand the role of the principal. A survey instrument, interview questions, and
an observation guide were used for this study. The survey was used to determine the
principals’ role in implementing the mandates' of a High Priority School Grant.
The purpose was to gather data regarding the effectiveness of the principals’
role in implementing the goals of a High Priority School Grant. Using a Likert
scale, the principal and teacher survey reflects the components of a state reform
action plan which includes the implementation of proven methods and strategies
based on scientifically based research; a comprehensive design with aligned
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
components; ongoing, high-quality professional development for teachers and staff;
measurable goals and benchmarks for student achievement; support within the
school by teachers, administrators and staff; meaningful parent and community
involvement in planning, implementing and evaluating school improvement
activities; use of high-quality external technical support and assistance from an
external partner with experience and expertise in school-wide reform and
improvement; plans for the evaluation of strategies for the implementation of school
reforms and for student results; and resources to support and sustain the school's
comprehensive reform effort (CDE, 2001; CDE, 2002).
A researcher-developed interview instrument elicited teachers’ and the
principal’s perception about the leader’s role in effectively implementing the
mandates of a High Priority School. The school principal was interviewed
independently while teacher interviews took the form of small groups. A coding
system was used to organize and report responses. Trends and direct quotations
were also used.
A researcher-developed observation guide was designed to gather
observational data. The guide addressed the components of a state reform action
plan, classroom and school site evidence of program implementation.
Setting
The school district selected is an urban district in north Orange County,
California. The school selected to study was recommended by the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
Superintendent and Director of Special Programs because of the principal’s
positive efforts to fully implement the mandates of the HPSG. According to the
California Department of Education (2002), the Anaheim City School District
(ACSD) enrolled 22,275 students during the 2002-2003 school year. The
student ethnicity is composed of 81% Hispanic, 10 % White, and 5% Asian.
English learners make-up 62% of the total population, and 59% of English
learners speak Spanish as their primary language. In the ACSD, 85% of the
student population is on free and or reduced meals (CDE, 2002).
A school meeting the criteria set forth for an in-depth study is Melrose
Elementary School. This K-6 school is a state approved High Priority School in
the Anaheim City School District. The school is located in the northern section
of Anaheim, and is one of the district’s 23 elementary schools. Melrose is a
year-round, multiple track, staggered session school. In the 2002-2003 school
year, the site was composed of approximately 1,247 students, of which 96% are
Hispanic, 80% English learners and 96% are on free and or reduced meals. The
average class size is 23.3
The school principal has been assigned to Melrose since September
2000. The administrative team also includes two vice principals. API results at
Melrose indicate the school is making steady progress in reaching yearly goals.
In 1998, the school had an API score of 428. Current data indicates the school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
achieved an API score of 513 in 2002 for a total gain of 85 points over multiple
years.
The High Priority School Grant action plan guides Melrose School. The
school’s mission statement reflects the school culture: We at Melrose are
committed to creating a caring and safe learning community where all members
are life-long learner with high expectations. Together, we are building a strong
academic and social foundation that promotes critical thinking skills and the
appreciation of our own diversity. We encourage self-expression and embrace
the technological advancement for the success of all our students. The Anaheim
City School District mission statement further supports the school mission.
Sample and Population
It is generally believed that the leadership of the school principal is
instrumental in determining the success of state reform schools working under
the mandates of the PSAA. Consequently, the obscurity of the exact nature of
the principals’ and teachers’ roles in successful implementation of the goals of a
High Priority School Grant to raise student achievement under high stakes
accountability leads to the interest in an in-depth case study.
According to Gall, Borg and Gall (1996), the novice researcher is most
successful when using a single case study to conduct research. A single case
study as opposed to multiple case studies promotes an environment for in-depth
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
research. A study of multiple cases often poses challenges in the linking of
data. Qualitative studies often have small yet purposive samples.
Consequently, the researcher engaged in a qualitative case study to complete the
research for this study.
The sample and population selected for the case study will meet the criteria
of a High Priority School, which includes a state and locally approved HPSG action
plan that specifies the strategies, materials, resources, and external monitor that will
be used to raise student achievement. The case study must also have received a
minimum of 80% of the HPSG state funding at $ 400.00 per student, and must rank
in decile 1 according to the 2002 API score. Furthermore, the district and school
selected will have an at-risk student population in terms of minority status, socio
economic status, and English learners.
Instrumentation
Qualitative research methodologies will elicit the data needed to address
research questions. The researcher administered a Likert teacher-principal
survey, researcher-designed interview questions, and an observation guide to
gather data. The survey and interview questions include descriptive as well as
interpretive statements and questions designed to answer the research questions
that follow. The questions were created during the Winter semester of 2002 by
the researcher and Dr. Marsh, Associate Dean for Academic Programs. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
researcher generated multiple research questions. The questions selected were
pinpointed as those with the highest potential to elicit the needed data.
As such, appropriate instruments were developed to investigate each of
the research questions listed below:
1. How do principals and teachers view high stakes accountability in High
Priority School and what do they see as the strengths and weaknesses of
such an accountability system in their own schools?
2. What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability in their
schools?
3. How do teachers respond to the principal’s enhancement of high stake
accountability? Do the teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or
detrimental?
Research questions were studied using multiple instruments including
the principal and teacher survey, staff interviews, and school artifacts such as
weekly bulletins, agendas, etc. The four-page, 62-statement surveys focused on
the degree of the effectiveness of the principal role in implementing the
mandates of the High Priority School Grant. The five-point Likert scale ranged
from a “0-don’t know” to a high of “4- agree strongly”. The survey was
administered to all on-track teachers during a staff meeting.
Group interviews consisted of two groups of four to six teachers. Group
one was composed of primary (K-3) teachers and group two was composed of
upper grade (4-6) teachers. The school principal was interviewed individually.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
Approximately 45 minutes was allocated to conduct the individual and group
interviews. Participants were asked approximately 25 questions which were
generated from conception frameworks. The interview instrument prompted
open-ended answers on the views of high stakes accountability as well as the
strengths and weaknesses of such accountability. The researcher sought data
that provided insight on what activities were undertaken to implement the
PSAA, High Priority School Grant. Group and individual interviews were
conducted to identify trends in the HPSG implementation process. The
interview questions were designed to lead to a natural discussion with a range
of opinions. Informed consent of the participants was obtained in accordance
with the requirements of the University of Southern California.
Research question three was addressed through the survey, interviews, and
school observations. Data from school observations were collected through a
structured approach using an observation guide. The observation guide consisted of
three parts: action plan, classroom evidence, and school site evidence. The data
guide took the form of a four point Likert scale ranging from a high of “strong” to
“low”. This instrument increased the efficiency of the observations.
Data Collection
Surveys
Data collection in the form of surveys occurred during the months of
February 2003 through March 2003. The researcher contacted the Edison
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
School principal by phone, email, and personal contact to share the purpose and
importance of the study. Upon receiving approval for the study by the school
principal and the Anaheim City School District, a letter of introduction was sent
to the Melrose School staff (see Appendix A). The researcher and principal
scheduled for the surveys to be administered during a staff meeting.
Participants signed a guarantee of confidentiality and agreement to participate
in the research before taking the survey. All 37 teachers who were on track
completed the four-page teacher survey (Appendix B). The school principal
and vice principal completed the principal survey.
Interviews
The school principal and two teacher groups consisting of four to six
teachers were interviewed in person during March 2003. The purpose of the
interviews was to ascertain the principal’s role in implementing the mandates of
the grant, the perceived value of high stakes accountability, and the
organizational practices that have resulted from the mandates of the grant.
Teacher participants were recruited on a volunteer basis according to
availability. The interviewees were asked open-ended yet structured questions
relating to the principal’s role in the High Priority School. Questions asked
reflected the three research questions and were organized by the components of
the HPSG action plan: initial assessment, research-based and data driven, plans
for ongoing data gathering, the belief that all children can succeed, a school
design conducive to learning, resources for program improvement, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
community involvement (Appendix C). The 45-minute interviews took place
after school on the school site. Follow-up interviews were conducted as
needed.
Observations
Additionally, school observations and focus group interviews with
employees were used to draw conclusions. The high priority school site and
action plan was also analyzed using an observation guide. The purposes of the
observations were to see how the mandates of the grant were implemented in
the classroom and the school site for the purpose of gaining a better
understanding of the HPSG environment. The observation guide consisted of
three components: the HPSG action plan, classroom and school site evidence
(See Appendix D). Each of the three components were followed by eight
questions with a scale ranging from strong, strong-moderate, low moderate, to
low. Other archival data collected included the HPSG action plan, school
bulletins, memos, and staff meeting agendas. The following preliminary
timeline reflects the data collection of this case study.
v . - l 2 0 0 3 ' a ^ u v ' v . : j a h u a r j f - A
:yFebriiary ,/ ; 7April:
Principal and
Teacher Surveys
—— ►
Principal and
Teacher Group "1
Interviews
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
School Site
Observation^
Data Collection w
Data Analysis
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to determine the effectiveness
of the principal’s role in implementing the goals of a High Priority School Grant.
Data were collected through the use of surveys, interviews, and observations. The
data generated were analyzed using the three research questions and conceptual
frameworks as guides to determine patterns and trends. Descriptive statistics were
used to describe the survey data. Teacher groups and the principal were interviewed
using a structured interview instrument. Trends based upon the responses were used
to develop the overall picture of the principal’s role in a state reform school.
Chapter 4 deeply addresses these findings.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
CHAPTER4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of the qualitative case study was to gain new knowledge
regarding the principal’s role in implementing the goals of a High Priority School
Grant. The findings are organized into three areas reflecting each of the research
questions:
• How do principals and teachers view high stakes accountability in High Priority
Schools, and what do they see as the strengths and weaknesses of such an
accountability system in their own schools?
• What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability?
• How do teachers respond to the principal’s enhancement of high stake
accountability, and do teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or
detrimental?
The principal and teacher surveys and interview guides were organized by the
components of a state reform High Priority School Grant action plan which
addresses the implementation of proven methods and strategies based on
scientifically based research; a comprehensive design with aligned components;
ongoing, high-quality professional development for teachers and staff; the belief that
all children can leam; measurable goals and benchmarks for student achievement;
support within the school by teachers, administrators and staff; meaningful parent
and community involvement in planning, implementing and evaluating school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
improvement activities; use of high-quality external technical support and assistance
from an external partner with experience and expertise in school-wide reform and
improvement; plans for the evaluation of strategies for the implementation of school
reforms and for student results; and resources to support and sustain the school's
comprehensive reform effort. The data gathered from the participants are organized
by each research question followed by a summary of the meaning of the data.
Participants of the study included a total of 35 teachers and three school site
administrators. Thirty-five teachers and two administrators completed the survey, 11
staff members were interviewed, and the researcher conducted observations of all
on-track classrooms. Teacher participants ranged in age, experience and
credentialing. The school site principal has been assigned to Melrose Elementary
School for approximately two and one half years. One vice principal has worked at
the school site for three years, the other eight months.
Findings by Research Question
How do principals and teachers view high stakes accountability in High Priority
Schools, and what do they see as the strengths and weaknesses of such an
accountability system in their own schools?
The researcher sought to identify how principals and teachers view high
stakes accountability in High Priority Schools as well as the strengths and
weaknesses of such an accountability system. The data gathered originated from
surveys, interviews, and classroom observations. Tables 1 through 7 reflect the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
principals’ and teachers’ view of high stakes accountability in High Priority Schools.
Table 1 reflects the principals’ and teachers’ views of who has the ethical
responsibility to raise student achievement. Table 2 addresses job security, Table 3
addresses the accuracy of the API as a measure of school effectiveness, Table 4
responsibility for student learning, Table 5 the influence of state reform on student
achievement, Table 6 addresses whether the mandates of the HPSG make it
challenging to maintain professional and personal balance, and Table 7 the HPSG’s
ability to provide the needed resources to increase student achievement.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
I have an ethical responsibility to raise the academic achievement of all students.
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrator Agree Strongly 2 100.0
Teachers Agree Somewhat 6 17.1
Agree Strongly 29 82.9
Total 35 100.0
Survey results present the view that the majority of teachers and
administrators feel they have an ethical responsibility to raise the achievement of all
students. Table 1 presents the findings that administrators “strongly agreed” at 100%
whereas teachers “strongly agreed” at 82.9% that they have an ethical responsibility
to increase the academic achievement of all children. Although the majority of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
participants statements were positive, 17.1 % only “agreed somewhat” with the
statement.
During the primary and upper grade interview groups, teachers reported the
17.1% who only “agreed somewhat” was most likely attributed to the view that
parents have the ethical responsibility to educate their own children, not teachers.
The HPSG action plan requires the staff to address the belief that all children
can learn. Survey results reflect the staff strongly agrees with this belief. Yet,
dialogue with teacher groups find underlying beliefs that children come to school
with barriers to learning, as opposed to rich backgrounds from which to build upon.
During the upper grade interview group, these destructive beliefs were uncovered.
Some of the teachers in this group felt they were doing all they could do to raise
student achievement, but they were limited by the children’s ability and background.
It was argued that the children’s limited English language skills, low socio-economic
levels, and parents’ low literacy rates effect the child’s learning potential. There
seems to be insecurity in the teacher’s ability to impact student achievement, a low
sense of teacher efficacy. The researcher does not believe that all embraced this
destructive belief; however during the interview tto one argued the point in favor of
the children.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 1
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
My job security is threatened if student achievement does not increase.
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrators Disagree Somewhat 1 50.00
Agree Somewhat 1 50.00
Total 2 100.00
Teachers Don’t Know 5 14.3
Disagree Strongly 11 31.4
Disagree Somewhat 6 17.1
Agree Somewhat 11 31.4
Agree Strongly 2 5.7
Total 35 100.00
Table 2 indicates 50% of administrators “agree somewhat” their job security
is threatened if student achievement does not improve; however, 62% of teachers
“don’t know” or “disagree.” Upon further inquiry through teacher group interviews,
teachers declared the threat of state take over was “unreal.” Principals felt the high
stakes sanctions of the grant were bogus. In this case study, the school principal
expressed state sanctions not only “under mind” and “patronize” the leadership of
the school principal, but the feasibility of the state dismantling the staff and
reorganizing the school as specified in the PSAA of 1999 was inconceivable. This
conviction is reflected in the following statement by the school principal, Mrs.
Schwartz (2003):
Teachers want to get better; they want to perfect their craft
and raise student achievement. Therefore, there is no need
for the high stakes accountability. The pressure placed on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
principals by the state is unnecessary since most people
place pressure on themselves to perform. The added state
pressure is not needed and weakens the state-school
relationship.
When asked what type of accountability and pressure state mandates placed
on the school principal, the principal responded:
It isn’t any more pressure than I would have placed on
myself. I think if you are really sincere in making a
difference, I don’t think you need the state pressure. But, I
do love the data. I love having that kind of information, in
addition to what we have at the site. I think the data (API)
alone would have given us the pressure to proceed forth.
The API is the saving grace for helping us meet our target.
If we keep meeting our target, I’ll be confident that we’re
on the right track. However, the way the decile system is
set up there always has to be a bottom 10% mathematically.
(Schwartz, 2003)
The school principal summed up the statement by conveying that it is not the API
and state sanctions that will improve student achievement, but good leadership. She
also shared that she often jokes with the staff reminding them if they don’t meet their
API target that she unfortunately will be the first one to go, and chuckles . .and I
like it here” (Schwartz, 2003).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
The API is an accurate measure of my school’s achievement.
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrators Disagree Somewhat 1 50.00
Agree Somewhat 1 50.00
Total 2 100.00
Teachers Don’t Know 5 14.3
Disagree Strongly 13 37.1
Disagree Somewhat 10 28.6
Agree Somewhat 4 11.4
Agree Strongly 3 8.6
Total 35 100.00
The state’s accountability system measures academic progress through the
use of the Academic Performance Index. As such, the API determines the issuance
of state rewards as well as sanctions. Table 4 addresses the principals’ and teachers’
view of the API as an accurate measure of the school’s achievement. The table
indicates 50% of administrators “disagree somewhat” and 80% of teachers “don’t
know” or “disagree” the API is an accurate measure of the school’s achievement.
The Upper Grade Teacher Interview Group (2003) stated:
API is not an accurate measure. I am a fourth grade
teacher. If I receive a student who is functioning at the first
grade level and the child jumps up two grade levels while
in my class, the child is now at the third grade level yet is
required to take the 4th grade CAT 6 test. This is unfair!
This child grew two grade levels while in my class, but my
CAT 6; the school’s API will not reflect this tremendous
growth. It will only reflect the child’s lack of achievement
on 4th grade standards. So, the API is not an accurate
measure of the school’s achievement. (Upper Grade
