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 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
Wendy Sue Opdycke
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSTIY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2004
Copyright 2004 Wendy Sue Opdycke
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3155460
Copyright 2004 by
Opdycke, Wendy Sue
All rights reserved.
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 3155460
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.
DEDICATION
To a young girl, who her family believed to be very intelligent, but she
lacked the confidence to believe as they did. As this girl grew, she allowed
others to refer to her in negative terms, as inferior and she soon believed what
they said. It was the desire of her heart to be as good as others were, not looked
down upon but to rise above her stage in life. This young girl engaged in a
battle to make her life better and better stirring up strife between those that
believed in her and those that did not. The battle consumed the girl until her life
was snuffed out. What she learned in the end is that it does not matter what
others think of you but what you think of yourself. You can achieve what you
set your mind and heart to do.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to express my gratitude and special appreciation to so many
whose efforts, energy and extraordinary commitment to life-long learning
through educating children have made working on this project truly gratifying:
Drs. David Marsh, Lawrence Picus, and Carl Cohn, Ph.D., my chairperson and
committee, Dr. Marti Tienda-Ayala, Ed.D., who inspired me and allowed me to
parallel her dissertation, Carol Young, who earned her doctorate vicariously
through me by brainstorming and editing many papers along the way, and Dr.
Charles Lewis, Ed.D., who keeps it all in perspective.
To my mother, who no longer is upset when I do not call or visit if I am
working on a paper because she knows she has a doctor in the house, thank you.
To my brother and sister, thank you, for always telling me how smart I was even
if I did not have any common sense.
My beautiful daughters, Mandi, Kasey and Britni, I love you and thank
God for you. I hoped I would be a strong example to you of the importance of
education. Special thanks to Mandi for editing so many of my papers along the
way, if nothing else I instilled in you the love of red pens. You are all very
smart girls and I am proud of your accomplishments so far in your young lives.
Know that you can do anything you set your minds to with love and
determination.
A special thanks to those who participated in this study, to the principals
and those at ACSD, I appreciate the time you gave filling out surveys and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
answering my endless questions. I hope this study will improve not only the
education of the students but likewise the environments you inhabit to be great
places to work and learn.
Above all, I give thanks and glory to God. He set me along this path and
kept me there throughout my life. You may know the inspirational poem,
Footprints. When I look back, I often wonder how I got where I am today. It is
only because He carried me.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables viii
List of Figures x
Abstract xi
Chapter 1 Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of Study 7
Importance of the Study 8
Limitations 10
Delimitations 10
Definitions 11
Organization of the Study 13
Chapter 2 Literature Review
Introduction and Trends in student achievement 15
Concepts of Achievement Gap 17
Common measures demonstrate the gap 18
Ramifications for closing the gap 20
Accountability Movement
Elements of standards-based reform 23
Student accountability 25
Parent accountability 27
School accountability 27
Accountability within standards-based reform 28
Public School Accountability Act
Origin 29
Key Features 30
Strategies of implementation 31
Evidence of implementation 31
Effectiveness to date 33
Problems or Values 34
Reform Options
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
II/USP 35
HPSG 38
CSR/CSRD 41
Selection Rationale 43
Principal's Role
Strengths and Weaknesses 44
Key Strategies
Strategies to implement reform 47
Strategies to implement HPSG 51
Out-of-state Reform Efforts 54
Conclusion 64
Chapter 3 Methodology
Introduction 66
Research Design 67
Sample and population 69
Instrumentation 75
Data Collection 77
Data Analysis 78
Chapter 4 Findings
Introduction 79
Findings By Research Question 80
Question 1
Summary of Question 1 94
Question 2 95
Summary of Question 2 103
Question 3 104
Summary of Question 3 109
Findings Relative to the Achievement Gap 109
Discussion 113
Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusions, Implications
Introduction 124
Research Findings 126
Implications 133
Areas for Further Research 139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
References
Appendix A
University Park Institutional Review Board
Appendix B
Data Collection Instruments
Appendix C
Chaps School Action Plan
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Student Enrollment, by Grade Level 71
Table 2 Student Enrollment, by Ethnic Group 72
Table 3 Teaching Staff 72
Table 4 Chap School Programs 74
Table 5 I have an ethical responsibility to raise the academic 82
achievement of all students
Table 6 My job security is threatened if student achievement does 84
not increase.
Table 7 I am the person responsible for the increase of student 86
achievement.
Table 8 School reform positively influences student performance. 87
Table 9 The HPSG process has a positive impact on my morale. 89
Table 10 The principal provides the resources needed to meet state 90
accountability.
Table 11 The HPSG external entity provides valuable feedback for 93
program improvement
Table 12 The principal provides resources to meet teaching needs to 96
raise student performance
Table 13 The school’s vision and leadership clearly demonstrate 98
school accountability
Table 14 I see the benefits of data collection and analysis. 99
Table 15 The principal conducts weekly classroom observations to 101
ensure the use of data, standards, and strategies
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ix
Table 16 Our school analyzes the external entity’s assessment in 102
order to implement modifications to our program
Table 17 HPSG strengthened the home-school relationship. 103
Table 18 1 have participated in the AB466 training. 105
Table 19 1 use data to plan instruction. 106
Table 20 Peer collaboration has benefited my teaching ability. 108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 NAEP National reading composite for fourth grade
students over a ten-year period (1992-2002)
Figure 2 NAEP shows California fourth grade students at or above
Basic in reading over a ten-year period
Figure 3 California Standards Test (CST) scores in fourth grade
English/Language Arts
Figure 4 Staff Education Level and Years of Experience
Figure 5 District API comparing Hispanic, White and
socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups of students
base and growth scores
Figure 6 Chap School’s disaggregated API base, target and growth
over time
Figure 7 Chaps Closing the Achievement Gap
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xi
ABSTRACT
The establishment of the High Priority Schools Grant (HPSG) program
for low-performing schools is Assembly Bill 961 (Chapter 747, Statutes of
2001). The intention of this program is to offer further resources to assist the
lowest performing schools in the state to raise student achievement by targeting
student performance.
The purpose of this study is to gain new knowledge of the principal’s
role in effectively implementing the goals of the HPSG. The study employed
the use of two levels of reporting to clarify how principals view high stakes
accountability, what they do to hold teachers accountable and how teachers
perceive the principals efforts.
Key findings in the study determine that the amount of time demanded
for extensive staff development was draining and a weakness in the reform
effort. The parent level of accountability is another apparent weakness in
improving the academic achievement of their children. Weaknesses also
demonstrated in the area of analyzing data and making determinations of the use
of the data once analyzed arose.
Implications determined through this study are that stakeholders must
take steps to resolve barriers present with the current policies to strengthen the
program. State policymakers must consider the cost of the impact on the
learning proficiency of California’s children to aid in decisions of future
policies. They must redesign the criteria for selection of schools mandated to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xii
participate in the HPSG program. The HPSG program is not having a
significant impact on the learning proficiency level of low achieving schools.
The state policyholders must create other interventions to assist schools that
after years of participation are not making adequate progress. These
interventions must include help other than financial. The state awarded an
exorbitant amount of money to spend in a short amount of time. They must
reevaluate the amount of money designated per student incorporating the
amount of categorical funds received by the school. District and site level
implications apply as well. It is crucial for the local Board of Education and
cabinet to gauge the morale of the staff members employed at high priority
schools. The added responsibility to the employee causes experienced staffing
to flee from schools under program improvement. Principals must review the
research, determine the barriers to high student achievement and become
effective instructional leaders that push back the forces to narrow the gap and
bring a first rate education to every child.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1
Background o f the Problem
Introduction
This qualitative study focuses on what principals do in High Priority
Schools to close the achievement gap between Hispanic, economically
disadvantaged and white students. California’s standards-based reform and
accountability system are the tools initiated to accomplish this task. The
principal’s perception of this accountability system and the teachers’ acuity of
what the principal does are issues that may have an effect on the outcome of
closing the achievement gap for all students.
Background
Student academic performance in California falls significantly below the
national average in reading and mathematics, a problem which is compounded
by an astounding achievement gap where white students drastically surpass
minority students and those from low socio-economic backgrounds. The results
of this achievement gap ignited public outcry for policy makers to initiate drastic
reform efforts aimed at equalizing the education system. Many of those past
reform efforts not only fell short, but also exacerbated the problem. According
to the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP, 2001), good readers are getting
better while weak readers are losing ground. The National Assessment of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
Educational Progress (NAEP) data show that students in the bottom quartile in
fourth grade reading decreased while students in the top quartile improved,
causing an increased achievement gap instead of a reduction (NEGP, 2001).
California Standards Test (CST) scores for 2003 shows a large gap when
disaggregating data in the area of language arts by race/ethnicity and
economically disadvantaged students. California set the standard for all students
to be proficient or above by 2014, according to the California Department of
Education (CDE, 2003), using NAEP language for ranking of students: far
below basic, below basic, basic, proficient and advanced. Only twenty-four
percent (24%) of economically disadvantaged students in the fourth grade have
scored proficient or above in English Language Arts (STAR, 2003). English
learners enrolled in public school twelve months or more at the same grade level
in English language arts show fifteen percent (15%) of students scoring
proficient or above (STAR, 2003). The disaggregated test scores in
mathematics were higher, yet, still behind the California standard of proficient
or above. The data shows thirty-three percent (33%) of economically
disadvantaged students in fourth grade scoring proficient or higher. The
mathematics CST scores for English learners enrolled in public school twelve
months or more showed twenty-nine percent (29%) of the students as proficient
or higher (STAR, 2003). This gap shows economically disadvantaged children
one and a half to two full years behind their white peers in English language arts
and mathematics.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
United States Department of Education (1995) reported that NAEP
scores are significantly lower for Hispanic children than for white children with
a large gap in mathematics, science and reading. Hispanic children’s math and
reading skills were more than two years behind their white peers. Looking
specifically at California data for 2000 in mathematics, the white category meets
the National and State average but not the black or Hispanic groups. Moreover,
economically disadvantaged students’ eligible to receive free or reduce lunch
scored even lower than the black and Hispanic groups.
The continuing achievement gap raised public outcry leading to federal
legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). NCLB combines
forces with California’s recent reform effort, Public School Accountability Act
of 1999 (PSAA). No Child Left Behind focuses on establishing an
accountability reform system to not only improve proficiency in all levels but
also to close the achievement gap and ensure that every child is learning
proficiently by 2012-2013. The PSAA used the Academic Performance Index
(API) target growth to focus on improving test scores. Similarly, NCLB will
use Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) to focus on improving test scores with an
emphasis on closing the achievement gap. NCLB requires states to revisit their
definition of “adequate yearly progress” and requires the publication of this data
as well {Facts about, n.d.).
Recognizing the achievement gap between subgroups of populations in
1994, California established the California Reading Initiative (2001). This task
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
force created the document Every Child a Reader that stated recommendations
for improved academic achievement in English-Language Arts. One
recommendation for narrowing the achievement gap was to establish content
standards of what every child should be able to do at each grade level. This
strategy for narrowing the achievement gap began the standards based reform
initiatives. The content standards for English-Language Arts were adopted in
1998. The implementation of these standards, the collection of data in their
regard, and the accountability toward meeting these standards are the foundation
of the Public School Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). California’s
embarkation on the PSAA for the past seven years leaves California well
positioned to meet the NCLB mandates, according to No child left behind (n.d.).
The major effort of the Public School Accountability Act was three-fold
(Just, et.al. 2001); to create a measurement tool to determine achievement,
Academic Performance Index (API), to provide rewards for achievement made,
Governor’s Performance Awards (GPA), and intervene for schools that are
under-performing, Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools (II/USP).
Under the component of Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools
Program is the element focusing on the High Priority School Grant Program
(HPSGP). Assembly Bill 961 established HPSGP for low performing schools
and amended II/USP to allocate money for high priority schools in the lowest
five deciles of the API. This grant program gives schools three years to improve
their API scores and meet the state established growth target by requiring an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
action plan and implementation budget. A third program established by federal
legislation in 1999, the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration grant
(CSRD), also assisted schools in raising achievement scores.
Along with the monetary assistance these grant programs offered, came
stringent accountability requirements. The three programs relied on the API
scores to show significant progress. If a school receiving assistance does not
make adequate progress, they are subject to state sanctions. According to
California Education Code (1999), these sanctions include the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction assuming all legal rights, duties and powers
with respect to that school and they shall reassign the principal of that school,
one other action out of seven possible actions is also required.
Directly accountable for students’ academic achievement through the
PSAA reform effort are the administrators of the individual school sites. A
critical ingredient in the reform effort, therefore, becomes the elementary school
principal’s defensive role in implementing and adopting a school plan that will
impede such state sanctions. The principal must reevaluate the role as an
educational leader and analyze factors that affect the implementation of the
necessary educational reform for the individual school site. The principal’s
managerial role diminishes as they take on the accountability demanded of them.
The dynamics of change, as explained in Hall and Hord’s (2001) Concerns
Based Adoption Model, is an integral part of implementing the reform process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
Other leadership qualities to meet the high-stakes demands include
knowledge of identifying and analyzing quality lessons and data, selecting and
fostering quality teachers and an innate ability to learn from the failure of
previous school reform programs. Marshall (2003) discovered after fifteen
years that the principal must have a clear plan and be able to develop a mission
collaboratively with all stakeholders and create a timeline and assessment tool to
determine if they have meet their goal. In order to meet the criteria of PSAA,
the principal must establish a focus that insures what current research constitutes
as a high quality school. These multidimensional traits focus on continual
assessment of staff, programs, policies, and the inclusion of all stakeholders.
Statement o f the Problem
Several unknowns arise from California’s accountability system. The
PSAA began the requirement of site levels held accountable to meet state
mandates. Inclusive in this accountability, principals must hold staff
accountable for implementing state standards, improving student achievement as
evidenced by state standardized testing along with ongoing site level data
analysis, while, concurrently managing the change process within the
educational organization. Currently unknown is how principals and teachers
view the high stakes accountability, and what they do to augment high stakes
accountability. Furthermore, it is unknown that whether what the principals are
doing is successfully raising student achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
Purpose o f Study
The purpose of this study is to gain new knowledge of the principal’s
role in effectively implementing the goals of the HPSG. It will look at what
principals and teachers are doing to raise student achievement specifically for
low performing students. It will determine the effectiveness from the teachers’
point of view whether or not the principals’ efforts are a benefit or detriment in
enhancing student success. Finally, it will address issues attached to effective
expenditures of specific budgets for HPSG and the ramifications of
implementing this program in the unforeseen instance of state budget cuts to
schools.