Teachers, 2003)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
The school administration agreed with the statement. The school principal
feels there are multiple facets that determine a school’s achievement including
school site assessments, parental involvement, and school culture. Although the
principal feels the API score is somewhat valuable in that it gives you a yearly
starting point, she also believes the API is only a snapshot in time which solely
determines how children performed on one given day.
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
I am the person responsible for the increase of student achievement.
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrators Disagree Somewhat 1 50.00
Agree Somewhat 1 50.00
Total 2 100.00
Teachers Don’t Know 1 2.9
Disagree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat 1 2.9
Agree Somewhat 14 40.00
Agree Strongly 19 54.3
Total 35 100.00
State sanctions threaten to reorganize schools by reassigning the school
principal and staff if API goals are not consistently met within a three-year period.
With this in mind, the responsibility of who is responsible for the increase in student
achievement was addressed. Table 4 indicates simply 50% of administrators believe
they are the person responsible for the increase in student achievement. In contrast,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
94.3% of the surveyed teachers felt they were the person responsible for increased
student achievement.
The 44.3% difference in response to the statement raised critical questions
such as why do principals feel less responsibility than teachers for increased student
achievement. Upon further probing through interview groups, teachers conveyed
they were responsible for teaching the mastery of standards which would lead to
increased student performance whereas administrators acted more as a monitor of
instruction therefore are not the “person responsible” for student learning (Primary
Teacher Group, 2003). The school principal agreed with the teaching staff. Principal
Schwartz (2003) felt that it was her responsibility to build a place conducive to
teaching and learning, but it is the teachers and students who ultimately make
learning happen.
In contrast, when asked who is held directly accountable for increased
student achievement through the use of data, principals felt a greater sense of
responsibility. In this case, principals felt the term “accountability” was linked to
state sanctions consequently principals felt they would be the person held most
responsible if learning did not occur. During the interview with the school principal,
the researcher asked, “who is responsible for the increase in student achievement?”
Principal Schwartz (2003) responded:
Teachers. Teachers and students, we (principals) provide
the support, and sometimes we help in building a
communal vision. But, bottom line, it is the teachers who
are in the trenches that are making a difference for the kids.
It is the kids’ attitudes towards the process that can really
make things happen. I think it is a joint effort between the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
teacher and students. Parents and administrators support
that effort. (Schwartz, 2003)
When asked, “how do you hold teachers accountable?” Principal Schwartz (2003)
stated:
Multiple ways, let me count the ways. One way is by
making data visible and making them (teachers) know the
data is visible. I think it is everyone’s human inclination to
want to do a good job, and if they know the data is
something they will be sharing with each other then they’ll
want to do a good job. They (teachers) then get into their
collegial groups and begin to share best practices. We are
now collecting tools (data instruments) by grade level that
allow for that dialogue to happen. (Schwartz, 2003)
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
School reform positively influences student performance._________________
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrators Agree Somewhat 1 50.00
Agree Strongly 1 50.00
Total 2 100.00
Teachers Don’t Know 2 5.7
Disagree Strongly 2 5.7
Disagree Somewhat 3 8.6
Agree Somewhat 18 51.40
Agree Strongly 10 28.6
Total 35 100.00
■ In response to the strengths and weaknesses of school reform, the data
collected uncovered conflicting results of the influence of school reform on student
performance. Table 5 specifies 100% of administrators and 80% of teachers “agree
somewhat” or “agree strongly” state reform positively influences student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
performance. Although school reform was positively linked to student performance,
the sanctions of school reform were viewed negatively. During the primary teacher
interview, teachers felt the threat of sanctions under state reform was unnecessary.
The Primary Grade Teachers (2003) argued, “. . .with or without state sanctions and
reform grants we would still use data for program modifications to meet the needs of
all children and increase student achievement.”
The upper grade teacher group deemed state reform efforts including
assessments and grade level standards were not always beneficial. Upper grade
teachers argued the difficulty of teaching children that were far below grade level
stating, “you can’t teach 5th grade standards if students are functioning at the second
grade level...” (Upper Grade Teachers, 2003). Nevertheless, the Upper Grade
Teacher Group (2003) did feel state accountability kept them “on their toes” forcing
teachers to question the effectiveness of daily lessons.
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
HPSG mandates makes it challenging to maintain professional and personal
balance._______________________________
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrators Disagree Somewhat 1 50.00
Agree Somewhat 1 50.00
Total 2 100.00
Teachers Don’t Know 3 8.6
Disagree Strongly 2 5.7
Disagree Somewhat 4 11.4
Agree Somewhat 13 37.1
Agree Strongly 13 37.1
Total 35 100.00
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
Although the views of state reform were conflicting, there existed agreement
the HPSG mandates specifically the professional development component makes it
challenging to maintain professional and personal balance. The HPSG mandates that
all teachers at High Priority Schools participate in the Mathematics and Reading
Professional Development Program funded under AB 466. AB 466 requires teachers
to complete 40 hours of training in both language arts and mathematics. Each of the
trainings includes eighty hours of follow-up training for a total of 120 hours of
professional development in each curricular area. Principals are required to attend
the AB 75 training, which consists of similar requirements. As such, the research
question addressed attempted to uncover whether the mandates of the HPSG have
caused difficulty in maintaining professional and personal balance.
The key findings presented in Table 6 indicate 50% of administrators “agree
somewhat” the High Priority School Grant makes it challenging to maintain
professional and personal balance whereas when added together, 74.2% of the
teachers “agree somewhat” or “agree strongly” it is difficult to maintain personal and
professional balance. The discrepancy among the view of administrators and
teachers raised many questions. Why are teachers having difficulty maintaining
balance and not administrators? Upon further investigation, it was discovered the
entire teaching staff had completed the first forty hours of AB 466 training and were
■ fully engaged in completing the remaining 80 hours of follow-up training. Most of
the training must be completed outside of the instructional day. However, the school
principal and vice principals at this site have not yet started the AB 75 training which
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
also requires 120 hours of training. Hence, school principals have not yet felt the
strain in their personal lives.
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
The HPSG provides the resources needed to raise student achievement.
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrators Agree Strongly 2 100.00
Total 2
Teachers Don’t Know 4 11.4
Disagree Somewhat 4 11.4
Agree Somewhat 15 42.9
Agree Strongly 1 34.3
Total 35 100.00
While the mandates of the HPSG make it difficult to maintain personal and
professional balance, the survey results signify 100% of the principals “strongly
agree” the HPSG provides the resources needed to raise student achievement.
Nonetheless, the interview with the school principal contradicted the survey findings.
The state’s monetary rewards and the HPSG monies as viewed by the school
principal follow:
The High Priority School Grant money is a blessing, but
not necessary. I don’t think we need any of it (HPSG
funding) to raise student achievement. There is that aspect
that it’s been a wonderful blessing to have those resources
to work with. But, in reality if you are on the right track,
well... I’m sure we could have used categorical monies if
we had to. What we usually find out is that at the end of
each school year we still have a lot of money left over. Of
course, we are looking to find resources so we have done
some real active ordering lately because $484,000 dollars is
a lot of money to have to spend. (Schwartz, 2003)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
A total of 77.2 % of teachers “agree somewhat” or “agree strongly” the
HPSG provides the needed resources to raise student achievement. Teacher groups
falsely believed the funding was used to sustain the school’s highly regarded
t '
newcomer class and the learning academy for at-risk children. However, an analysis
of the HPSG budget found neither of these programs was funded under HPSG. The
newcomer class is funded out of regular education, and the learning academy
through multiple categorical programs. The personnel funded under HPSG, include
a teacher on special assignment who oversees the school library, and two teachers on
special assignment who were hired to reduce class size 24 to 1 in kindergarten. An
additional $6,000 dollars have been allocated to provide small group interventions
before and after school. Sixty-two percent, the majority of the budget, funds
personnel and professional development. Resources purchased from HPSG funds as
of March 2003, are listed below:
Books, M aterials, and Supplies Amount
Accelerated Reader 5,633.65
Grade Level Standards 147.00
Extra Houghton MifflinTeacher’s Manuals 322.00
Leveled Reading Passages 2,736.00
Miscellaneous Books 179.00
Food 43.79
Book Carts 113.00
Student Tote Bags 2,941.75
Subtotal 12,116.19
Technology
LCD Projector 1,499.00
Computer Keyboards and Optical Mouse 1,677.00
Subtotal 3,176.00
Professional Development
Consultants and Professional Development 17,732.00
Subtotal 17,732.00
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Personnel
School Library TOSA 100,000.00
Kindergarten TOSA’s 180,000.00
Before/After school interventions 6,000.00
Subtotal 286,000.00
Budget 484,000.00
Total Expenditures to Date (3/03) 319,024.19
Balance 164,975.81
The balance of 164,000.00 was originally allocated to employ a school counselor and
a part-time psychologist. However, district level administrators would not allow the
school to staff these positions due to the inability to guarantee continued staffing
after the HPSG funds are depleted. At this time, there are no definite plans for the
expenditure of the surplus money.
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
The HPSG external entity provides valuable feedback for program
improvement._____________________________________________
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrators Agree Strongly 2 100.00
Total 2
Teachers Don’t Know 4 11.4
Disagree Strongly 3 8.6
Disagree Somewhat 4 11.4
Agree Somewhat 20 57.1
Agree Strongly 4 11.4
Total 35 100.00
An additional benefit of the HPSG was the external entity’s report. All
administrators “strongly agreed” the HPSG external entity provides valuable
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
feedback for program improvement, and the majority, 68% of teachers “agreed
somewhat” or “strongly agreed” with the school principal. Interviews with the
principal and teacher group unveiled the external monitor’s report was extremely
beneficial. The report given contained recommendations and commendations that the
staff agreed were “right on the money.” They expressed the feedback from a third
party was highly advantageous. However, the school principal did express the need
to implement the recommendations, the changes with caution:
We’re pacing ourselves because a lot of this is new to our
staff. One of the roles of a leader is... well, you know the
direction you need to go towards, but don’t try to get there
by tomorrow or you’ll lose everyone in the process who
isn’t ready to move that fast. Reading the staff and finding
out what load they can cany at different points is part of the
art that we need to be able to do as leaders. (Schwartz,
2003)
Summary of Research Findings for Question 1
The researcher sought to identify how principals and teachers view high
stakes accountability in High Priority Schools as well as the strengths and
weaknesses of such an accountability system. Surveys, interviews, and school site
observations indicate that school reform has positively impacted student achievement
and provides the needed resource for increased student achievement. High stakes
accountability has also raised the level of responsibility felt among educators for the
increase in student achievement. Additionally, the external entity’s report was
viewed as program strength. The external entity’s report provided valuable feedback
to the High Priority School for program modifications.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
While school reform was generally viewed as a positive force, the
professional development mandates tied to the HPSG has made it challenging for
teachers to sustain professional and personal balance. Furthermore, survey results
indicate high stakes accountability is prompted by an inaccurate measure, the API.
Participants alleged high stakes sanctions determined by a school’s API including the
threat of dismantling the school were unnecessary evils. Another weakness was the
threat of job security. High stakes accountability has not threatened the majority of
the teachers’ feelings about the security of their job. Nonetheless, findings suggest
state reform has created a greater sense of responsibility for student learning.
According to teachers and administrators state reform has positively influenced
student performance. However, the API as an accurate measure of school
performance remains questionable.
Question Two
What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability in their
schools?
The researcher aimed to identify what principals actually do to enhance high
stakes accountability in their schools. The interview with the school principal and an
analysis of budget expenditure and action plan exposed themes to the principal’s role
in implementing the High Priority School Grant. These themes incorporated the
expenditure of the HPSG budget, developing a vision and leadership for increased
accountability, planning professional development to increase the quality of the staff,
classroom implementation.and monitoring of research-based teaching strategies, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
the implementation of the external entity’s report for program modifications. Some
efforts to increase the use of data to raise student achievement were evident.
The data collected on the principal’s behaviors and actions originated from
surveys, interviews, and observations. Table 9 addresses provisions for providing
the needed resources to raise student achievement, Table 10 school vision and
leadership, Table 11 professional development, Table 12 ongoing classroom
observations, Table 13 reflects the extent to which the external entity’s assessments
are analyzed and implemented for program modification, and Table 14 addresses
whether the principal makes the school stakeholders aware of the school’s
involvement with the HPSG. Value labels assigned for survey statements include 0-
don’t know, 1-disagree strongly, 2-disagree somewhat, 3-agree somewhat, and 4-
agree strongly.
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ Role in Enhancing High Stakes Accountability
Principal provides resources to meet teaching needs to raise student performance.
___________________________________________ Frequency Percent______
Administrator Agree Somewhat ' 1 50.0
Agree Strongly 1 50.0
Total 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 3 8.6
Disagree Somewhat 2 5.7
Agree Somewhat 18 51.4
Agree Strongly 12 34.3
Total 35 100.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
The principal’s role in a High Priority School entails the expenditure of
the HPSG budget. At Melrose Elementary School, 62% of the budget has been
exhausted to fund personnel and professional development. When added
together, 85.7% of teachers believe the principal provides the needed resources
through HPSG funds to raise student achievement, administrators concur.
Primary and upper grade interview group as well as researcher observations
validate the data. Teachers feel they have received an abundance of training,
materials and supplies to meet individual student needs.
Approximately $15,000.00 were exhausted to contract with Actions
Learning System as an external entity. Actions Learning System has also worked
with the school site to provide a two-day reciprocal training for all staff members
coupled with follow-up coaching. School-wide implementation of reciprocal
teaching was evident in all classrooms. The administrators of the school sustain the
implementation by building the expectation that all teachers use the reading
comprehension strategy of reciprocal teaching. In the near future, the principal plans
on requiring all teachers to use reciprocal teaching strategies during formal
observations to carry on the implementation.
In addition, district curriculum specialists have provided a total of seven days
of Guidance Language Acquisition Design (GLAD) training to reach the needs of the
English Learner population. GLAD strategies and charts were apparent in the
majority of the school’s classrooms. In addition, an average of $3,000.00 has been
used to pay for miscellaneous professional development.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
Teacher participants did express the dire need for the resource of time. The
year-round, multiple track, staggered session schedule makes it challenging for
teachers to find time to plan, share ideas, and assess. In some cases, staff members
have not had the opportunity to meet one another. Primary and upper grade teachers
identify with the benefits of collaboration consequently would like to raise the
quantity of monies allocated for collaborative release time.
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ Role in Enhancing High Stakes Accountability
My school vision and leadership clearly demonstrate a plan for school
accountability.______________ ; __
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrator Agree Somewhat 1 50.00
Agree Strongly 1 50.0
Total 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 3 8.6
Disagree Strongly 1 2.9
Agree Somewhat 18 51.4
Agree Strongly 12 34.3
Total 35 100.0
In addition to the expenditure of the HPSG budget, the High Priority School
principal’s role includes the development of a school vision and leadership plan for
school accountability. Table 10 presents the principal’s role in creating a vision and
leadership plan for school accountability. All administrators “agreed somewhat” or
“agreed strongly” with this statement, and 85.7% of the teachers also “agreed
somewhat” or “agreed strongly”. The primary teachers who were interviewed
expressed the following: .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
Our principal is a great cheerleader! She is always talking
about improving student learning, she tells the kids and us
that we can do it. We have what it takes. We have
analyzed student assessment during staff meetings, and
have also gone through our teacher’s manuals to highlight
academic standards. (Primary Grade Teachers, 2003)
Principal Schwartz (2003) consistently articulates a vision of accountability
at weekly staff meetings. She allocates time to promote the importance of using data
and academic standards to plan instruction. Time is also devoted to curricular
mapping.
Table 11
Descriptive Statistics: Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ Role in Enhancing High
Stakes Accountability
Attend professional development on collection and effective use of data
analysis.______________________________
Frequency Valid
___________Percent
Administrator Agree Somewhat 1 50.00
Agree Strongly 1 50.00
Total 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 2 5.7
Disagree Strongly 2 5.7
Disagree Somewhat 8 22.9
Agree Somewhat 14 40.0
Agree Strongly 9 25.7
Total 35 100
The HPSG action plan requires a clear plan for active participation in
professional development for data analysis. All administrators and the majority,
65.7% of teachers “agree somewhat” or “agree strongly” that they have attended
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
professional development on data collection and analysis. The staff has attended
school-wide in-services on strategies for raising SAT 9/CAT 6 scores. Numerous
teachers have also attended county and district in-services regarding the use of data
to plan instruction; however, additional training is needed in this area.
The principal clearly acknowledges the crucial role professional development
plays in the HPSG. The site principal stated:
Professional development is the major lynchpin in making
it all work. If we are going to become more strategic,
develop goals to increase student achievement we can only
do it by investing in the staff. And so it (professional
development) has been a huge part of the HPSG plan.
(Schwartz, 2003)
Table 12
Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ Role in Enhancing High Stakes Accountability
Principal conducts classroom observations to ensure use of data, standards, and
strategies.____________________________________________
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrator Agree strongly 2 100.0
Teachers Disagree strongly 1 2.9
Disagree somewhat 2 5.7
Agree somewhat 10 28.6
Agree strongly '22 62.9
Total 35 100
Professional development on data analysis should prompt school
administrators to monitor the use of data analysis, academic standards, and
strategies. All administrators and 62.9% of teachers “strongly agree” the school
principal conducts ongoing classroom observations to ensure the use of data,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
standards, and effective classroom strategies. Teacher interview groups expressed