With this in mind, the researcher will explore the following questions:
1. How do principals and teachers view high stakes accountability in
HPSGP schools, and what do they see, based on specific objective data
through tests aligned to standards, 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 work of the principal in this regard—do
the teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or detrimental?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
Importance o f the Study
According to Facts about (n.d.), more than thirty-five (35) years after
Congress passed the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act, public
school spending per-pupil has more than doubled—even when adjusted for
inflation—from two thousand eight hundred thirty-five dollars ($2,835) in 1965
to seven thousand eighty-six dollars ($7,086) in 1999, yet America’s schools
still need help. In 1999, California applied pressure on the education system to
be accountable for the tax dollars spent on reform efforts to improve student
academic achievement through the Public School Accountability Act.
California established standards of what every child should be able to do at each
grade level as a stepping-stone to academic attainment in closing the
achievement gap. Educators acknowledged the challenge to meet the state
demands to turn out students that master the standards and contribute
constructively in today’s society. What principals and teachers do to augment
high stakes accountability is unknown. The purpose of this study is to determine
the critical role the principal plays in implementing school accountability within
California high priority schools. Elmore (2003) indicated, “. that policymakers
usually know shockingly little about the problems for which they purport to
make policy.” At the completion of this study, California’s policymakers may
learn about the problems created as well as solved by policies instituted. Further
analysis by policymakers may inform them of the impact on the learning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
proficiency of California’s children to aid in decisions on future policies.
Another contemplation for policy makers is considering the cost of the impact.
School districts are also stakeholder in the data collected. The data may
benefit them to gauge the morale of the staff members employed at high priority
schools. The teachers’ and principals’ perceptions of the increasing
accountability may have an effect on the districts perceived value to the
employee. The added responsibility to the employee could cause them to flee
from schools under program improvement leaving a deficit of experienced
teachers at the schools of highest need. Therefore, it may be in the schools
districts best interest to use the data in determining additional support measures
for schools under program improvement mandates.
School leadership teams made up of teachers may learn as Elmore
(2003) has stated that improvement is developed in stages, “We learn by tearing
down old preconceptions, trying out new ideas and practices, and working hard
to incorporate these new ideas and practices into our operating model of the
world.” Therefore, teachers that read this study may see high-stakes
accountability in a different light than they possibly have in the past.
Every principal or aspiring principal may find the data of this study of
beneficial importance because this study focuses on the principal’s role. As
former principal Marshall (2003) discovered, it should not take fifteen years to
create an effective school. Principals need to review the research, determine the
barriers to high student achievement and become effective instructional leaders
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
that push back the forces to narrow the gap and bring a first rate education to
every child.
Limitations
The following are possible limitations to this study:
1. The case study presents a relatively small number of participants from
which the researcher will draw generalizable conclusions.
2. The researcher assured confidentiality to all participants, therefore the
researcher considers responses honest to the best of the participants’
ability.
3. The researcher chose one High Priority School Grant Program school to
participate in the case study.
Delimitations
The following are possible delimitations to this study:
1. The researcher confined this study to an urban, elementary school in
Southern California with novice leadership.
2. The researcher delimited the participants in the interviewing process to
selected principals and teachers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
Definitions
Academic Performance Index (API): The academic performance index is
the “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).
Accountability: The extent to which an individual, group or institution is
held responsible for actions or academic performance (CDE, 2003).
Achievement gan: The difference in the academic performance between
different ethnic groups (Ed.gov, 2003).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): California established four criteria.
1 .The Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) are the minimum percentages of
students scoring at the proficient level or above in each content area of the tests
used for AYP. 2. Achievement of a 95 percent student participation rate for
English Language Arts and mathematics assessments (schoolwide and
subgroups). 3. Growth in the API score of at least one point or a minimum API
score designated for each year (schoolwide only). 4. Graduation Rate for high
schools only (CDE. 2003).
California Academic Standards: Define what students in kindergarten
through grade 12 should know and be able to do at each grade level.
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.
12
GPA: Governor’s Performance Awards. One piece to the incentives
initiated within the Public School Accountability Act of 1999 (CDE, 2003).
High Priority School Grant (HPSG): 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.
High Stakes Accountability: This term relates to the state sanctions under
Senate Bill 1552.
Mandates: This term refers to the education codes that specify the rules,
procedures, and regulations that must be applied when participating in state
reform programs such as the High Priority School Grant.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): The revision of Elementary
and Secondary Education Act under President G.W. Bush. Educational policy
adapted to use high-quality information for data-driven reforms so that we can
improve public education for every child (Ed.gov, 2003).
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.
Public School Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA): Senate Bill 1552.
This bill established a statewide accountability system, which holds each school
annually accountable for making gains in student achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
Rewards: This term refers to the four programs used to reward high
performing schools that include the California School Recognition Program,
Governor’s Performance Awards, Blue Ribbon School Program, and School Site
Employees Performance Bonus (CDE,2003).
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.. .’’(SB 1552,1999).
Standardized Testing And Reporting System (STAR): Authorized
through Senate Bill 376 (1997), STAR has three components: The California
Standards Tests, The California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition (CAT6), and
the Spanish Assessment of Basic Education (SABE/2).
Standards-based 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 o f the Study
Chapter 1 provides the background and problems that have led
California to adopt standards-based reform efforts and a high stakes
accountability system, of which, High Priority School Grants are a portion.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
Chapter 1 describes the problem, purpose of the study, and importance of the
study, research questions, limitations, delimitations and definitions of key terms.
Chapter 2 gives a review of the literature beginning with trends in
student achievement, the standards-based reform effort nation wide, California’s
reform efforts and an explanation of the Public School Accountability Act of
1999. Reform programs under the Public School Accountability Act are
discussed as are the key strategies for implementing these reforms.
Chapter 3 illustrates the methodology used to conduct this qualitative
case study. It denotes the specific sample and population studied and the criteria
used for selection of the school studied. It details the process in which the
researcher collected and analyzed the data as well as the process of creating the
data collection instruments.
Chapter 4 offers the findings of the case study. The organization of the
chapter is by the three research questions with a discussion of the findings that
provide the researchers interpretation of the data. The chapter concludes with a
response to the purpose of the study and whether or not the problem is moving
toward resolution.
Chapter 5 provides the summary of the study, interpretations and
inferences based on the research and implications for the study. The study
concludes with recommendations for future research studies on the topic of
accountability within California’s High Priority Schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
Introduction
The purpose of the literature review is to observe and evaluate past
educational trends to determine effective practices that the principal may
implement when faced with the trial of raising student achievement scores. In
doing so, the literature review will inform of the academic achievement trends
of the United States as well as the state of California. It will inform of the
standards-based reform efforts and accountability movement. The review will
focus in specifically on California’s reform program and key strategies the
principal may embrace when implementing school accountability within
California’s High Priority Schools.
Trends in student achievement
The social, economic, political and moral well-being of the United States
is dependent upon a strong public education system. The possible demise of this
system is the achievement gap, which creates an inequality amongst racial,
ethnic and low socio-economic learners. “The student achievement gap in the
United States has a long and well-documented history.” according to Hertert and
Teague, (2003). The education system in the United States and specifically
California are working to change that practice and close the achievement gap
through reform efforts. Currently, the trend toward student achievement
nationwide and locally is standards-based reform and accountability systems.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
The United States reform effort is the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The
California state effort is the Public School Accountability Act of 1999. These
measures bring with them high-stakes sanctions and rewards, and if successful, a
free and appropriate education for all children no matter what race, ethnicity or
socio-economic background they come from.