that an administrator visits each classroom every two to three weeks. Although the
majority of teachers felt principal observations were ongoing, others who only
“agreed somewhat” defined ongoing as weekly observations, therefore only “agreed
somewhat” with the statement.
During the interview with the school principal, the researcher asked, “how do
you ensure lessons are data driven and standards-based?” The principal responded:
The lessons have to have a word or phrase that names the
standard. In regard to data driven, instructional groupings
provide insight that data is being used. If there are no
groupings, then teachers aren’t using data. I know
groupings aren’t the only way to determine data use, but it
is one way. I don’t know other tools, but I would love to
learn some. (Schwartz, 2003)
When asked how informal observations are conducted, the principal
articulated that administrators use school-site created forms noting what teachers are
doing and what it is the students are learning at the time of the visit. Emphasis is
placed on what the student is learning. Students are asked to explain what standard
they are studying. This is viewed as another strategy for holding children
accountable.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
Table 13
Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ Role in Enhancing High Stakes Accountability
External assessments are analyzed and implemented for program
modifications. ______ ___________
Frequency Valid
_____________ Percent
Administrators Agree Strongly 2 100.0
Total 2
Teachers Don’t Know 8 22.9
Disagree Strongly 1 2.9
Disagree Somewhat 4 11.4
Agree Somewhat 10 28.6
Agree Strongly 12 34.3
Total 35 100.0
The principal’s role in school reform consists of the analysis and
implementation of the external entity’s report. The purpose of Table 13 was to
discover if the principal and staff analyzed and implemented the external monitor’s
feedback for program modifications. Table 13 indicates 62.9 % of the surveyed
teachers “agreed somewhat” or “agreed strongly” that the external entity’s report was
utilized for program modifications. An interview with the principal and teacher
groups revealed the external monitor’s report was presented to the staff during
multiple weekly staff meetings and weekly teacher planning days. Staff members
were presented with the external entity’s recommendations and commendations.
Focus groups were assigned components of the external assessment and were asked
to design a plan of action to improve in the recommended areas as determined by the
external entity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
However, the school principal was allowed to modify the report before it was
presented to the staff. The eternal entity encouraged the principal to modify the
report, as needed. The purpose of the modifications was to build two-way
communication and trust. Although the two-way communication had good
intentions, the final report did not accurately represent the external entity’s findings.
The report presented to the staff and superintendent was altered.
Overall, the school principal felt the report was very positive, the greatest
recommendation was to remain on the right track, to keep focused. Other areas of
concern included the lack of rigor in the GATE program and the lack of parental
involvement in the school study team. When asked if the external entity’s feedback
was valuable, the Principal Schwartz (2003) replied, “she was such a straight
shooter. I appreciated the feedback, the process as well. It was confirming, we felt
like we were on the right track.”
Table 14
Descriptive Statistics: Descriptive Statistics: Principals’ Role in Enhancing High
Stakes Accountability
Stakeholders are well aware of the school’s involvement in HPSG.
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrators Agree Somewhat 1 50.00
Agree Strongly .1 50.00
Total 2 100.00
Teachers Don’t Know 13 38.2
Disagree Somewhat 3 8.8
Agree Somewhat 10 29.4
Agree Strongly 8 23.5
Total 35 100.00
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
The HPSG plan promotes the involvement of school stakeholders in
planning, implementing, and evaluating school improvement activities. Although
stakeholders are involved in traditional PTA meetings and parent conferences, there
is no evidence they are involved in program modifications. When asked if
stakeholders were aware of the school’s involvement in the High Priority School
Grant, 47.1 % of teachers “did not know” or “disagreed somewhat” while 52.9 %
“agreed somewhat” or “agreed strongly.” Upper and primary grade interview groups
said they were not sure if parents were kept informed, but they assumed they were
due to the diligence of the school principal to keep parents informed. The school
principal confirmed the teachers’ belief that parents were kept informed through the
school site council, however there was minimal evidence of other means of
communication. The vice principal expressed parents were involved in the initial
stage of the HPSG, but had not been involved since the onset of the grant.
One of Melrose School’s identified barriers to learning as specified in the
HPSG action plan was parent and community involvement. As such, the principal’s
actions in response to high stakes accountability include concerted efforts to raise
parent and community involvement. The school has a functioning traditional PTA
and school site council parent groups, as well as numerous parent education classes,
including English Language Development and computer classes. The principal is
most proud of the school’s Learning Academy, which involves parents as partners in
education. In this intervention class, parents are welcomed to participate in the
instructional day by attending class with their children. Parents and students learn
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
side by side. Other parent and community involvement opportunities include
community fairs, parent volunteer days, and foster grandparents who volunteer in
kindergarten classrooms.
Summary of Research Findings For Question 2
Interviews with school personnel, an analysis of current budget expenditures,
the school’s HPSG action plan, and survey results suggest the elementary school
principal plays numerous roles in enhancing high stakes accountability. These
actions include the expenditure of HPSG funds; creating a vision of accountability
for increased student achievement; and planning professional development to
increase the quality of the teaching staff. The action plan requires ongoing
classroom monitoring of teaching and learning, the use assessments to drive
instruction, and the active involvement of stakeholders in decisions regarding
program modifications. Yet, minimal evidence was found in these areas. Teachers
and the school principals do acknowledge the need for increased data collection to
monitor achievement. The school currently collects math trimester tests and writing
assessments. However, school-wide language arts assessments are not collected,
analyzed, or implemented for lesson modifications.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
Question Three
How do teachers respond to the principal’s enhancement of high stake
accountability? Do the teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or
detrimental?
The teachers’ response to the principal’s enhancement of high stakes
accountability, and whether they viewed those efforts as beneficial or detrimental
were explored. The data gathered originated from surveys, interviews, and
observations. Table 15 reflects the views of AB 466, Table 16 the use of data to plan
instruction, and Table 17 peer collaboration.
Table 15
Descriptive Statistics: Teachers Response to the Principal’s Enhancement of High
Stakes Accountability, Beneficial or Detrimental
Completed AB 466 training and found it highly beneficial.______________ _____
________________________________________ Frequency Percent____________
Administrator Don’t Know 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 6 17.1
Disagree Strongly 5 14.3
Disagree Somewhat 7 20
Agree Somewhat 13 37.1
Agree Strongly 3 8.6
Total 34 97.1
Missing System 1 2.9
Principals are required to ensure that all teachers attend AB 466. The HPSG
funding is contingent upon teacher participation in this professional development.
The intent of the survey question was to uncover how teacher have responded to the
training and whether they found the training to be beneficial. Table 15 indicates
52.9% of teachers “disagreed” or “did not know” if the AB 466 training was highly
beneficial. Teacher group interviews discovered the initial AB 466 Language Arts
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
five-day training provided in-depth training on the effective use of program
components, working with English learners, and standards-based lessons.
Unfortunately, the training lacked an assessment component.
Although teacher groups strongly benefited from the initial 40-hour, five-day
training, and teachers expressed the eighty hours of follow-up have been
burdensome. Teachers voiced concern about the ability to complete the hours within
the given year, and also questioned the benefits of the staff development in the
follow-up training. Teachers did appreciate the principal and district’s flexibility in
allowing the training to take place, if needed, while on track or off-track. This
flexibility was beneficial for those whom for personal reasons could only participate
in the training while on track.
There existed a consensus among the group that the AB 466 Mathematics
training was not beneficial nor was it linked to increased student achievement.
Teachers expressed concern that the on-line follow up hours were “redundant;” many
of the videos used during the follow-up training had been used previously during the
initial five-day training hence creating a feeling of “wasted time.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Table 16
Descriptive Statistics: Teachers Response to the Principal’s Enhancement of High
Stakes Accountability, Beneficial or Detrimental
Teachers use data to plan quality instruction.__________________ _
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrator Agree Somewhat 2 100.0
Don’t know 1 2.9
Teachers Disagree strongly 1 2.9
Disagree somewhat ' . 1 2.9
Agree somewhat 19 54.3
Agree strongly 13 37.1
Total 35 100.0
The HPSG plan requires the use of measurable goals and benchmarks to
monitor student achievement. Although Table 16 indicates 91.4% of teachers use
data to plan instruction, classroom observations and school site observations
contradict this finding. The school principal and teacher interview groups articulated
they were in the beginning stages of data analysis. Principal Schwartz (2003) stated,
“this is the year to get our feet wet, teachers are not yet comfortable with one-on-one
assessments.”
The data collected at the district level consist of an emergent literacy survey,
fry oral test, writing samples, and an end of the year mathematics trimester test. At
the school site level trimester mathematics tests are collected for all students,
conversely leveled reader tests are simply collected for the identified at-risk students.
School wide language arts assessments and benchmark tests are not collected or
analyzed. Nevertheless, sojne teachers do administer, analyze, and use running
records as well as other teacher made assessments to monitor student progress and to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
form instructional groupings. This was evident in teacher interviews and classroom
visitations. Teacher interviews indicate some, mainly primary teachers are using
data to modify instruction, however the level of sophistication varies greatly. Some
teachers use traditional drill tests and others use leveled reading passages for running
records. There exists a need for school-wide assessments to monitor progress toward
state academic standards.
Some teachers viewed the principal’s efforts to collect data as beneficial.
These teachers felt the accountability was good for the mediocre teachers who
seemed to need the structure. Other teachers felt the paperwork was cumbersome
and pointless. These teachers believed their time could be better spent on engaging
in more meaningful activities such as lesson planning.
Table 17
Descriptive Statistics: Teachers’ Response to the Principal’s Enhancement of High
Stakes Accountability, Beneficial or Detrimental
Peer collaboration has benefited my teaching ability.
Frequency Valid
Percent
Administrators Agree strongly 2 100.0
Teachers Disagree strongly 1 2.9
Agree somewhat ' 10 28.6
Agree strongly 24 68.6
Total 35 100.0
The HPSG action plan also requires evidence of support within the school by
teachers, administrators, and staff. Table 17 indicates 68.6% of teachers feel peer
collaboration has benefited their teaching ability. In this case study, teachers have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
spent numerous hours collaborating on the use of the researched-based strategy of
reciprocal teaching. Reciprocal teaching is a strategy used to build reading
comprehension. School site observations confirmed the HPSG funded staff
development has been implemented school-wide. Evidence of reciprocal teaching
charts was posted in all classrooms and several teachers were actively engaged in
using the reading comprehension strategies during classroom observations. During
the interview process, participants confirmed the school-wide use of reciprocal
teaching.
Teachers did express the need for the school principal to provide more time
to collaborate. The school district has designated every Wednesday as a shortened
instructional day providing time for teachers to plan together after school. Then
again, this planning time seems to be inconsistent in that it is used by some to engage
in peer collaboration, but not by all. Due to contract language, administrators cannot
determine how the time is to be used. The union protects collaborative planning
time. Teachers who were interviewed voiced interest in using HPSG monies to pay
for substitutes to cover their classrooms as a result they could have additional
collaborative planning time.
Collaboration was also noted as an area of needed improvement by the
school’s external monitor. Consequently, the third Tuesday of every month and or
15% of weekly staff meetings are now designated as horizontal (grade level) and
vertical (by track) collaboration time. Teachers are required to use a journal to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
record meeting dates, agendas, and minutes. These journals provide evidence for
increased teacher collaboration.
Summary of Research Findings For Question 3
The researcher sought to identify how teachers respond to the principal’s
enhancement of high stakes accountability, and whether they viewed those efforts as
beneficial or detrimental. Teachers have responded to the principal’s enhancement
of high stakes accountability by attending the AB 466 training and implementing
school-wide researched-based strategies. The majority of teachers have found the
principal’s behaviors and activities to support these enhancements as advantageous.
The initial forty hours of the AB 466 language arts training was found to be
extremely beneficial, in contrast the follow-up hours and the entirety of the AB 466
mathematics training according to teachers has not been beneficial.
On the other hand, data analysis is still in the beginning stages of evolution.
Assessments are collected at the district level and some assessments are collected at
the school site level; however there is minimal evidence that upper grade teachers
use the assessments to modify instruction. Primary teachers used data assessments
more regularly to modify instructional groupings. Both teacher groups expressed the
benefits of peer collaboration and the need for increased time to collaborate.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
Discussion Of Research Findings
Question One
How do principals and teachers view high stakes accountability in High Priority
Schools, and what do they see as the strengths and weaknesses of such an
accountability system in their own schools?
1. Mandates of High Priority Schools make it challenging for teachers to
maintain professional and personal balance.
Teachers at Melrose Elementary School argue high stakes accountability
makes it challenging to maintain professional and personal balance. The mandates
of AB 466, the Mathematics and Reading Development Program, requires teachers at
High Priority Schools to complete 120 hours of professional development in both
language arts and mathematics. The 40 hours of initial intensive professional
development is required to be held outside of the instructional day. The 80 hours of
follow-up may be conducted during teacher contract time. The bill indicates the 80
hours of follow-up must include instruction, coaching, and or additional school-site
assistance.
The HPSG budget includes additional funding for other professional
development. Consequently, Melrose School teachers have attended numerous
trainings in addition to the AB 466 Mathematics and Reading Development
Program. Although teachers believe the training has benefited their teaching skills,
the time involved in training often resulted in extra planning for substitute teachers,
time away from the classroom, and feelings of stress. Some of the trainings have
taken place on Saturdays, adding to the challenge of maintaining personal balance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
However, teacher interview groups believed the overall training benefited all
teachers’ teaching abilities.
The mandates of AB 466 are time consuming. Although professional
development is the most promising strategy for raising teacher performance
consequently student learning, the professional development hours involved in
meeting the requirements causes strain on the personal life of teachers causing some
teachers to seek employment elsewhere. If the state is going to invest in training
state reform teachers, policy-makers will also need to improve incentives to recruit
and retain quality teachers at state reform schools.
Participation in the High Priority School Grant initiates school-wide reform.
The HPSG action plan requires school-wide changes not only in professional
development, but also in school leadership, parental involvement, educational
programs, assessments, and ultimately school culture. School-wide reform relates to
the research compiled by the RAND study which concluded the larger the
innovation, the program scope, the higher the level of change which was attributed to
the level of challenge faced by the teachers in the organizations (McLaughlin &
Marsh, 1978). Results established the more teachers were challenged, the more
likely they were to change and carry out an innovation (McLaughlin & Marsh,
1978). However, the findings cautioned not to do too much too soon, which could
have adverse affects on the success of the implementation. Huberman and Miles
(1987) found comparable results.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
2. Principals and teachers feel moderately threatened by state sanctions.
Under the California state sanctions of Senate Bill 1552 of 1999, the
State Superintendent of Public Instruction could "assume all the legal rights,
duties, and powers of the governing board with respect to that school. . . and
reassign the principal...”. Additionally, the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction is required to take at least one of the following seven actions: (1)
revise attendance options for pupils to allow them to attend any public school in
which space is available; (2) allow parents to apply directly to the SBE for the
establishment of a charter school; (3) assign the management of the school to a
college, university, county office of education, or other appropriate educational
institution; (4) reassign other certificated employees of the school; (5) negotiate
a new collective bargaining agreement at the expiration of the existing
agreement; (6) reorganize the school; or (7) close the school (Senate Bill 1552,
1999).
Data gathered through interview, surveys, and observations indicate
participants are only moderately threatened by the sanctions of Senate Bill 1552
(1999). Principals and teachers squabble state take over is inconceivable accordingly
there is a low level of threatened job security. It is generally assumed the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction would not have the manpower or resources to
reassign staff or negotiate new collective bargaining agreements. For that reason,
participants argued state sanctions were bogus, a serious weakness of high stakes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
accountability. As such, state sanctions should be eliminated, and incentives to raise
academic perform increased.
3. Teachers as opposed to principals feel “responsible” for increased student
achievement; however principals feel greater “direct responsibility.”
Melrose School’s teachers felt they were the person responsible for increased
student achievement. Teachers are responsible for planning standards-based lessons,
using assessment to monitor student progress, and also seek interventions when
necessary. This finding is supported by Just and Boese (2002) who concluded
participation in state reform programs raised the level of awareness of staff
consequently increasing the level of accountability and student achievement. While
participation in the HPSG has raised the awareness of teacher accountability for
increased student achievement, a small percentage of teachers argued the
responsibility lays with parents, not teachers.
However, when asked who is held directly accountable for increased student
achievement through the use of data, principals felt a greater since of responsibility.
The term “accountability” was linked to state sanctions consequently principals
understood they would be the person held most responsible under the state sanctions
of Senate Bill 1552 (1999) if learning did not occur.
4. The API is viewed as an inaccurate measure of school achievement.
The state’s high stakes accountability system includes the State Academic
Performance Index (API) which was sited into law in 1999 under Senate Bill 1552
Chapter 3, the Public School Accountability Act (PSAA). It is a numeric index that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
.114
ranges from a low of 200 to a high of 1000. The STAR program results are used to
establish the schools Academic Performance Index by measuring the performance
and progress of individual schools on the SAT 9/CAT 6. The state has set an
Academic Performance Index goal of 800 for all schools (CDE 2002; EdSource,
2000; S. Bill, 1999).
Teachers in this case study contend the API is not an accurate measure of
school achievement for that reason it is viewed as a weakness of the current
accountability system. Teachers wonder if the API has captured all the elements that
determine progress toward mastery of standards. Participants attribute this belief to
two key factors. First, most children are making academic progress, and in many
cases more than a year’s growth per academic year. However, the API only measures
grade level growth, it does not account for where the child started and how far the
child has progressed. The second factor, the API only measures academic
achievement. It is generally believed that a high performing school is more than
performing well on the CAT 6.
Although there are state plans to strengthen the validity of the API by adding
additional components such as the CAHSEE and staff attendance rates, teachers feel
thjs would still not present an accurate view of the school’s performance level.
Teachers sensed API scores do not accurately reflect their student’s progress toward
mastery of standards. Ultimately, staff members expressed the API was a fairly good
measure used for initiating the accountability movement, however it was argued the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
school district or the state would need to build-in additional measures to more
accurately present the academic achievement of a school.
Additionally, in this case study at a highly populated English learner school,
teachers would like to see rewards based on English language acquisition. A reward
system based on English Language acquisition would promote the teaching of
English Language Development that would ultimately increase student academic
performance in the classroom and on standardized tests.
5. HPSG external entity provides beneficial feedback for program
modification.
Data collected through surveys and interviews indicate the HPSG external
entity has provided valuable feedback for program modifications. Participants view
the partnership with the external entity as program strength. In this case study,
Actions Learning System was contracted as the HPSG external entity. The external
monitor assigned to Melrose School has spent two days at the school site thus far,
and is contracted to work with the site for two additional days before the end of the
school year. The external entity will return numerous times during the three-year
period of program participation in the HPSG. Actions learning system has also
provided on site training in the area of reciprocal teaching as well as classroom
demonstration lessons.
During the last school site visit at Melrose Elementary School, the external
monitor spent the first day interviewing teachers and administration. Day two was
spent visiting all classrooms. At the end of the two-day visit, the monitor debriefed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
with the staff including administration. The debriefing highlighted areas of strength
as well as areas of weakness. A written report was then issued to the staff within a
couple of weeks. Staff members contend the report was extremely beneficial in that
the report validated the progress made at the school site, and also provided fresh
insight into the areas of need.
However, the report delivered to the staff was not the original report written
by the external entity. Principals at the state reform school were asked to modify the
report as needed. Consequently, the report was personalized skewing the
authenticity of the external entity’s findings. In some cases, negative findings were
deleted or modified. Negative findings were written to appear as positive findings,
and various positive finding were often added to the report leading one to ask “what
is the purpose of the external entity’s report if the report is not authentic?” How will
a low performing school improve, if they do not know which areas need improving?
The researcher unearthed that the external entity’s reports were shared with
the school’s superintendent, which seemed to be the leading cause for the altered
reports. The final written report was then analyzed and utilized by the school staff for
program modifications.
6. Participation in state reform positively influences student performance.
Data gathered through interview, surveys, and observations signify
participation in state reform positively influences student performance. Just and
Boese (2002) concluded participation in state reform programs raised the level of
awareness of the school staff consequently increasing the level of academic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
achievement. Cohort 1 state reform schools such as Melrose Elementary School
tend to be in an “awakening” stage which is thought to raise teachers’ and
principals’ awareness of student needs and learning potential.
Melrose teachers professed state reform had prompted a boost in staff
development, the use of state academic standards and data driven lessons, which
positively influence student performance. Professional development fostered
improved teaching strategies leading to increases in student achievement, which is
evident in the school’s steady API increase. The school-wide use of effective
research based teaching strategies such as reciprocal teaching was also positively
attributed to participation in state reform.
Question Two
What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability in their
schools?
7. The HPSG external entity’s assessments are analyzed and implemented for
program modifications.
The state of California has developed a list of state approved external entities.
These individuals and organizations meet the requirements to contract with state
reform schools for the purpose of raising school performance. Education Code
Section 5204 (2001) specifies that the external entity must inform the community
that the low-performing school has been invited to participate in the HPSG program,
must complete a review of the school, provide technical assistance and
recommendations for program improvement. These organizations work closely
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
with the school site to increase student achievement through professional
development, classroom observations, and program modifications. The external
entity provides ongoing written feedback to the principal.
Participants in this case study analyzed the external entity’s report from
Actions Learning System. Actions Learning System invited the school principal to
make changes to the first draft, if needed. The purpose of this invitation was to
lower the anxiety of working with an external monitor and to build collegiality.
However, once again, the report was completely distorted raising many questions.
What is the purpose of an external report if the school principal alters the report? Is
the altered report a misrepresentation of what is really going on in the school? How
does a school improve if one is not courageous enough to take an honest look at what
is working and what is not? Ultimately, it was the altered report that was
implemented for program modification.
8. Principals to some extent make parents aware of the school’s involvement in
HPSG.
State reform schools require principals to involve school stakeholders
including teachers, students, parents, and members of the community in making
program decisions and recommendations (CDE, 2002; E. Code 5204,2001). The
involvement of the school community’s key players promotes empowerment
consequently fostering an increased number of school leaders, and enhanced
decision-making (Fullan, 1991; Wohlstetter & Brigss, 1994). Fullan (1991)
encourages the involvement of stakeholders in this “monitoring/problem-coping”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
stage. Researchers Ramirez-Smith (1995), Wohlstetter and Mohrman (1995), and
Keller (1995) assert the involvement of key players also leads to higher quality,
better run schools.
Although survey results indicate participants believe parents are kept abreast
of the school’s involvement in the HPSG. There is very little evidence to support the
belief. In this study, parents were involved in a needs assessment survey at the onset
of the grant and are said to be kept abreast of the HPSG through schools site council.
However, this seems to be the extent of the parental involvement. Recommendations
for program improvement are not elicited from parents as required by Education
Code 5204 (2001). Parents should be actively involved in program modifications.
Active parental involvement in school decisions promotes school trust, buy-in, and
empowerment.
9. Principals plan professional development and conduct ongoing observations
to promote the use of research-based teaching strategies and data driven
lessons.
Systemic reforms encountered at successful schools provide professional
development in language arts and mathematics coupled with on-site training and
support services (CDE: SAD, 2002). Professional development fosters improved
teaching strategies that lead to increased student achievement. Teaching
strategies supported by trained literacy coaches who model the use of research-
based teaching strategies were most successful (CDE: SAD, 2002). Hence, the
principal’s role in educational reform should include goals for fostering quality
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
teachers through professional development centered on research-based teaching
strategies and ongoing classroom support. As educational leaders, one must
focus aspirations, staff development, and research on cultivating effective
classroom teachers. Fullan (1991) and Glickman (2002) agree the most effective
staff development is concrete, focused, and provides on-going support.
At Melrose Elementary School, teachers received an abundance of
professional development including reciprocal teaching coupled with classroom
demonstrations lessons, GLAD training, and AB 466. Immediate results of
reciprocal teaching and GLAD strategies were evident school-wide. Participants
of the study assert administrators engage in ongoing classroom visitations to
ensure the use of these strategies. “Ongoing” was defined by teachers as once
every three weeks. There is no evidence of literacy coaches to provide additional
on-site support.
10. The principal’s vision and leadership provides a plan for school
accountability.
The successful implementation of school reform hinges on the role and
effectiveness of the school principal (Fullan, 1991, 1993). Fullan (1993) proposed
four components to effectively restructure schools: getting clear on the focus of
change, making change organizational and systemic, managing the ongoing change
process, and deploying state restructuring grant funds to spur change.
Participants of the study strongly believe the HPSG principal has a clear
vision for raising school accountability; however a clear plan to engage in the change
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 2 1
process is minimal. The principal’s vision is consistently articulated at staff
meetings, assemblies, and committee meetings. The plan for achieving the goal is
specified in the school’s HPSG action plan. Unfortunately, the action plan does not
specify a clear map for the collection and analysis of ongoing assessments, which
would hold teachers accountable for student achievement.
Although district assessments and the state’s standardized test are sometimes
used to determine academic needs and to plan instruction, there exists little to no
evidence of benchmark tests, rubrics and other assessments that would provide
current and immediate results to monitor students’ needs. On-going standards-based
assessments are needed to promote and monitor student learning. There appears to
be inconsistency regarding how teachers collect and use data. The school, district,
and the state’s AB 466 trainings do not provide opportunities for district-wide
professional development in this area. As a result, data driven lessons and the
analysis of data at the school site are underdeveloped. Teachers are currently
lacking professional development on how to link data to classroom instruction.
11. The HPSG and school principal provide the resources to raise student
achievement; however resources are not always expended as outlined in the
school action plan.
The case study High Priority School has received $484,000. Participants of
the study are highly satisfied with the available funding used to supply the resources
to raise student achievement, however the school principal argues although the
money is beneficial, it is not needed to raise student achievement. The principal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
strongly believes that the resources purchased through the HPSG could be funded
through categorical programs such as the School Improvement Program and Limited
English Learner funds.
The majority of the HPSG funding is used to fund personnel and professional
development. Sixty-two percent of the total funding is expended on personnel,
which funds three teachers on special assignment. One of the teachers on special
assignment oversees the school library; the remaining teachers are used to reduce
class size in kindergarten. The remaining monies have been used to purchase books,
materials, technology, and supplies. Teachers are highly satisfied with the amount of
resources supplied to raise student achievement. However, not all items purchased
were found in the action plan. Some items purchased were not directly related to
raising student achievement.
Question 3
How do teachers respond to the principal’s enhancement of high stake
accountability? Do the teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or
detrimental?
12. Teachers attend AB 466 as required by the state and school principal and
have found the training to be beneficial; Teachers are beginning to use data to
plan instruction.
One way teachers have responded to the principal’s enhancement of high
stakes accountability is by attending AB 466 as required by the state and school
administrators. Teachers have fully implemented the use of state approved
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
curriculum as promoted through the AB 466 trainings, and the majority of teachers
have also employed a focus on academic standards.
Although survey results suggest an overwhelming majority of teaches use
data to plan instruction, teacher interviews and classroom observations unveiled a
break in the process in the types of assessments given and how the data is used to
modify instruction. Participants use state standardized test results and district
assessments at the onset of the school year to form instructional groupings.
Unfortunately, once again, there exists little evidence of ongoing standards-based
assessments, rubrics, and benchmark tests. These types of assessments would
provide the immediacy needed to effectively enrich or reteach in a timely manner.
Teachers would benefit form training centered on the creation, analysis, and
implementation of classroom assessments, which would provide formative data.
Classroom assessments should assess student progress toward state academic
standards.
13. A lack of peer collaboration and time make it challenging to meet the
mandates of the g ran t
Although encouraged to work in collaborative teams by the school principal,
most teachers still work in isolation. At Melrose Elementary School, the
overcrowded year-round, multiple track, and staggered session schedule makes it
challenging for teachers to collaborate and to be held accountable. However, teachers
in the school district are provided a minimum day every Wednesday that is to be
used for instructional planning time. Unfortunately, do to union restrictions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
administrators cannot specify how that time is to be used. Consequently, most
teachers use the designated time to plan independently. According to Schmoker
(2002), positive results occur when teachers work collaboratively.
The HPSG has resulted in increased staff development and changes in the
school organization. As such, teachers expressed a need to maximize time to
collaborate with peers. Collaboration time would supply the needed resource to
discuss, develop, and plan standards-based assessments, lessons, and effective
teaching strategies.
Chapter 5 will review the implications, recommendations and suggestions for
further study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
CHAPTER 5
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
Recent legislation and the public’s outcry for improved test scores in our
state have led to the age of accountability in public schools otherwise known as
the standards-based reform movement. Assembly Bill 265 (1996) set the
standards-based educational reform in motion. The movement prompted the
development of a myriad of reform efforts in the areas of standards and
curriculum, assessment, accountability, and professional development (California
Department of Education, 2000). The legal issues presented under the 1999
Public School Accountability Act (PSAA), Senate Bill 1552 (1999), specifically
the High Priority School Grant Program was explored. The Public Schools
Accountability Act includes state sanctions for schools that fail to meet their
school’s academic growth target. These state sanctions are redefining the role of
the school principal in state reform schools.
This qualitative case study examines Melrose Elementary School within
the largest urban elementary school district in Orange County, California. The
focus of the study was the principal’s role in implementing school accountability
within California’s High Priority School. Data weres collected and analyzed in
the following ways.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
1. An intensive study of the literature
2. A conceptual framework to address the research questions
3. Selection of data collection instruments
4. Selection of a state reform school
5. Selection of participants for surveys, interviews, and observations
6. Analysis of data to determine trends
7. Distribution and collection of surveys
Surveys were used as the primary data collection tool. Secondary data
tools included interview questions and observations. The surveys, interview,
and observation data were triangulated for a deeper, more thorough analysis.
Educators, policy-makers, and the public have a vested interest in the
success of its children. The study examines the critical role of the principal
and teachers at High Priority Schools in raising student achievement under high
stakes accountability. The data collection and analysis of this case study
contributes to the research needed to continue to make well informed, research-
based decisions in education to raise student achievement and, more effectively,
target strategies for increased student achievement and abandon ineffective
strategies. This chapter will summarize research findings and discuss conclusions
based on research. In addition, implications of the study, recommendations and
questions for further research will be explored.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
Research Findings
Senate Bill IX (Chapter 3, Statutes of 1999), Public Schools
Accountability Act of 1999, established a statewide accountability system that
holds each school annually accountable for making gains in student
achievement. Under the system, all schools are ranked and expected to show
improvement in academic achievement for all groups of students by meeting
annual growth targets as determined by the school’s Academic Performance
Index and approved by the State Board of Education.
The Public Schools Accountability Act created the Immediate
Intervention/Under performing Schools Program (II-USP) in 1999 to support schools
in the lowest five deciles of the Academic Performance Index ranking. Assembly
961, Chapter 747, Statutes of 2001, also established the High Priority Schools Grant
(HPSG) for low performing schools. This program funded under Assembly Bill 961
amends the Immediate Intervention Schools Program legislation by allocating
monies to High Priority Schools. High Priority Schools are given three years to meet
its Academic Performance Index growth target. Schools that meet or exceed their
growth targets are eligible for monetary awards whereas schools that do not
meet or do not make significant progress toward their growth targets are be
subject to state sanctions and interventions. These state reform programs all have
serious accountability requirements that are redefining the role of the school
principal in the 21st century.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
Numerous conclusions were identified as a result of the research.
1. Mandates of High Priority Schools make it challenging for teachers to
maintain professional and personal balance.
2. Principals and teachers feel moderately threatened by state sanctions.
3. Teachers as opposed to principals feel a greater “responsibility” for increased
student achievement.
4. API is viewed as an inaccurate measure of school achievement.
5. The HPSG external entity provides beneficial feedback for program
modification.
6. Participation in state reform positively influences student performance.
7. The HPSG external entity’s assessments are analyzed and implemented for
program modifications.
8. Principals to some extent make parents aware of the school’s involvement in
HPSG.
9. Principals plan professional development and conduct ongoing observations
to promote the use of research-based teaching strategies and data driven
lessons.
10. The principal’s vision and leadership provides a minimal plan for school
accountability.
11. HPSG and school principals provide the resources to raise student
achievement; however resources are not always expended as outlined in the
school action plan.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
12. Teachers attend AB 466 as required by the state and school principal;
Teachers are only beginning to use data to plan instruction.
13. A lack of peer collaboration and time make it challenging to meet the
mandates of the grant.
The following section reviews the findings as they related to the research questions.
Question One
How do principals and teachers view high stakes accountability in High Priority
Schools, and what do they see as the strengths and weaknesses of such an
accountability system in their own schools?
Conclusion One: Mandates of High Priority Schools make it challenging for
teachers to maintain professional and personal balance.
Teachers at Melrose Elementary School argue high stakes accountability
makes it challenging to maintain professional and personal balance. Melrose School
teachers have attended numerous trainings in addition to AB 466. Although it is
believed the training benefited their teaching skills, the time involved in training
often resulted in extra planning for substitute teachers, time away from the
classroom, and feelings of stress. Some of the trainings have taken place on
Saturdays, which added to the challenge of maintaining personal balance. However,
teacher interview groups believed the training benefited all teachers teaching
abilities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