Schugurensky (2002) suggests the current student achievement trend in
education [achievement gap] dates back to 1870 but that legislation toward
ending the gap did not make it through Congress until 1965 after President
Johnson promoted the ‘Great Society’ and launched his ‘War on Poverty’.
Johnson abandoned President Kennedy’s initiative of general funded federal aid
for education because of the factions that would not let it pass legislation and
tied it to educational categorical aid for the poor. Johnson knew this could bring
support from major factions. The support came as the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 introducing Title 1 funding and Head
Start preschool programs.
Holland (1999) points out that reauthorization of ESEA transpired seven
times. Since 1999, reauthorization of ESEA occurred two more times, once
with President Clinton’s blueprint of Goals 2000 and most recently with
President G.W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. ESEA mandates
collection, collation, analysis and reporting of complete statistics on the
condition of American education. The National Center of Educational Statistics
(NCES) fulfills this mandate. NCES conducts and publishes reports such as the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Nation’s Report Card, also known as the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP). NAEP is the only common measure nationally representative
and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in
various subject areas. Areas tested include reading, mathematics, science,
writing, U. S. History, civics, geography and the arts. NCES also reviews and
reports on educational activities internationally such as the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study, now referred to as the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). NCES is the major source of data
documenting the trends in the achievement gap.
Concept o f Achievement Gap
Hertert and Teague (2003) cataloged events from the 1966 Equality of
Educational Opportunity Report, also known as the Coleman Report. This
report was a challenge to President Johnson’s statement that more and better
educational services for the poor would move the poor out of poverty.
Coleman’s report brought the achievement gap to the attention of the public and
motivated research to document the differences in student performance. Across
the nation, non-minority students have consistently outperformed students from
most other ethnic backgrounds and impoverished families. This achievement
gap is the difference between the academic achievements of affluent children
compared to the academic achievements of poor children. The knowledge
brought forth from this research leads to programs intended to help close the
achievement gap nationwide. Between 1970 and 1988, there was an overall
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
narrowing of the achievement gap by thirty-five to fifty percent (35-50%). In
1983, President Reagan’s federally funded report^ Nation at Risk launched two
decades of reform de-emphasizing basic skills for higher-order skills and once
again left behind the poor children and children of color. Hertert and Teague
(2003) report that in 2003 the achievement gap is as prevalent today as reported
in the Coleman Report of the 1960’s. The current achievement gap documents
the difference between the academic achievement of white students compared to
the academic achievement of black students, Hispanic students and students
from low socio-economic backgrounds.
Common Measures Demonstrate the Gap
Beginning in 1969, the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) began conducting assessments to report what America’s kids know in
several subject areas. Over the past ten years, according to NAEP [data file], a
continuously significant achievement gap remains between white and black
students and white and Hispanic students nationwide. (See figure 1.)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
240 -
1992 1994 1998 2000 2002
Years
-•-W h ite
— *— Black
— Hispanic
Figure 1. NAEP National reading composite for fourth grade students over a ten-year period
(1992-2002). Scores show average scale scores on assessments without accommodations.
Although the data shows an overall increase in test scores, the
achievement gap has not shown a significant decrease. In 1992, the white
average scale score of fourth grade students in reading was thirty-two (32)
points higher than the black average scale score and twenty-seven (27) points
higher than the Hispanic average scale score. In 2002, the white average scale
score of fourth grade students reading was thirty (30) points higher than the
black average scale score and twenty-eight (28) points higher than the Hispanic
average scale score. The 2002 scores reflect assessment students took without
accommodations. Accommodations can include several student supports like
extra time or an explanation of a question not understood.
Likewise, in California the percentage of students at or above the basic
level in reading increased in the past ten years yet the gap persists. (See figure
2.) When analyzing California specifically, according to NAEP [data file],
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
sixty-three percent (63%) of white students scored at or above the basic level in
reading, while only twenty-eight percent (28%) of black students and twenty-
three percent (23%) of Hispanic students attained at or above the basic level. In
2002, the percentages increased for all subgroups yet the gap remained.
“ o 50
o 1 40
A 0)
30
Years
-•-W h ite
— •— Black
— ■ — Hispanic
Figure 2. NAEP shows California fourth grade students at or above Basic in reading over a ten-
year period. 1998 and 2002 students allowed accommodations.
Ramifications For Closing the Gap
Recognizing the achievement gap, California initiated legislation to
improve reading. The California Reading Initiative (2001), Senate Bill (SB)
376, authorized the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program. The
California Department of Education (CDE) 2003 described mandates included
in this legislation. It requires all public school districts in California to use a
single standardized test. The State Board of Education (SBE) designated the use
of the Stanford Achievement Test (Ninth Edition, Form T) or the SAT9 for the
first testing cycle in 1997-1998. In 1999, in order to align the state testing to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
standards an augmented test was developed and used, the California Standards
Test (CST). This gave California two sets of scores to identify academic
achievement. The CST scores show disaggregated date from test cycles 2001-
2003 and document the achievement gap in California. (See Figure 3.)
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2003 2001 2002
All Students
— ♦—English Learners 12
mos. +
-•-Econom ically
Disadvantaged
Figure 3. State scores. California Standards Test (CST) scores in fourth grade
English/Language Arts.
According to the CDE (2003), state test scores are not disaggregated by
race or ethnicity but the CDE post scores for all English Language Learners of
whom ninety-five percent (95%) speak Spanish. The district and school
subgroups posted on the CDE internet website depend on the populations of that
school site or area; therefore, school sites may show data disaggregated in more
subgroups (i.e. Hispanic, economically disadvantaged, African-American). To
maintain a semblance of consistency to data reported using NAEP scores, only
fourth grade scores, English Learners in the United States more than twelve (12)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
months and economically disadvantaged students’ scores are displayed to
compare the achievement gap in California that is also seen nationally.
The achievement gap is a social, economic, political and moral issue.
Keeping the problem exposed to the public eye is one way of making sure it
does not become brushed aside. As Lewis (2000) states, the requirement that
assessment data be disaggregated by race and ethnicity also ensured that the
problem of the gap would remain public. Achilles (1998) suggests that seeking
ways to reduce the achievement gaps drives what education is all about. The
RAND organization (2000) appears to support the concept that the reform
efforts are working yet seems confounded about why states such as California
and Texas, considered close demographic cousins, are at complete opposite ends
of the spectrum. Texas’ white and black students ranked first nationwide while
California’s black students ranked among the last, the white students ranked
third from the bottom and the Hispanic’s ranked fourth from the bottom among
states. What remains, though, as Ravitch (2002) states, is that it is our civic
commitment to our nation’s children to educate them all. It is imperative that
we prepare every child with the skills and knowledge to make their way in the
society we create.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
Accountability Movement
Elements o f Standards-Based Reform
One major school reform strategy for narrowing the achievement gap is
the accountability movement within standards-based reform for elementary
schools. 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 (Accountability
overview, n.d.). The CRI, a state appointed task force, created two documents:
Every Child a Reader and Teaching Reading. According to the California
Reading Initiative (2001), these documents contained a research base for a
balanced and comprehensive approach to closing the achievement gap in
California. The foremost recommendation was for California to establish
content standards of what every child should know and be able to do at each
grade level. The intention of these standards is to prepare all children for post
secondary education and professional careers. Following that recommendation
in 1998, the California SBE adopted English/Language Arts content standards
for kindergarten through twelfth grade. Along with the content standards, the
SBE also adopted performance level standards; they followed the NAEP levels,
which report students’ achievement as below basic, basic, proficient and
advanced. California established the proficient level as the achievement goal
for all students. California’s standards-based framework, therefore, includes
standards, assessment and accountability.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
The task force recommended to the CDE, 2002 to formulate framework
to serve as a resource in the alignment of curriculum and instruction. The
framework functions as guidelines for teachers, administrators, parents, and
other support personnel for introducing and sustaining the skills and knowledge
necessary to lead all students to mastery of the standards. The framework also
guides publishers in the expectations of the state as they develop instructional
resources needed to support the achievement of language arts standards
concurrently with content standards across subject areas. Additionally, it
provides ideas for assessing and monitoring student progress, designing
systematic support and intervention programs, identifying instructional
resources, promoting professional development, and promoting strategies for
involvement and communication among school, home and community. The
framework may also guide lesson planning to address the delivery of content-
rich, differentiated curriculum and instruction to students with special needs,
including English Language Learners, advanced learners, and students with
disabilities or learning difficulties (CDE 2002). Once the SBE adopted
English/Language Arts standards and frameworks, they continued to establish
standards and frameworks in all major subject areas: Mathematics, History-
Social Studies and Science.
Up to the point of standards and framework adoptions, the STAR
program tests were the norm-referenced SAT9. After the establishment of
standards and frameworks, the SBE began to align the STAR program to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
standards for each subject area. The first augmented standards-based testing
took place in 1998. The two forms of California data collection, NRT and CST,
determine the academic achievement of students in grades two through eleven.
Results of CST 2001 were disturbing. The CDE stated that only thirty-one
percent (31%) of fifth, sixth and eleventh grade students scored at or above the
proficient level in reading. In mathematics, the highest number of students
meeting the goal was second grade and then only forty-three percent (43%) of
second grade students scored at or above the proficient level (CDE, 2002).
Student Accountability
The extent to which a student accepts responsibility for his or her own
academic performance on mandated state achievement tests is student
accountability. In considering the age of students in a kindergarten through
twelfth grade program of education, students begin school at approximately age
five and matriculate to secondary education at approximately eighteen years of
age. At this age, are children developmentally capable of accepting this
responsibility? Alternatively, should the parents be accepting responsibility for
their child’s academic performance at such young ages? Opposed to student
accountability systems, Sheldon and Biddle (1998), feel that problems with
accountability worsen when students receive rewards or sanctions for academic
achievement. It is their belief that such sanctioning systems are likely to
discourage advanced students to seek the easy path to higher grades than to
follow their natural propensity to choose optimally challenging tasks. Student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
accountability does not play a significant role in the elementary school setting.
California Education Code 48070.5 provides for retention of students that are
not reaching the minimum levels of proficiency recommended by the SBE
depending on the district’s established policy. It is uncertain if the incidents of
retention are significantly high enough to be a deterrent to an elementary school
child. In some districts, such as Houston and Chicago, the stakes for elementary
students are a little higher. According to the U.S. Department of Education
(1998), students in grades three and six who perform below minimum standards
must participate in a seven week summer bridge program and pass a test before
moving on to the next grade. Student accountability at the high school level
may be stronger if the student feels that lack of promotion to the next grade may
interfere with their graduation timeline. High schools have further mandated an
exam that puts high school students in a higher stakes accountability mode than
elementary grade level students. The California High School Exit Exam
(CAHSEE), college placement exams such as the SAT I/II, and the American
College Test (ACT) all include the mastery of academic standards placing the
acquisition of standards as a high priority. Although, according to Ravitch
(2002), the high school exit exams are not truly high-stakes tests because
students have multiple opportunities to pass the tests. No states gave the test
and then failed the students. If the students failed, they received remedial aid.
In the case of limited English-speaking students, many district policies do not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
allow retention if language appears to be the reason for low academic
performance.
Parent Accountability
According to the U.S. Department of Education (1998), “Thirty years of
research shows that when families and community are involved in education,
students learn more and schools improve.” Furthermore, it states, “That a
school’s effort to involve parents is the single most important factor in
determining parental involvement.” Parents need to play a part in what goes on
in the classroom. Yet, there is no accountability for parents in reform efforts. If
research shows the involvement of parents in their children’s education
increases the students’ performance, are we missing a crucial piece to the
accountability puzzle?
School Accountability
School accountability, on the other hand, is quite different.
“Accountability Overview” (2003), points out that public schools have long
been held accountable for compliance with state and federal regulations it is
only recently that they must account for academic performance as well, as
measured by standardized scores. The extent to which a school accepts
responsibility for students’ academic performance on mandated state
achievement tests is high-stakes accountability for school sites and especially for
the site administrator. California holds each school annually accountable for
gains in academic achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Accountability within Standards-based Reform
In the past, states varied widely in their approach to reform efforts.
Ravitch (2002) noted that Virginia threatened to remove a schools accreditation
if scores did not improve. The U.S. Department of Education (1998) noted
changes in Illinois, Kentucky and Texas. Illinois set standards for learning,
ended social promotion, instituted regular school quality reviews, a system of
teacher accountability and pursued intervention policies for low-performing
schools as well as provided management support for schools. Kentucky’s
reform act addressed curriculum, assessment, professional development,
finances and school governance. Texas developed an extensive accountability
system including rewards and sanctions and seen tremendous gains among
African American, Hispanic and economically disadvantaged students.
Standards-based reform programs received funding from the Goals 2000:
Education Act. Usage of Title 1 funds mandated the establishment of standards
and assessment systems to measure progress and to identify schools that were
not making adequate yearly progress. It also mandated a system for defining
and identifying low-performing schools. This is no longer possible with recent
reauthorizations of federal guidelines.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Public School Accountability Act
Origin
A critical element of California’s standards-based reform is the
establishment of a comprehensive system of public reporting on achievement of
all schools measuring their annual performance and making appropriations for
this system. This element came in the form of SB IX or the Public School
Accountability Act (PS A A) of 1999. SB IX (Chapter 3, Statutes of 1999),
initiated by Senator Alpert, birthed appropriations for the centerpiece of
Governor Gray Davis’ standards-based school reform. It added the critical
element of accountability to the (STAR) program established into law in 1997.
According the Explanatory Notes (n.d.), this was a major effort to create
rewards and interventions for improving student performance. The California
Education Code Section 52050.5 states:
(c) Recent assessments indicate that many pupils in California are not
now, generally, progressing at a satisfactory rate to achieve a high
quality education.
(d) To remedy this, the state is in need of an immediate and
comprehensive accountability system to hold each of the state’s public
schools accountable for the academic progress and achievement of its
pupils within the resources available to schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
(i)The statewide accountability system must include rewards that
recognize high achieving schools as well as interventions and,
ultimately, sanctions for schools that are continuously low performing.
(j) It is also the intent of the Legislature that the comprehensive and
effective school accountability system primarily focuses on increasing
academic achievement.
This bill, introduced January 19,1999, charted a special session on education.