Conclusion Two: Principals and teachers feel moderately threatened by state
sanctions.
Under the California state sanctions of Senate Bill 1552 of 1999, the
State Superintendent of Public Instruction could "assume all the legal rights,
duties, and powers of the governing board with respect to that school. . . and
reassign the principal...”. Additionally, the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction is required to take at least one of the following seven actions: (1)
revise attendance options for pupils to allow them to attend any public school in
which space is available; (2) allow parents to apply directly to the SBE for the
establishment of a charter school; (3) assign the management of the school to a
college, university, county office of education, or other appropriate educational
institution; (4) reassign other certificated employees of the school; (5) negotiate
a new collective bargaining agreement at the expiration of the existing
agreement; (6) reorganize the school; or (7) close the school (Senate Bill 1552,
1999).
In response to the high stakes accountability of state sanctions, principals and
teachers at Melrose Elementary School feel their job security is only moderately
threatened. Principals and teachers argue that state take over is inconceivable and,
therefore, is weakness of high stakes accountability.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
Conclusion Three: Teachers as opposed to principals feel “responsible” for
increased student achievement; however principals feel greater “direct
responsibility.”
Melrose School’s teachers assert they are responsible for increased student
performance while the administrators’ role was to monitor instruction and to nurture
a school culture conducive to teaching and learning. However, when asked who is
held directly accountable for increased student achievement through the use of data,
principals felt a greater since of responsibility. The term “accountability” was linked
to state sanctions consequently principals felt they would be the person held most
responsible if learning did not occur.
Conclusion Four: The API is viewed as an inaccurate measure of school
achievement.
The state’s high stakes accountability system includes the State Academic
Performance Index (API) which was placed into law in 1999 under Senate Bill 1552
Chapter 3, the Public School Accountability Act (PSAA). Teachers in this case
study argued API is not an accurate measure of school achievement, therefore, is
viewed as a weakness of the current accountability system. Participants attribute this
belief to two key factors. First, the API only measures grade level growth, it does
not account for where the child started and how far the child has progressed. The
second factor, the API only measures the academic achievement of a school.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
Conclusion Five: HPSG external entity provides beneficial feedback for
program modification.
In this case study, Actions Learning System was contracted as the HPSG
external entity. Education Code Section 5204 (2001) specifies that the external entity
must complete a review of the school, provide technical assistance and
recommendations for program improvement. Actions Learning System has begun
to work closely with the school site to increase student achievement through
professional development, classroom observations, and program modifications. The
external entity provides ongoing written feedback to the principal.
Participants in this case study analyzed the external entity’s report from Actions
Learning System. Actions Learning System invited the school principal to make
changes to the first draft. In some cases, the report was completely distorted raising
many questions as to the purpose and authenticity of the report.
Conclusion Six: Participation in state reform positively influences student
performance.
Just and Boese (2002) concluded that participation in state reform
programs raised the level of awareness of staff consequently increasing the level
of academic achievement. Cohort 1 state reform schools such as Melrose
Elementary School tend to be in an “awakening” stage which is thought to raise
teachers’ and principals’ awareness of student needs and learning potential.
Melrose teachers professed state reform had prompted an increase in staff
development, the use of state academic standards and data driven lessons that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
positively influence student performance. This is evidenced by the school’s steady
API increase.
Question Two
What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability in their
schools?
Conclusion Seven: The HPSG external entity’s assessments are analyzed and
implemented for program modifications.
The State of California has developed a list of state approved external
entities. These individuals and organizations meet the requirements to contract with
state reform schools. External entities are hired to oversee the effective
implementation of the schools’ action plans. These organizations work closely with
the school site to increase student achievement through professional development,
classroom observations, and program modifications. Participants in the study
analyzed the external entity’s report from Actions Learning System and are
implementing changes as recommended in the report.
Conclusion Eight: Principals to some extent make parents aware of the school’s
involvement in HPSG.
State reform schools require principals to involve school stakeholders
including teachers, students, parents, and members of the community in making
program decisions and recommendations. Although survey results in this study
indicate participants believe parents are kept abreast of the school’s involvement in
the HPSG, there is very little evidence to support this belief. Parents were involved
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
in a needs assessment survey at the onset of the grant and are said to be kept abreast
of the HPSG through schools site council. Though, this seems to be the extent of
the parental involvement. Key players should be incessantly involved through the
three-year process by analyzing the external entity’s report and making program
recommendations. The active involvement of key players would not only support
the intentions of the grant, but would also foster an increased number of school
leaders, and enhanced decision-making.
Conclusion Nine: Principals plan professional development and conduct
ongoing observations to promote the use of research-based teaching strategies
and data driven lessons.
The principal’s role in educational reform should include goals for
fostering quality teachers through professional development centered on research-
based teaching strategies and ongoing classroom support. At Melrose Elementary
School, teachers received an abundance of professional development including
reciprocal teaching, GLAD training, and AB 466. Participants of the study assert
administrators engage in ongoing classroom visitations to ensure the use of these
strategies. However, “ongoing” was defined by teachers as once every three
weeks. The employment of literacy coaches to model and support the use of the
newly acquired teaching strategies would be benefit the school site. Teaching
strategies supported by trained literacy coaches who model the use of research-
based teaching strategies are extremely successful (CDE: SAD, 2002).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
Conclusion Ten: The principal’s vision and leadership provides a minimal plan
for school accountability.
Participants of the study strongly believe the HPSG principal has a clear
vision for raising school accountability. The principal’s vision is consistently
articulated at staff meetings, assemblies, and committee meetings. The plan for
achieving the goal is specified in the school’s state reform action plan. Although
district assessments and the state’s standardized test is used to determine academic
needs and to plan instruction, there exists little to no evidence of benchmark tests,
rubrics and other assessments which would provide current and immediate results to
monitor students’ needs. Ongoing standards-based assessments are needed to
promote and monitor student learning and mastery of academic standards.
Conclusion Eleven: The HPSG and school principal provide the resources to
raise student achievement; however resources are not always expended as
outlined in the school action plan.
Participants of the study are highly satisfied with the available funding used
to purchase the needed resources to raise student achievement. The majority of the
HPSG funding is used to fund personnel and professional development. The
remaining monies have been used to purchase books, materials, technology, and
supplies. While teachers were highly satisfied with the HPSG funding, the school
principal maintains that although the money is beneficial, it is not needed to raise
student achievement. An analysis of the budget found evidence that not all items
purchased were approved by the state or school site council.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
Q u e s t io n 3
How do teachers respond to the principal’s enhancement of high stake
accountability? Do the teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or
detrimental?
Conclusion Twelve: Teachers attend AB 466 as required by the state and school
principal; Teachers are beginning to use data to plan instruction.
Teachers have responded to the principal’s enhancement of high stakes
accountability by attending AB 466 as required by the state and school
administrators. Teachers have fully implemented the use of state approved
curriculum as promoted through the AB 466 trainings, and the majority of teachers
have also employed a focus on academic standards.
Survey results suggest an overwhelming majority of teaches use data to plan
instruction, however teacher interviews and classroom observations unveiled a break
in the process in the types of assessments given and how the data is used to modify
instruction. Teachers would benefit from training centered on the creation, analysis,
and implementation of classroom assessments that would provide the needed
formative data.
Conclusion Thirteen: A lack of peer collaboration and time make it challenging
to meet the mandates of the grant.
The HPSG resulted in increased staff development and changes in the school
organization. As such, teachers expressed a need to maximize time to collaborate
with peers. Collaboration time would supply the needed resource to discuss,
develop, and plan standards-based assessments, lessons, and effective teaching
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
strategies. At Melrose Elementary School, the need is intensified due to the size of
the school that necessitates a year-round, multiple track, and staggered session
schedule. The overcrowded school makes it challenging for teachers to collaborate
and be held accountable.
Implications of Research Findings
Policy-makers have designed legislation that institutes high stakes
accountability for principals and teachers. Policy-makers believe that a high stakes
accountability system such as the PSAA will prompt positive educational change that
will lead to high performing school with increased student achievement. The budget
includes $193.8 million for the second year of High Priority School funding, and
$127.6 million for II-USP schools. An additional, $32.9 million has been allocated
for sanctions for those schools that fail to make significant progress. A total of $27.9
million has been earmarked to fund the AB 466 training, and $26.2 million to fund
AB 75 The state’s budget also includes $120.2 million for pupil testing (CDE, 2003).
In 2002-2003, approximately $53.0 billion dollars will be allocated to California’s
983 school districts and 58 county offices. These figures result in an estimated
$9,072 per-pupil expenditure. In light of the recent budget deficit, the per- pupil
expenditure will drop down to $8,899.00 in 2003-2004. As such, policy-makers,
educators, and the general public have a vested interest in the success of California’s
Public School Accountability Act specifically state reform schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
First, it is important to acknowledge the state reform schools have had a
positive impact on student performance and school accountability. The positive
impact is evident at Melrose Elementary School in the Anaheim City School District.
Melrose School is actively involved in cohort 1 of the High Priority School Grant.
This state reform school attributes its steady academic increase to the participation in
the HPSG program. Participation in staff development, the school’s leadership, and
increased accountability for all teachers were the factors attributed to this success.
However, the enormous professional development hours associated with the AB466
training, the principals’ ability to modify external reports, and the lack of knowledge
in data analysis and lesson design cause great concern.
Policy-makers and educators can learn from this study and revisit the
mandates of the AB466 trainings. The AB 466 training components should also be
redesigned to include data collection and analysis. In the age of accountability, the
lack of data in this mandated five-day training is a horrendous oversight. Teachers
need to be provided with specific strategies for using data to modify instruction.
Second, policy-makers must also be aware that teachers are fleeing state
reform schools due to the time constraints placed on teachers to attend professional
development. Teachers must attend a total of 240 hours of professional development
while participating in the HPSG. Employees are finding it difficult to maintain
professional and personal balance. Consequently, teaches are transferring to non
state reform schools within the district where they are not mandated to meet this
overwhelming requirement. This causes great staffing concerns at the neediest
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
schools. If the quality of staff has the highest potential for building a high
performing school then it is important for policy-makers to address ways to retain
quality and experienced teachers at low performing schools.
Third, restrictions should be placed on the school principal’s ability to alter
the external entity’s report. The school community at state reform schools should be
presented with an authentic assessment of the state reform schools. The school
community and staff have a right to fully understand the school site’s needs, wants,
and strengths. An unchanged report would present a road map for bringing about
change in the school’s identified areas of weakness. Policy-makers should also
institute increased accountability for parental involvement in this process.
Fourth, teachers need increased time to collaborate. This lack of planning
time has hindered the opportunity to plan, share instructional strategies, and
collaborate. Educators and the general public need to be aware of the importance in
providing teachers with the time to plan, study, and research best practices. Policy
makers and educators could support this collaboration by designing increased staff
development days with opportunity to collaborate. Teachers can longer afford to
work in isolation if change is to occur. Standards based reform is stifled when time
is not allocated to examine student work, analyze assessment, and make well-
informed instructional decisions.
Lastly, principals should be held accountable for the expenditure of the
HPSG budget, and should also be given a recommended expenditure list. For
example, 50% of the monies should fund personnel, 30% staff development, 20%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
research-based materials, etc. In some cases, state reform schools are spending
money irresponsibly and receive an excess of funds.
Recommendations
1. Redesign the mandates of AB 466.
The initial forty hours of the AB 466 Mathematics and Reading Development
Program are both beneficial and necessary. However, the 160 hours of follow-up
training are burdensome and not nearly as effective. The follow-up hours should be
minimized and focused on providing in-classroom coaching and support to ensure
implementation of the AB 466 programs and strategies. The current requirements of
the follow up training and lack of pertinence to the classroom are not only
ineffective, but are prompting teachers to flee state reform schools.
The follow-up hours also need to be redesigned to include data analysis, peer
collaboration, and increased incentives for participation. School districts need to
institute a process for teachers to collaborate on data generated from the classroom.
This process would nurture the ongoing modification of instruction that is necessary
to re-teach and enrich the academic program. These modifications would bring
purpose and buy-in to the process.
2. Require authentic reports from external entities
External evaluators must present authentic school progress reports to the
school community, principals, and superintendents. The school site principal should
not be given the opportunity to alter the external entity’s reports. In order to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
maintain the integrity of this valuable process, it is imperative that the findings of the
report be genuine and accurate. If principals are to have input in the external entity’s
report then it should be in the form of an addendum. The ability to modify the report
invalidates the purpose of an external entity. If this process is to continue, then the
state should keep it’s money and have principal’s engage in a self-study.
3. Institute a system for ensuring parental involvement in program
modifications
Principals need to bridge parental involvement to state reform. Currently,
parents are kept minimally informed at a superficial level. The state needs to
institute meaningful parental involvement where schools are held accountable for the
inclusion of parents in program decisions. However, parents should first be required
to attend classes regarding the components of a high performing school, assessment,
funding, etc. Knowledge in these areas would assist parents in providing valuable
and knowledgeable input for program modifications. Evidence of parental
involvement in program recommendations and school satisfaction could then be
monitored by the school principal or external entity.
4, Design a clear plan to raise teacher-student accountability through data
analysis
Systemic change has not occurred in this area. The school district, school site,
and state need to institute a formal plan for professional development in data
analysis. Educators must understand how to determine which data instruments
supply the needed information to raise student achievement, how to collect and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
analyze data, how to change instructional practices based on data, and how to
monitor the outcomes of the instructional changes. Once again, the school site and
or district need to institute as formal process which allows teachers to collaborate on
the data then monitor whether instruction changes depending upon the outcomes of
the analysis.
5. Provide time for teacher collaboration
Principals must provide teachers with the needed time to collaborate, to share
their expertise. In addition, teachers must be nurtured into bridging their fears of
sharing their areas of incompetence as well as strengths with their peers. If
instruction is to improve, the resource of time must be allocated to analyze student
work, modify instructional strategies, and plan effective standards-based, data driven
lessons. Teachers must be afforded the opportunity to reflect deeply on current
practices and make changes that will result in increased student learning. The
opportunity to collaborate will nurture professional growth.
6. Institute a system for accountability of budget expenditures
A system for better monitoring the allocation and expenditure of HPSG funds
must be created. Monies should be allocated to fund the most promising instructional
strategies to raise student achievement. These strategies include professional
development, literacy coaches, and data driven lessons. Although the HPSG process
requires the submission of a research-driven action plan, monies are not utilized as
specified in the action plan. The external entity should be held accountable for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
closely monitoring the expenditure of the HPSG monies. The external entity should
also offer guidance to schools in selecting the most effective expenditures.
Areas For Further Research
1. A suggested area for further research includes the impact of the mandates of AB
466 on teacher retention. High Priority Schools cannot afford to lose
experienced and well-trained teachers. However, the mandates of AB 466 are
prompting teachers to leave these low performing schools and seek employment
at non-state reform schools. If the state is to continue to invest in turning around
low performing schools, the retention of teachers at these high demanding
schools cannot be overlooked.
2. A suggested area for further research includes the level of parental involvement
at state reform schools with high levels of English language learners. High levels
of parental involvement are characteristic of high performing schools. However,
low performing schools with high numbers of limited English speaking parents
tend to only keep parents involved at a superficial level.
3. A suggested area for further research includes the extent to which the school site
modifies the external entity’s report and the external report’s effect on program
modifications. The purpose of an external entity was to provide low performing
schools with an “expert” at building a high performing school. These experts
were to provide schools with program recommendations to increase student
achievement. The state’s external entities under went rigorous requirements to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
be deemed a state approved external entity. However, the principal’s ability to
modify the report raises questions of the authenticity of the report and the
effectiveness on program modifications.
4. A suggested area for further research includes an analysis of the district’s design
for the collection and use of data to increase student achievement. It is an oddity
that in the age of accountability, the use of data has not been effectively included
in the AB 466 trainings nor in most school plans. Systemic change must occur in
this area. Educators are lacking specific examples of how analyze data and use
the information to modify instruction.
5. A suggested area for further research includes the impact of collaborative release
time for teachers to analyze data and design standards-based, data-driven lessons.
Analyzing student work and assessment not only improve student performance, it