Governor Davis signed it into law on March 29,1999 and it became operative
on the same date.
Key Features
As noted in Education in California (2002), California’s educational system is
continuously changing in response to social and economic changes. PSAA
provided for an Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee formed a
Technical Design Group, which established the framework for the creation and
evolution of the API. As written in the Education Code (EC) 52051, the original
key features of PSAA were three fold: the state Academic Performance Index, to
be known as the API; The Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools
Program; and The Governor's High Achieving/Improving Schools Program.
The law established a variety o f indicators for the API such as: achievement
tests, California High School Exit Exam, attendance of students and certificated
staff, graduation rates, nationally norm-ranked tests and standards-based
achievement tests. PSAA holds each school annually accountable for gains in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
their API. The state expects schools with an API below eight hundred (800) to
show improvement by meeting annual growth targets. Schools that meet the
growth target are eligible for rewards; those that do not meet the growth target
are subject to sanctions. These sanctions may be deferred if the schools
participate in intervention programs but the sanctions remain if the growth
targets are not meet.
Strategies o f Implementation
The API implementation process is cyclical with the SBE adopting each
year the indicator weights, CDE (2003). The first cycle of implementation was
one hundred percent (100%) nationally norm-referenced SAT9. Each cycle
places more emphasis on the California Standards Tests (CST) and less
emphasis on the norm-referenced test (NRT). In 2001, sixty-four percent (64%)
was NRT, and thirty-six percent (36%) was CST. In 2002 and 2003, twenty
percent (20%) was NRT, and eighty percent (80%) was CST. This
implementation process allowed schools to ease into the testing on the state
adopted standards as they eased off the NRT. At the time of this writing, the
California High School Exit Exam has not yet been factored into the equation,
nor has attendance rates or graduation rates.
Evidence o f Implementation
CDE (2003) indicated that each year in January or February, schools
receive an API Base score and a rank in ten categories of equal size (deciles)
from one (lowest) to ten (highest). A school’s API Base score is used to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
determine a rank comparing their performance both to other schools statewide of
their type (i.e., elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools) and to one
hundred schools with the most similar demographic characteristics and teacher
credentials. The focus of this accountability system is ongoing school
improvement specifically among lowest-performing schools and students. The
annual growth target for a school is five percent (5%) of the distance between a
school’s API Base and the statewide performance target of eight hundred (800).
Each fall, internet, news media and School Accountability Report Card report
the Growth API to the schools, parents, and public. No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) requires that each state adopt an “additional” indicator for Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP). California has chosen to use the API as an additional
indicator for all schools and districts towards AYP. Academic growth on the
API continues to be the central focus of the PSAA.
The second key feature of the PSAA is the assistance for low-achieving
schools. The CDE (2003) describes the Immediate
Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) as a financial support
for schools in need of academic improvement based on the API. Schools that
qualify are those scoring in the bottom half of the statewide distribution on the
STAR. So far, California has begun three cohorts of four hundred thirty (430)
schools to total one thousand two hundred ninety (1290) schools. The school
obtains funding to write an action plan to improve academic achievement and
then financial assistance to implement the plan. The three cohorts received over
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
three hundred twenty-five ($325) million dollars to support planning and
implementation. For the 2003-2004 school year no state funding was available
due to severe budget cuts. The lack of funding could present a major problem in
the future to have such an extensive program in place with no funds to sustain
the closing of the achievement gap. The U. S. Department of Education suggests
the public is increasingly impatient with poor school performance and support
for public education is at risk. The establishment of California’s accountability
system is important for leveraging change in low-performing schools. It will be
a major pitfall if loss of funding fails to stimulate and sustain change.
Effectiveness to Date
PSAA is showing signs of effectiveness in a short amount of time. After
just three years since implementation began, growth is evident. California’ s
Lowest (2003) noted that API scores showed ninety percent (90%) of schools
improving and seventy-eight percent (78%) of schools meeting their growth
targets since the inception of PSAA. The median API scores for elementary
schools have been most notable. About a third of the lowest performing schools
in 1999 met their schoolwide growth targets all three years. Twenty-nine
percent (29%) met their annual targets for significant subgroups and one quarter
have met both. Eleven percent (11%) of these lowest performing schools met
EdSource criteria for exemplary progress. According to the CDE, (2002),
principals stated that their staffs were satisfied in their participation in school
reform programs. Principals also felt that participation improved their reading
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
and language arts programs, and improved parent participation. Bringing an
awareness of state reform programs to the stakeholders leads to an increase in
the level of academic achievement.
Much of the research and writing to date (Achilles, 1998; Bell, 2002;
California Department of Education, 2002; Elmore, 2000; Guth, et al., 1999;
Sheldon & Biddle, 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 1998), agrees on one
major point - there is not yet enough data collected to draw a valid conclusion
on the effects of standards-based reform and accountability on closing the
achievement gap in California or nationwide. Betts and Danenberg (2002)
admits that forty to sixty percent (40-60%) of the narrowing of the achievement
gap is due to regression toward the mean.
Problems or Values
Some of the perceived problems include the mantra of alignment of the
standards to the testing instruments, multiple intervention programs with no
control group for data comparison, political animosity of giving one party credit
for effective legislative policies over the other party, and the ability to measure
change over time. It appears that a lack of consensus exists even over which
achievement gap California is trying to close. Achievement gaps exist between
states, within states, amongst racial and ethnic lines as well as in low socio
economic groupings and even across grade levels in single school settings.
Smith (1995) points out the gap amongst the Hispanic subgroup explaining that
the five largest Hispanic subgroups are Mexican-American, Puerto Ricans,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
Cubans and recent immigrants from Central and South America all being
identified as Hispanic in disaggregated data. Yet, other variables play into
educational progress. American bom or foreign bom, some second generation
Hispanic students hear or speak only English at home, while others are more
likely to have limited English proficiency.
Other perceived problems of program implementation focused on
barriers such as the administrative staff and problems at the secondary school
level implementing school wide reform. Administrative support from the
district level affected the level of implementation of some reform programs by
not offering support with data analysis and evaluation, the needed assistance to
remove barriers to learning and funding support of in-kind requirements was
meager.
Reform Options
II/USP
The structure of the Public School Accountability Act of 1999 included a
reform program to assist low performing schools, II/USP program. This
program provided guidelines in high-stakes reform efforts. According to the
CDE (2003), schools that did not meet their API growth targets for two
consecutive years could apply for assistance. Schools eligible for selection are
those in the lower five deciles of the API Base statewide ranks. Once a school
applied, they would receive funding to write an improvement plan or action
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
plan. The action plan is the blueprint for improvement. The school would have
one year to create their plan and would begin implementing the plan in the
second year. The program offers additional funding of two hundred dollars
($200) per student enrolled in the school with a minimum of funding of fifty
thousand dollars ($50,000). The school may only spend this money to support
the action plan. The major funding expense is for staffing including the cost of
the external evaluator. The law mandates the district hire an external evaluator
to appraise the progress as the school begins implementation. The school then
has two years to show academic improvement before sanctions commence. The
initial sanctions are that the state assume all legal rights of the school and
reassign the principal (EC 52055.5). The state would then select one or more
other sanctions:
(A) Revise attendance options for pupils to allow them to attend any
public school in which space is available.
(B) Allow parents to apply directly to the State Board of Education for
the establishment of a charter school and allow parents to establish
the charter school at the existing school site.