also provides opportunities for professional growth. Educators would benefit
from knowledge on how to effectively collaborate with peers, analyze data, and
how to design effective lessons to promote student learning.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
REFERENCES
Au, K. & Rafael, T. (2000). Equity and literacy in the next millennium.
Reading Research Quarterly. 35(1). 170.
Barton, P. (2001). Rising achievement and reducing gaps: Reporting
progress toward goals for academic achievement. Available on the Web site at
http://www.negp.gov.
Benner, C., Brownstein, B. & Dean, A. (1999). Walking the lifelong
tightrope: Negotiating work in the new economy. A joint publication of the working
partnerships USA and the economic policy institute. San Jose: California.
Bemal, E. & Valencia, R. (2000). The TAAS case: A recapitulation and
beyond. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 22(4), 540-556.
Blair, E. & Linn, R. (2000, Fall). Closing the gap. Newsletter from the
National Center for Research on Evaluation. Standards, and Student Testing.
Business Coalition for Education Reform. (1999). The formula for success:
A business leader’s guide to supporting math and science achievement. Washington,
D.C. Available on the Web site http://www.bcer.org/timss/.
Caldus, S. & Blankton, C. (1997, May/June). Effect of school population
socioeconomic status on individual academic achievement. The Journal of
Educational Research, 269-276.
California County Superintendents Educational Services Association.
(2002). Assessment and new initiatives. California Curriculum News Report 28(TT
1- 8.
California Department of Education. (2001a). Aiming high: High schools for
the 21st century. Sacramento: CDE Press.
California Department of Education. (1998). Nation at risk. Available on the
Web site at http://www.ed.gov/pubs.
California Department of Education. (2000). Ed data: State reports.
Available on Web site at http://www.ed.-data.kl2.ca.us/profde.
California Department of Education. (2001b). Ed data: State reports.
Available on Web site at http://www.ed.-data.kl2.ca.us/profde.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
California Department of Education. (2002). Ed data: State reports.
Available on Web site at http://www.ed.-data.kl2.ca.us/profile.
California Department of Education: Policy and Evaluation Division. (2002).
Available on the Web site at http://www.cde.ca.gov.
California Department of Education: Public School Accountability Act.
(2002). Available on web site at http://www.cde.ca.gov/psaa/.
California Department of Education: Standards and Assessment Division.
(2002, May). Introduction to the three-year plan for the development of California’s
assessment system.
California Employment Development Department. (2002). California-
Occupational Employment Projections. 1998-2008. Available on the Web site
http://www.calmis.cahwnet.gOv/file/occproi./rsl/18.
Campell, J., Voelel, K. & Donahue, P. (1998). Report in brief: NAEP1996
Trends in academic progress. U.S. Department of Education.
Cook, M. & Evans, W. (2000, October). Families or schools? Explaining the
convergence in white and black academic performance. Journal of Labor Economics.
Cruickshank, D. & Applegate, J. (1981). Reflective teaching as a strategy for
teacher growth. Education Leadership. 38(2). 553-554.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999, November). Making relationships between
standards, frameworks, assessment, evaluation, instruction, and accountability:
Restructuring brief. 21. California Professional Development Consortia. Available
on the Web site http://www.wested.org/cs/wew/view.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher
development. Educational Leadership. 53(6). 4-10.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Refraining the school form agenda. Phi-Delta
Kappan. 74(10). 753-761.
E. Code 60605 (1999). Available on web site
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bilEsen/sb_0351-0400/sb_376_bill.
EdSource: Clarifying Complex Education Issues. (2000, May). National
Accountability movement offers lessons for California.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
EdSource: Clarifying Complex Education Issues. (2001, June). California’s
student testing system: Hard and new directions.
EdSource: Clarifying Complex Education Issues. (2002, Spring/Summer).
Student achievement data reveal progress so far.
EdSource: Clarifying Complex Education Issues. (2002, June). Who are
California’s students?
Foote, C., Vermette, P., Wisniewski, S., Agnelli, A. & Pagano, C. (2000).
The characteristics of bad high school teachers reveal avoidable behaviors for new
teachers. Education. 121(1), 128-134.
Frymier, A. & Houser, M. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an
interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49 (31. 207-219.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.
New York: The Faimer Press.
Gall, M., Borg, W. & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An introduction.
6th Edition. Longman Publishers. USA: New York.
Glickman, C., Gordon, S., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2001). Supervision and
instructional leadership: A developmental approach. Massachusetts: Allyn and
Bacon.
Gordon, E. (2000, May). Bridging the new diversity: The minority
achievement gap. Principal.
Hall, G. & Hord, S. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and
potholes. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Hoff, D. (2000). Gap widens between black and white students on NAEP.
Education Week. 9.
Houston, P. & Bryant, A. (2002) .Leading to change: The challenge of the
new superintendency. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
Johnson, W. & Neal, D. (1998). Basic skills and the black-white earnings
gap. In C. Jenks and M. Phillips, eds., The Black-White Test Score Gan.
Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Johnston, R. & Viadero, D. (2000, March 15). Unmet promise: Raising
minority achievement. Education Week. Available on Web site at
http://www.edweek.org.
Just, A. & Boese, L. (2002, April). Public schools accountability act (2000-
20011: Immediate intervention/underperforming schools program fii-usp): how
California’s low-performing schools are continuing their efforts to improve student
achievement. California Department of Education Policy and Evaluation Division:
Research Summary.
Kahlenberg, R.D. (2000, February). Economic School Integration. The
Century Foundation Idea Brief No. 2.
Klein, M. (1992). A perspective on the gap between curriculum theory and
practice. Theory Into Practice. 31, 191-197.
Koschoreck, J.W. (2001). Accountability and educational equity in the
transformation of an urban district. Education and Urban Society, 33(31. 284.
Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (1981). Synthesis of research on improving
schools. Educational Leadership. 38(2), 583-586.
Lipman, P. (1997). Restructuring in context: A case study of a teacher.
Lucas, S. (2000). Hope, anguish, and the problem of our time: An essay on
the publication of the black-white test score gap. Teachers College Record. 2. 461-
473.
Mathews, J. (2002, May). Succession: Insiders vs. outsiders. The School
Administrator. 16-26.
McLaughlin, M. & Marsh, D. (1978). Staff Development and school change.
Teachers College Record. 80(1), 69-94.
National Alliance of Business. (1998).The multifaceted returns to education.
Workforce Economics Trends, No. 1.
National Association of Business. (1998). Available on the Web site at
http:/www.NABE.com.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2000). Academic outcomes:
Trends in the achievement g a p in reading between black and white students.
Available at the Web site at www.nces.ed.gov/pablis2Q00/coe20Q0/section2/inidicatorl7.html.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). NAEP 2001
mathematics assessment results released. U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Education Research and Improvement. Washington, D.C.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Available on the Web
site at http://www.nces.ed.gov.
Negroni, P. (2000, September). A radical role for superintendents. The
School Administrator. 16-19.
O’Neil, J. (1995). On lasting school reform: A conversation with Ted
Sizer. Educational Leadership. 52(5). 4-9.
Okpala, C., Smith, F., Jones, E. & Ellis, R. (2000). A clear link between
school and teacher characteristics, student demographics, and student achievement.
Education. 120(3). 257-301.
Peart, N. & Campbell, F. (1999). At-risk students’ perceptions of teacher
effectiveness. Journal for a Trust and Caring Education. 5. 269-284.
Peeples, J. & Stanton, A. (2000). Educational reform discourse:
President George Bush on “America 2000.” Communication Education.
Available on the Web site at http://www.proquest @bellowell.infolearning.com.
Primary Grade Teachers. (2003). An interview with primary grade teachers
of a High Priority School in March, 2003. Thomas Melrose Elementary School,
Anaheim, California.
Public Schools of North Carolina, (2000). The role of district level staff
in closing the gap, www.dpi.state.nc.us/closingthegap/staff.html.
Ramirez-Smith, C. (1995). Stopping the cycle o f failure: The comer
model. Educational Leadership. 14-19.
Rist, R. (2000). Student social class and teacher expectations: the self-
fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review. 70(3).
257-301.
S. Bill 1552, Chapter 3. (1999). Public School Accountability Act 2000.
Available on the Web site at http://www.info.sen.ca.gov.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
S. Bill 376 (1997). Accountability Act 2000. Available at the Web site at
http://www.info.sen ca.gov.
Schwartz, D. (2003, March). An interview with High Priority School
Principal, Mrs. Schwartz. Thomas Melrose Elementary School, Anaheim,
California.
Singh, V.P. (1994). The underclass in the United States: Some correlates of
economic change. In J. Kretovics & E. J. Nussel (Eds.), Transforming Urban
Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sizer, T. (1992). Horace’s school: Redesigning the American high school.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Slavin, R. (1994). Educational psychology theory and practice. (4th ed.).
Boston; Allyn and Bacon.
State Board of Education and California Department of Education, (2002).
Thurlow, M. (2000). Standards-based reform and students with
disabilities: Reflections on a decade of change. Focus on Exceptional Children.
33(3), 1-16.
Tucker, M. & Codding, J. (1998). Standards for our school: How to set
them, and reach them. San Francisco: Jossey and Bass.
United States Department of Education, (1993). Academic challenge for
the children of poverty: The summary report. Washington, DC: Author
(prepared for the U.S. Department of Education by SRI International and Policy
Studies Associates.
Upper Grade Teachers. (2003, March). Ah interview with primary grade
teachers of a High Priority School. Thomas Melrose Elementary School, Anaheim,
California.
United States Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind .
Available on the Web site at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html.
Webb, L. & Norton, M. (1999). Human resources administration:
Personnel issues and needs in education. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
Wolfolk, A. (2001). Educational Psychology. (8th ed.). Massachusetts: Allyn
and Bacon.
Wray, D., Medwill, J., Fox, R. & Poulson, L. (2000). The teaching practices
of effective teacher of literacy. Educational Review. 52(1"). 75-84.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDICES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
Letters to Participants
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
March 10, 2003
Melrose School Staff,
I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California (USC) working under the direction of
Dr. Marsh. I am researching the extent to which the mandates of High Priority School Grant (HPSG)
action plans are implemented in a HPSG school and the effectiveness o f the mandates.
Assembly Bill 961 established the High Priority Schools Grant otherwise know as
the HPSG. The purpose of this program is to assist the lowest performing
schools in the state. Four hundred dollars per student with a $200.00 matching
fund is awarded to HPSG schools to assist in raising student achievement by
offering additional resources to target student intervention. All schools ranking
in decile 1 according to the statewide API are invited to participate in the
program. However, participation in the HPSG program automatically mandates
participation in II-USP meaning HPSG schools must also meet the entire
mandates of II-USP.
In consultation with USC and the Anaheim City School District, Melrose was highly recommended
for this case study. As such, your participation in the study is critical. I am interested in studying
how principals view high stakes accountability in High Priority Schools. In addition, the study will
include the strengths and weaknesses of such accountability and how accountability is enhanced. The
teachers’ response to the work o f the principal in this regard will also be studied.
This study will include the completion of a survey, informal classroom visits, and voluntary group
interviews. I will arrange my schedule to best meet the time schedule o f the participants. I have
arranged through Mrs. Schwartz to attend your staff meeting on Tuesday, March 11, at 9:00 a.m. and
2:30 p.m. to further discuss the purpose o f the study and complete the survey. All interviews, surveys,
and observations will be kept anonymous and confidential.
If you would like a copy of the results o f the study, I would be happy to share them with you. The
findings o f the study will assist policy makers and educators to better understand the effectiveness of
state reform schools.
Thank you, your participation is instrumental to the success of the study.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Marti Ayala
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
Letters to Permission and Information Forms
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
Principal Permission and Information Form
I ,_________ : _________ , agree to participate in the study which will research the extent to which the
High Priority School Grant has been implemented and the effectiveness of the mandates. I understand
my responses will be kept confidential.
Print Name
Signature
Date
Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study. Your responses will provide policy makers and
educators in California with the needed information to make well-informed educational decisions. The
information below will only be used for this study. I ensure your complete confidentiality.
Name:
Years in the teaching profession (as certificated employee):
Number o f years at Melrose School:
Credentials:
Average number of hours spent on adjunct duties related to HPSG:
Average number o f hours spent in staff development since HPSG:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
Teacher Permission and Information Form
I, __________________ , agree to participate in the study which will research the extent to which the
High Priority School Grant has been implemented and the effectiveness o f the mandates. I understand
my responses will be kept confidential.
Print Name 1 '
Signature _____________________ _
Date
Thank you for agreeing to participate in the study. Your responses will provide policy makers and
educators in California with the needed information to make well-informed educational decisions. The
information below will qnly be used for this study. I ensure your complete confidentiality.
Name:
Years in the teaching profession (as certificated teacher):
Number of years at Melrose School:
Do you have a Clear California Credential?
Average number o f hours spent weekly on adjunct duties related to HPSG:
Average number o f hours spent weekly in collaboration with peers:
Average number o f students during the current school year:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
Principal and Teacher Surveys
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
Princinal Survey
Name:___________________________ Date:
I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California researching the extent to
which the mandates of a High Priority School Grant (HPSG) action plan are implemented and the
effectiveness of these mandates. As such, I will be studying how principals view high stakes
accountability in High Priority Schools. In addition, the study will include the strengths and
weaknesses o f such accountability and how high stakes accountability is enhanced. The teachers’
response to the work of the principal in this regard will also be studied. Complete confidentiality will
be maintained.
Directions: Read each statement carefully then circle the number which best represents your
agreement with the statement. The choices include 0 don’t know, 1 disagree strongly, 2 disagree
somewhat, 3 agree somewhat, and 4 agree strongly. Upon completion, please place the survey in the
“HPSG Survey” envelope.
Don’t
Know
0
Disagree
Strongly
1
Disagree
Some-what
2
Agree
Some
what
3
Agree
Strongly
4
High Priority School Grant: Initial Assessment
M y school has a cohesive action plan
for school reform .
0 1 ' 2 3 4
The goals o f the HPSG were determined as
required from an initial needs assessment.
0 1 2 3 4
The HPSG mandates makes it challenging
to maintain personal and professional
balance.
0 1 2 3 4
My job security is dramatically threatened
if student achievement does not improve.
0 1 2 3 4
I feel empowered to assume leadership
roles in my school.
0 1 2 3 4
I am the person responsible for the
increase o f student achievem ent.
0 1 2 3 4
H igh stakes accountability prom otes
the use o f the needed data to plan
instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
H igh stakes accountability places
necessary pressure on teachers to teach
state standards.
0 1 2 3 4
The API is an accurate m easure o f m y
school’s achievem ent.
0 ‘ 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The HPSG external entity provides
valuable feedback for program
improvement.
0 1 2 3 4
T he external entity’s assessm ent is
analyzed and im plem ented for program
m odifications.
0 I 2 3 4
T he state’s top dow n reform limits
teacher creativity and buy-in.
0 1 2 3 4
H igh stakes accountability has
w eakened the teacher-principal
relationship.
0 1 2 3 4
HPSG drastically increases the
w orkload for classified staff.
0 1 2 3 4
My teachers frequently collaborate to
m eet the dem ands o f high stakes
accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
I have com p leted the AB 75
p rin cip al’s train in g and found it to
be highly beneficial.
0 1 2 3 4
S takeholders are w ell aw are o f the
sch o o l’s involvem ent in the H PSG .
0 1 ' 2 3 4
Research Based and Data Driven
1 ensure teachers use effective research
based teaching strategies in their
classroom.
0 1 2 3 4
My teachers use data to plan quality
instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
The professional development at our
school is focused and linked to improving
student learning.
0 1 2 3 4
Professional development at my school is
linked to changes in teaching behavior.
0 I 2 3 4
Professional development has helped ray
teachers develop a repertoire of research
based teaching strategies.
0 I 2 3 4
I plan p rofessional d evelopm ent on
the collectio n and the effective use
o f data analysis.
0 1 ' 2 3 4
I hold my teachers directly
accountable for increased student
achievem ent through the use o f
data.
0 1 2 3 4
1 analyze lesson plans to ensure
lessons are data driven and reflect
0 1
2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sta te standards.
1 conduct ongoing inform al
classro o m ob serv atio n s to ensure
th e use o f data, state standards, and
e ffe ctiv e teaching strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
I allocate the needed tim e and
reso u rces fo r teachers to engage in
cu rricu lar m apping.
0 1 2 3 4
1 co llect and analyze student w ork
sam ples on an ongoing basis as a
m eans to m o n ito r stu d e n t progress.
0 1 2 3 4
M y teachers see the benefits o f data
collection and analysis.
0 1 . 2 3 4
Data action walk throughs assist in
maintaining data and standards driven
lessons.
0 I 2 3 4
The collection of data promotes personal
accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
Student portfolios are utilized for
planning instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
i see the significant benefits of data
collection and analysis.
0 1 2 3 4
All Will Succeed
I have high expectations and standards for
all students which enhances student
potential.
0 1 2 3 4
My school has identified critical barriers
to learning.
0 1 2 3 4
I have specific plans for increasing the
achievement of low performing students.
0 1 2 3 4
I respond in a timely manner to teacher
concerns.
0 1 2 3 4
School reform efforts have positively
influenced student performance.
0 1 . 2 3 4
1 have an ethical responsibility to raise the
achievement of all students.
0 1 2 3 4
As a result of the HPSG, I now offer
greater support to meet individual needs
of students.
0 1 2 3 4
Community Involvement
Most parents volunteer in my school. 0 1 2 3 4
An increasing number of parents attend
education classes here at school.
0 1 2 3 4
Parents actively serve on PTA, SSC, etc. 0 1 2 3 4
Parents feel they are welcomed here at
school as partners in education.
0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
The home-school relationship at this
school has been strengthened by the
HPSG.
0 1 2 3 4
T h ere is ev idence th at parents are
a ctiv ely involved in the pursuit o f
ra isin g th e ir c h ild ’s achievem ent.
0 1 . 2 3 4
S tak eh o ld ers are em pow ered to
se rv e on th e data action w alk
th ro u g h visits.
0 I 2 3 4
T h e m an d ates o f a H PSG school are
a rticu lated to sta keholders on an
o n g o in g basis.
0 1 2 3 4
M y school v ision and leadership
clearly d em onstrate a plan for
sch o o l accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
A School Design Which is Conducive to Teaching and Learning
Peer collaboration has benefited my
staff s teaching ability.
0 1 2 3 4
The staff has aligned the curriculum to
state standards to ensure consistency.
0 1 2 3 4
The school promotes a culture conducive
to learning.
0 1 2 j 4
The school has a safe and orderly
environment.
0 1 2 3 4
There exists a school-wide focus on
teaching and learning.
0 1 2 3 4
Resources
I provide the resources needed to meet
state accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
1 have a clear plan for raising the school’s
API.
0 1 2 3 4
I provide release time for peer
collaboration.
0 1 2 3 4
1 provide the necessary resources to meet
my staffs teaching needs to raise student
performance.
0 1 2 3 4
H PSG provides the resource funding
needed to increase student
achievem ent.
0 1 2 3 4
H PSG funding provides flexibility in
spending.
0 1 2 3 4
M y school has investigated the
needed resources for program
m aintenance.