(C) Under the supervision of the Superintendent of Public Instruction,
assign the management of the school to a college, university, county
office of education, or other appropriate educational institution,
excluding for-profit organizations.
(D) Reassign other certificated employees of the school.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
(E) Renegotiate a new collective bargaining agreement at the expiration
of the existing collective bargaining agreement, pursuant to Section
3543.2 of the Government Code.
(F) Reorganize the school.
(G) Close the school.
(H) Place a trustee at the school, for a period not to exceed three years,
who shall monitor and review the operation of the school. (EC
52055.5)
If a school did not apply to participate in the II/USP program and there was
room available, they would then receive an invitation to apply. If a school does
not apply, they are still accountable to meet the API growth target; they are at
risk of making achievements without the benefit of assistance.
A chart created by the CDE (2003) explains the timeline for the four-
year process: planning year and approval of plan, and three years of
implementation. During the planning year and the first year of implementation,
the schools are still accountable for meeting their growth targets but there are no
sanctions attached. After the second year of implementation, if the school meets
all targets or if there is some growth, they continue with the implementation
plan. If, after the second year there is negative or no growth, the school must
continue with the implementation plan and local sanctions begin. After the third
year of implementation, if the school meets all targets for two consecutive years,
they exit II/USP. If the school makes any growth one or both years, they are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
under watch. If the school shows negative or no growth for any of the years,
state monitoring begins.
HPSG
Assembly Bill 961 (Chapter 747, Statutes of 2001), establishes the High
Priority Schools Grant (HPSG) program for low-performing schools. The
intention of this program is to offer further resources to assist the lowest
performing schools in the state to raise student achievement by targeting student
performance. To qualify for this program, a school must rank in decile one on
the statewide API. The law mandates that by participating in HPSG the schools
automatically participate in II/USP. Therefore, a school would have to meet all
of the requirements of II/USP as modified by the HPSG legislation such as
creating an action plan and hiring an external evaluator.
Participation in HPSG approximately doubles the funding available on a
per student basis while the district-matching requirement or in-kind funds
remains the same. For example, in the 2002-2003 fiscal year, schools that
participate in HPSG receive six hundred ($600) dollars per student, two hundred
($200) dollars from II/USP and two hundred ($200) dollars from HPSG, with a
two hundred ($200) dollar in-kind match. The goal of the HPSG is to assist
schools in the implementation process to ensure that the changes improve pupil
performance. Schools in this program have twenty-four months to meet growth
targets. Failure to do so will result in the school holding a mandated local public
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
hearing. The school has thirty-six months to make significant progress and
failure after this time results in state intervention and sanctions.
The action plan required by II/USP legislation may be the same one for
the HPSG as long as it meets the requirements contained in EC Section 52054.3.
The action plan serves as a blueprint for the school and the community to focus
on raising student achievement to meet the school’s API growth target. The
action plan provides a comprehensive focused structure for school reform. The
action plan gave the school the power to engage in systemic reform. Creation of
this plan occurs in partnership with the school site council and the district. The
legislation mandates that parents and other members of the community
participate in developing and carrying out the action plan. The action plan has
seven requirements specified in EC Section 52055.620:
1) It shall be research based and data driven.
2) It shall include ongoing data gathering for the purposes of this
program so that progress can be measured and verified and the plan
can be modified based on the data.
3) It shall be grounded in the findings from an initial needs assessment.
4) It shall show evidence of a commitment by the school community to
implement the plan. The plan shall describe how this commitment
will be demonstrated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
5) It shall make clear that there is a heightening of expectations on the
part of all personnel associated with the school site that all children
can learn and every school can succeed.
6) It shall ensure that an environment that is conducive to teaching and
learning is provided at the school site.
7) It shall identify additional human, financial, and other resources
available to the school to be used in the implementation of the school
action plan.
Eighteen other components required by various legislative mandates
offer further specifics that the action plan shall contain. These include but are
not limited to identifying the current barriers that exist at the school that block
pupil achievement and then identify strategies to overcome those barriers. They
must identify how state and local assessment facilitates modifying instruction
toward improving student achievement. They must provide a strategy to attract
and retain the highest quality staff and provide professional development for all
staff aligned to the state content standards. Through AB 466, teachers receive
one hundred twenty hours (120) of training specifically geared toward the state
content standards integrated in the current curriculum adoption. These trainings
were in Language Arts and Mathematics. AB 75 covered training specifically
for site administrators in implementing standards using the schools current
curriculum adoptions. In the process of incorporating parents, they must
describe efforts to increase parent involvement and adjust the culture of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
school community to recognize parents as partners in the education of their
children. Standards-based alignment of the curriculum and instructional
materials must be accessible to all students and approved by the SBE. HPSG
programs participates are more prevalent in elementary schools creating larger
numbers of schools from which to chose for this case study.
Therefore, systemic reform resulted in professional development that
offered on-site training and support. Strategies learned through professional
development received support through coaches who observed lessons in
classrooms, modeled lessons for teachers and collaborated with groups of
teachers on effective strategies.
CSR/CSRD
Comprehensive School (2002) defines the Comprehensive School
Reform Program (CSR) as a federally funded reform effort. Formerly known as
the Comprehensive Reform Demonstration Program (CSRD) of 1997, this
program was renamed CSR with the enactment of the reauthorization of ESEA
to the NCLB act of 2001. This is a federally funded school reform initiative that
offers Title 1 schools that need to substantially improve student achievement,
research-based reform strategies to make improvements for their students. The
purpose of the program is to support schools seeking research-based reform that
are in low-performing, high-poverty areas so that they can meet the challenging
state content and academic achievement standards. The CDE stipulates the
sanctions attached to this initiative as the accountability timelines and sanctions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
pursuant to Title 1 of NCLB. Schools that fail to meet AYP over time are
subject to increasing levels of sanctions or interventions.
Research-based (n.d.) stated that CSRD funding is a catalyst for change
but emphasized that of most importance is the long-term commitment on the
part of the administration, staff and community. Additionally, Research-based
(n.d.) described CSR as a comprehensive model rather than a piecemeal,
fragmented approach that encourages schools to examine models for schoolwide
change that have been successfully replicated in multiple schools. Holman
(1998) describes CSR as a focus on reorganizing and revitalizing entire schools,
rather than on implementing individual programs. There are nine components of
a comprehensive reform program with three overarching themes: research-
based, effective and replicable. The CSR legislation specifically cites seventeen
widely available program models as examples for schools to develop their
reform efforts after. Each of these models provides cost information but the
true cost is variable upon individual districts. The costs will closely mirror those
that the model set forth. The last question that Holman (1998) addresses is how
effective the model programs are at improving academic achievement in the
school that is looking to adopt a new program. In order to make a good choice
from the model, the school must be persistent when asking questions, Holman
advises. They must leam as much as possible to make an informed decision.
The stakeholders need to have information, education and experience to make
reform efforts work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
The CDE specified which schools are eligible for CSR funds and which
schools are not eligible. The only schools that are eligible for funding through
the Request for Application (RFA) process are defined as Category 1 and
Category 2. Category 1 schools are in decile 1 according to their API rank.
Category 2 schools are in decile 2 and are Title 1 schools entering their first year
of Program Improvement (PI). The schools that qualify for categories one or
two become ineligible for funding through the RFA. If they currently receive or
have previously received funding through the CSR, if they currently receive or
have previously received funding through the II/USP, or if they currently receive
or have previously received funding through the HPSG program. The majority
of schools participating in CSR and II/USP are high schools. With current
budget cut backs, CSR has been drastically limited.
Selection Rationale
In analyzing the criteria for participation in these three reform program
options, the qualifiers are quite similar. Of the three options reviewed here, all
consider the API for the first criteria. II/USP must have an API in deciles one
(1) through five (5). HPSG must have an API in decile one (1) and requires
participation in II/USP. CSR must have an API in decile one (1) for category
one (1) and decile two (2) and be Title I in its first year of program improvement
for category two (2). Also similar is the development of a plan that has
comparable themes; the plan must be research-based and align the state content
standards with curriculum and assessment components. Goals must be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
measurable and consist of benchmarks along the way to verify progress toward
the goal. Gathering and use of data should direct next steps. Parent and
community involvement establishes a commitment to improve the parent-school
culture. Professional development must be ongoing for all levels of staffing.
Major differences in the three reform options include the amount of
funding available for each, the extensiveness of preparation and planning, and
the sanctions that have a high-stake peril for the site principal. Because of the
amount of funding available through the HPSG program, the number of
elementary schools participating in HPSG and the accountability of the site
principal, this study will focus on the HPSG program.
Principal’ s Role
Strengths and Weaknesses
The successful implementation of major reforms in elementary schools is
thought to hinge on the role and effectiveness of the elementary school
principal. In light of the California education code, that statement is most
effectually true. Other sources may play a significant role but the high-stakes
accountability rests with the site principal. It is the school site principal who is
displaced first, according to EC 52055.5 if a school does not successfully
implement their action plan under the HPSG program. Leithwood and Riehl
(2003) appear to support this statement as well. Outcomes are crucial!
Educational leaders are being held accountable not only for the structures and
processes they establish, but for the performance of those under their charge.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Elmore (2000) indicated that standards-based reform forces leadership to
be instrumental to improvement. In research conducted in four districts in
Texas, Koschoreck (2001) found that leadership was repeatedly cited as the
essential ingredient required in generating support for the idea of responsibility,
the motivation for the creation of monitoring systems, and adherence to
expectations. In Perreault’s (2000) study, the findings showed that teachers
perceived the principal as part of the control mechanism. The principal was
seen as offering instrumental advice specifically in low-performing schools
focusing on approaches that engrained skills rather than met the students’ needs.
Perreault’s findings showed a negative affect causing a decrease in teachers’
professionalism. Leithwood & Riehl (2003) conclude that the changing needs of
educational systems can be met by improvements in leadership capacity and
practice. They gave six claims concerning the contribution of school leadership
to student learning and the “basics” of successful leadership practice. These six
claims come from a complex body of research:
1. School leadership contributes to learning.
2. Primary sources are principals and teachers.
3. Leadership ought to be distributive
4. Basic leadership is valuable in almost all contexts
a. Articulating a vision
b. Fostering group goals
c. Creating high expectations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
d. Developing people - intellectual stimulation
e. Modeling and support
f. Strengthening, modifying, building organization
5. Acknowledge accountability oriented policy
6. Promote school quality, equity, and social justice
What they were not able to answer is how can educational leaders balance their
leadership and managerial responsibilities in ways that move their schools
forward? Marshall (2003) defined this as becoming the “intensity junkie”
addicted to being frantically busy and constantly in demand as he juggled
discipline and other administrative challenges. The U.S. Department of
Education (1998) points out the political context of principal leadership. Local
policy makers can help principals acquire the skills necessary to support a
positive learning environment.
According to Hertert and Teague (2003), the principal is the
instructional leader -effectively and persistently communicating the mission of
the school to staff, parents and students. Herman (2002) found ample evidence
to suggest that state assessment systems create pressure on principals. Yet,
Herman felt that attaching consequences to performance would motivate
additional effort toward improved learning. Guth, et al., (1998) catalogued
principal’s perceptions of being held accountable. Overall they found that
principals viewed accountability as having a positive influence on achievement
and that the potential for even higher impact exists. Most principals were found
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
not to object to the concept of accountability or even being held accountable
personally because of the shift to higher student outcomes. One principal stated
that the focus on standards and outcomes meant, “no more closed door” for
teachers, again exposing the problem to the public eye. Elmore (2000)
concurred stating that, “Privacy of practice produces isolation; isolation is the
enemy of improvement.”
Key Strategies
Strategies to implement reform.
Accountability Review (n.d.) asks, if changes are necessary to show
improvement in the lowest performing schools, will the school leaders know
what to do? Elmore (2002) gives an imperative for professional development in
education:
1. Learn to do work differently.
2. Rebuild the organization of schooling.
3. Collaboratively set goals.
4. Reach a goal and then move on to more ambitious goals.
5. Continued and consistent improvement.
6. Professional development (get it rooted).
7. Practice improvement (support it).
8. Internal accountability before external.
Other changes will also occur and the principals must ready themselves for the
change. Stecher, et al. (1998) found that principals that reported focusing on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
encouraging teachers more to improve their instruction resulted in a great
increase in their emphasis of the material covered on the state tests.
Michael Fullan (1993), an expert on implementing change, offers four
components to effect the change process: get clear on the focus of change, make
change organizational and systemic, manage the ongoing change, deploy funds
to spur change. He offers six themes to assist the principal in facilitating the
change: take initiative, empower others, offer staff development and resources,
monitor and problem solve, restructure, vision-build and evolutionary planning.
Many of these components or themes are requirements of the HPSG that can
have an adverse affect if not implemented cautiously. (“RAND Study,” 2000)
found that the more teachers were challenged the more likely they were to
change. The innovations may bring about wanted change but, “ .. .it is the long
term process or engaging and supporting people working with change that will
make the most difference.” (Anson, 1994).
Hall and Hord (2001) describe the stages one goes through when
confronted with change. Each stage has a different level of concern that an
individual feels toward the change. These stages of concerns address the
individual’s affective face to change. Hall and Hord created a diagnostic tool to
assess the person’s level of use of the change as they pass through the stages of
concern. These changes are crucial for the principal to recognize when
embarking on the dynamic changes outlined in the reform program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
California’ s lowest (2003), discussed California’s lowest performing
schools and what seemed to make a difference in their improvement. Principals
from schools making improvements stated that they spent more than half of their
time on instructional issues and that the staff morale and cohesion were much
higher than before their reform efforts. Elmore (2000) suggests building a new
structure for school leadership in the form of distributed leadership. He defines
distributed leadership as multiple sources of guidance and direction, following
the contours of expertise in an organization meaning that the administrator’s job
is about enhancing skill and knowledge of people, creating a common culture of
expectation, holding pieces together in productive relationships, and holding
individuals accountable to their contribution to the collective result. Elmore
gives five principles that lay the foundation of distributed leadership:
1. The purpose is improvement of instructional practice.
2. Continuous learning.
3. Learning requires modeling.
4. Learning flows from expertise.
5. Requires reciprocity of accountability and capacity.
School improvement can only be achieved if there is a willingness to
fundamentally restructure, indicated Klecker and Loadman (1999). The ability
to change will influence the adoption and success of the school reform. Setting
out to measure principals’ openness to changing their schools’ organization,
Klecker and Loadman found that principals may have concerns over
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
implementing proposed changes, yet intellectually were in agreement with them.