0 1 2 j 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
Teacher Survey
Name (optional): Date:
I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California researching the extent to
which the mandates of a High Priority School Grant (HPSG) action plan are implemented and the
effectiveness of these mandates. As such, 1 will be studying how principals view high stakes
accountability in High Priority Schools. In addition, the study will include the strengths and
weaknesses of such accountability and how high stakes accountability is enhanced. The teachers’
response to the work of the principal in this regard will also be studied. Complete confidentiality will
be maintained.
Directions: Read each statement carefully then circle the number which best represents your
agreement with the statement. The choices include 0 don’t know, 1 disagree strongly, 2 disagree
somewhat, 3 agree somewhat, and 4 agree strongly. Upon completion, please place the survey in the
“HPSG Survey” envelope.
Don’t
Know
0
Disagree
Strongly
1
Disagree
Some
what
2
Agree
Some
what
3
Agree
Strongly
4
High Priority School Grant: Initial Assessment
M y school has a cohesive action plan
for school reform .
0 1 2 3 4
The goals o f the HPSG were determined
as required from an initial needs
assessment.
0 1 2 3 4
The HPSG mandates makes it challenging
to maintain personal and professional
balance.
0 1 2 3 4
My job security is dramatically threatened
if student achievement does not improve.
0 1 2 3 4
I feel empowered to assume leadership
roles in my school.
0 1 2 3 4
I am the person responsible for the
increase o f student achievem ent.
0 1 2 3 4
High stakes accountability prom otes
the use o f the needed data to plan
instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
High stakes accountability places
necessary pressure on teachers to
teach state standards.
0 1 2 3 4
The API is an accurate m easure o f my
school’s achievem ent.
0 1 2 3 4
The HPSG external entity provides
valuable feedback for program
improvement.
0 1 2 3 4
The external entity’s assessm ent is
analyzed and im plem ented for
program m odifications.
0 1 2 3 4
The state’s top dow n reform limits
teacher creativity and buy-in.
0 1 2 3 4
High stakes accountability has
w eakened the teacher-principal
relationship.
0 1 2 3 4
H PSG drastically increases the
w orkload for classified staff.
0 1 2 3 4
Teachers frequently collaborate to
m eet the dem ands o f high stakes
accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
1 have com pleted the AB 466
train in g and found it to be highly
beneficial.
0 1 2 3 4
S takeholders are w ell aw are o f the
sc h o o l’s involvem ent in the HPSG.
0 1 2 ' 3 4
Research Based and Data Driven
I use effective research based teaching
strategies in my classroom.
0 1 2 3 4
Teachers use data to plan quality
instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
The professional development at our
school is focused and linked to improving
student learning.
0 1 2 3 4
Professional development at my school is
linked to changes in teaching behavior.
0 1 2 3 4
Professional development has helped
teachers develop a repertoire of research
based teaching strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
I attend professional developm ent
on th e collectio n and th e effective
use o f data an alysis.
0 1 2 3 4
1 am held directly accountable for
increased student achievem ent
through the use o f data.
0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
M y lesson plans are data d riven and
reflect sta te standards.
0 i 2 3 4
M y prin cip al conducts ongoing
inform al classroom ob serv atio n s to
ensure th e use o f data, state
stand ard s, and effective teach in g
strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
M y prin cip al allocates the n eeded
tim e and reso u rces for teach ers to
en gage in cu rricu lar m apping.
0 1 2 3 4
M y sch o o l has effective, research
based in terv en tio n program s in
place.
0 1 2 3 4
Plans For Ongoing Data Gathering
1 co llect and an alyze stu d e n t w o rk
sam ples on an ongoing basis as a
m eans to m o n ito r student progress.
0 1 2 3 4
I see the benefits o f data collection
and analysis.
0 1 2 3 4
Data action walk-throughs assist in
maintaining data and standards driven
lessons.
0 1 2 3 4
The collection of data promotes personal
accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
Student portfolios are utilized for
planning instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
1 see the significant benefits of data
collection and analysis.
0 1 2 3 4
All Will Succeed
1 have high expectations and standards for
all students which enhances student
potential.
0 1 2 3 4
My school has identified critical barriers
to learning.
0 1 2 3 4
I have specific plans for increasing the
achievement of low performing students.
0 ■ 1 2 3 4
My principal responds in a timely manner
to teacher concerns.
0 1 2 3 4
School reform efforts have positively
influenced student performance.
0 1 2 3 4
I have an ethical responsibility to raise the
achievement of all students.
0 1 2 3 4
As a result of the HPSG, I now offer
greater support to meet individual needs
of students.
0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
Community Involvement
Most parents volunteer in my school. 0 1 2 3 4
An increasing number of parents attend
education classes here at school.
0 1 2 3 4
Parents actively serve on PTA, SSC, etc. 0 1 2 3 4
Parents feel they are welcomed here at
school as partners in education.
0 1 2 3 4
The home-school relationship at this
school has been strengthened by the
HPSG,
0 1 2 3 4
T here is evidence th at parents are
actively involved in the pursuit o f
raising th e ir c h ild ’s achievem ent.
0 1 2 3 4
S takeholders are em pow ered to
serv e on the data action w alk
through visits.
0 1 2 3 4
The m andates o f a HPSG school are
articulated to stakeh o ld ers on an
ongoing basis.
0 1 2 3 4
M y school v ision and leadership
clearly d em onstrate a plan for
school accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
A School Design Which is Conducive to Teaching and Learning
Peer collaboration has benefited my
teaching ability.
0 1 2 3 4
The staff has aligned the curriculum to
state standards to ensure consistency.
0 1 2 3 4
The school promotes a culture conducive
to learning.
0 1 2 3 4
The school has a safe and orderly
environment.
0 1 2 3 4
There exists a school-wide focus on
teaching and learning.
0 1 2 3 4
Resources
1 provide the resources needed to meet
state accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
I have a clear plan for my part in raising
the school’s API.
0 1 2 j 4
My principal provides release time for
peer collaboration.
0 1 2 3 4
My principal provides the necessary 0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
resources to meet my teaching needs to
raise student performance.
H PSG provides the resource funding
needed to increase student
achievem ent.
0 1 2 3 4
HPSG funding provides flexibility in
spending.
0 1 2 3 4
M y school has investigated the
needed resources for program
m aintenance.
0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX D
Principal and Teacher Interview Questions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
An Analysis of the Elementary Principals Role in Implementing
School Accountability within California’s High Priority School:
A Case Study
Principal Interview Questions
Inter-rater reliability: It is very important that all interviewers follow the format
below to ensure that the same information is collected from each school targeted in
this project. Please be sure to take accurate and detailed notes. You may want to
designate someone as a note-taker, or use a tape
recorder and transcribe later.
The Public School Accountability legislation, has prompted an interest in schools that are struggling
to achieve academically. Melrose School has been participating in High Priority Schools Grant
Program to obtain “Academically Above Average” students. Melrose School also has a student
population that is at or above the 85% poverty level and services a majority minority population
which makes the school o f special interest. The purpose of this interview is to gain deeper insight on
the three questions that follow: 1) How do principal’s view high stakes accountability in High Priority
School and what do they see as the strengths and weaknesses of such accountability in their own
schools? 2) What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability in their schools? 3)
How do teachers respond to the principal’s enhancement of high stakes accountability? Do the
teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or detrimental?
The survey you responded to gave a snapshot of you views. At this time I would like
to focus on a few of the categories from the survey and get more specific and
detailed responses to gain a clearer picture of the principal’s role in implementing
school accountable.
High Priority School Grant and Initial Assessment
1. Is the API an accurate measure of the achievement of your school? Is there a performance
discrepancy in subgroups on the STAR test?
2. Did your school engage in an initial needs assessment? What goals did the initial needs
assessments identify?
3. When you established your Action Plan, you identified barriers to achieving your plan. Tell
me about your school barriers.
4. What strategies do you feel will be most effective in overcoming these barriers? (If any
responses are unclear, respond, “Tell me more about or tell me what you mean when
you say_________.”)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
5. Is the resource funding adequate to increase student achievement? Do you have flexibility in
spending the funds?
6. Has the HPSG funding helped to overcome the barriers to increased student achievement?
7. What high stakes accountability are you under as a high priority school to raise student
achievement? Who is responsible for the increase of student achievement? How are
you/they held responsible?
8. Has high stakes accountability weakened the teacher-principal relationship? How?
9. What are the needed resources for program maintenance?
10. Does the state’s prescribed plans and templates limit teacher creativity and buy-in? How?
11. In what way does HPSG increase the workload for classified staff?
12. What does teacher collaboration look like? How are they collaborating?
13. In what way do you keep your staff and other stakeholders abreast of new legislation that
increases school accountability?
14. What have you gained from the AB 75 training?
15. What feedback have you received from your external entity for program improvement?
16. Have you analyzed the external entity’s assessment? Have program modifications based on
commendations and recommendations been implemented? What role does staff development
or teacher learning play in accomplishing your goals? Is the training provided research based
and data driven?
Research Based and Data Driven
17. How do you ensure that teachers use research based teaching strategies in their classroom?
Use data to plan instruction?
18. Do you link professional development to improving student learning in your school?
19. What do you do to determine the professional development necessary for your site?
20. Give some examples of professional development that has helped your teachers increase
accountability and raise student achievement.
21. When reviewing lesson plans, how do you know that the plan is data driven and standards-
based?
22. What do you look for when conducting informal classroom observations?
23. Describe the research based intervention programs, if any, that you have in place?
Plans for Ongoing Data Gathering
24. Do you plan to continue gathering data? If so, how?
25. Which local assessments are used to modify instruction and improve student achievement?
26. What kinds o f assessments do teachers use to monitor gains in student achievement? Are
assessments used on an ongoing basis?
27. Describe the process you use to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the action plan
and its impact on student achievement, specifically closing the achievement gap?
28. What benefits have you seen from data collection and analysis? Your teachers?
All Will Succeed
29. I f the answer to the following question has not been clarified previously, please probe
further. How are regular opportunities for collaborative work built into the school plan and
into the school day? (Example: Planning lessons together, studying samples o f student work
for clues to better teaching strategies, problem solving, etc.)
30. How do you ensure a safe and orderly environment to promote student learning?
31. What plans do you have for increasing the achievement o f low performing students?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
32. What reform efforts have had the most impact on student performance?
33. What reform efforts have had the most impact on you as an administrator?
A School Design which is conducive to Teaching and Learning
34. I f the answer to the following question has not been clarified previously, please probe
further. How does your plan show that teachers are connected to other professionals beyond
the school day? Is the school conducive to teaching and learning? How? (Example:
Workshops/conferences, professional reading, visitation to other schools, use of technology,
networks, etc.)
35. What steps are you taking to increase the number of fully credentialed teachers?
Resources
36. In what ways does your leadership improve teaching and learning?
37. What is your budget allocation?
38. What percentage of the budget remains to date?
Community Involvement
39. What specific strategies do you use to increase the level o f parent involvement in your
school?
40. What is your plan for the increased performance of your English learners?
41. Describe parent groups that have been actively involved since the induction of the HPSG.
What evidence do you have to show that parents are more actively involved since
implementing the HPSG?
42. How have you strengthened the home-school relationship to make parents partners in
education?
43. What services, if any, do you offer to the parents at your school?
44. How do you make parents feel welcomed in your school?
45. Who are the stakeholders involved in your school? What do you do to keep them informed
and active in your achievement goals?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
An Analysis of the Elementary Principals Role in Implementing School
Accountability Within California’s High Priority School: A Case Study
Teacher Group Interview Questions
Inter-rater reliability: It is very important that all interviewers follow the format
below to ensure that the same information is collected from each school targeted in
this project. Please be sure to take accurate and detailed notes. You may want to
designate someone as a note-taker, or use a tape
recorder and transcribe later.
The Public School Accountability legislation, has prompted an interest in schools that are struggling
to achieve academically. Melrose School has been participating in High Priority Schools Grant
Program to obtain “Academically Above Average” students. Melrose School also has a student
population that is at or above the 85% poverty level and services a majority minority population,
which makes the school o f special interest. The purpose of this interview is to gain deeper insight on
the three questions that follow: 1) How do principal’s view high stakes accountability in High Priority
School and what do they see as the strengths and weaknesses of such accountability in their own
schools? 2) What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability in their schools? 3)
How do teachers respond to the principal’s enhancement of high stakes accountability? Do the
teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or detrimental?
The survey you responded to gave a snapshot of you views. At this time, I
would like to focus on a few of the categories from the survey and get more specific
and detailed responses to gain a clearer picture of the principal’s role in
implementing school accountable.
High Priority School Grant and Initial Assessment
1. Did you participate in the initial needs assessment for your schools action plan? If so, how?
2. What is your perception of what the principal does to enhance accountability?
Ensures use o f research-based teaching strategies
Ensures use o f data to drive instruction
Determines professional development
Conducts weekly classroom observations
Analyzes lesson plans
Allocates time and funds for teachers to engage in curriculum mapping
Collects and analyzes student work samples
Conducts data-action walk-through
Responds in a timely manner
Holds high expectations and standards for all students
Offers greater support to meet individual needs
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
3. How does the principal’s actions affect your role in monitoring student accountability to
meet state reform mandates?
Research Based and Data Driven
4. Is what s/he does a benefit to you? the students? other staff members? In what way/s? Is it
research-based and data-driven?
5. What research based teaching strategies do you use in your classroom?
6. What are the benefits of data collection and analysis?
7. How is professional development linked to improving student learning?
8. How does professional development affect your teaching behavior?
9. What do you feel are the benefits o f data action walk-throughs?
Plans for Ongoing Data Gathering
10. How does data collection promote personal responsibility for you?
11. How do you use data to plan your instruction?
12. How do student portfolios help in planning your instruction?
All Will Succeed
13. Do you feel that all children will learn and every school can succeed?
14. What is your response to the work the principal has done in this regard?
15. In what ways does your principal respond to your concerns in a timely manner?
16. What kinds of support (interventions) do you offer to meet individual needs?
Community Involvement
17. How do you get parents involved in your classroom?
18. What actions or responsibilities do you take on to help parents become actively involved in
parent education classes, PTA, SSC, etc.?
A School Design Which is Conducive to Teaching and Learning
19. Are you empowered to assume leadership roles? If so, what types o f roles?
20. Describe the benefits you have gained from peer collaboration.
21. Describe how you align the curriculum to state standards and incorporate them into your
lesson planning.
22. Has professional development at this school changed over time? If so, in what way?
Resources
23. What financial resources have helped you to implement your schools action plan in your
classroom?
24. Has personnel been hired to support student achievement?
25. How much release time do you get for peer collaboration? Is the amount of time sufficient
or is more time needed?
26. What suggestions has your external evaluator recommended? What benefit have you seen
from the use of these recommendations?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX E
Observation Guide
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
High Priority School Observation Guide
Action Plan_____________________________________
1. Describe to what extent the HPSG is research based.
2. Describe to what extent the HPSG is data driven.
3. Describe to what extent the HPSG contains plans for on-going data gathering.
4. Describe to what extent the HPSG is grounded on needs assessment.
5. Describe to what extent the HPSH contains plans for community involvement.
6. Describe to what extent the HPSG includes the expectation that all children can/will learn and
every school will succeed_____________________________________________________________■ ____
7. Describe to what extent the HPSG includes a school design which in conducive to teaching and
learning______________________
8. Describe how HPSG funding has been budgeted? (Personnel, materials, etc.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176
Classroom Evidence as it relates to teachers’ response to the principal’s enhancement of high
stakes accountability. Do the teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or detrimental?
1. Evidence of research based teaching strategies.(reciprocal teaching, direct teaching, etc.)
2. Evidence of the school’s focus to improve CAT 6 scores and API. (portfolios, lesson plans,
test prep., etc.)__________ ■ ________________________________________________
3. Evidence of the use California Content Standards to improve student performance, (lesson
plans, student work samples)______________________________________ _
4. Benchmark tests linked to state standards, (portfolios)
5. What types of data are collected by the district? School? (benchmark tests, trimester tests,
etc.) _______________________________ _________________ _________________________
6. Is the data collected linked to state standards? (evidence of alignment)
7. How is data analyzed? (trends, patterns, etc.)
8. What steps do teachers take to use data to improve student performance? (flexible groups,
tiered instruction) ____ _________________________________________________________
9. How is data used in the classroom to improve student performance? (program decisions,
flexible groups, etc.) ■ ____________________________________________________________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
177
10. How often do teachers review student performance data? (staff meetings, horizontal and
vertical teams, e t c .) _________________
11. What actions are taken to help a low achieving child succeed? (interventions)
12. What strategies/interventions are used to ensure all students master state standards?
13. Are students expected to reach goals and achieve?
14. Evidence of community involvement in the classroom.(parent volunteers, conferences, etc.)
15. Behaviors/Evidence of the expectation that all children can learn. (How and which students
are rewarded?)________________________________________________________________
16. HPSG resources are evident in the classroom.(personnel and materials)
School Site ________________________________________________________
1. Evidence that stakeholders are aware of the HPSG (PTA, SSC agendas, etc.)
2. Evidence that stakeholders are involved on an on-going basis in implementing the goals for the
action plan (SSC, action walk-throughs, etc.)________________________________ _____________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
3. Emphasis on research based teaching and learning strategies (professional development, literacy
coaches, artifacts).
4. Are the goals of the HPSG being met? (see action p lan)
5. Has funding been used as specified in action plan? (see action plan, purchase requests, etc.)
6. How often do school personnel review data? (staff meetings, weekly bulletins, etc.)
7. Evidence that promotes the belief that all children can learn.(school culture, artifacts, etc.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's High Priority School: A case study

PDF

Design, implementation and adequacy of data utilization in schools: A case study

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

A case study: An analysis of the adequacy of one school district's model of data use to raise student achievement

PDF

"Show me the money": Analyzing student-level resource allocation and use in a large urban elementary school

PDF

An analysis of the impact a district design on the use of data has on student performance

PDF

An analysis of student -level resources at a California comprehensive high school

PDF

A substitute teacher preservice staff development program: A case study of the Los Angeles County Office of Education

PDF

Implementation challenges of a school district's technology plan at the middle school level

PDF

An analysis in the use of student performance data in schools

PDF

A longitudinal look at what's important in comprehensive reform: A case study

PDF

Implementation of educational policy: Technology implementation in a California middle school

PDF

Implementation and levels of use of technology plans in a Southern California K--12 district and its middle school

PDF

An analysis of the use of data to increase student achievement in public schools

PDF

How districts and schools utilize data to improve the delivery of instruction and student performance: A case study

PDF

An analysis of per-pupil resource allocation at an urban elementary school

PDF

A study of equity in education finance: An analysis of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles elementary schools

PDF

How classroom teachers react to and implement California's Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment educational reform policy

PDF

An evaluation of the REMEDY project with an emphasis on sustainability: A Safe Schools /Healthy Students federal grant

PDF

Design, implementation and adequacy of using student performance data and the design's link to state context for assessing student performance: A case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Tienda-Ayala, Martha Yvonne (author)

Core Title An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's high -priority school: A case study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,education, elementary,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Cohn, Carl (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-391696

Unique identifier UC11340420

Identifier 3180782.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-391696 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3180782.pdf

Dmrecord 391696

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Tienda-Ayala, Martha Yvonne

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA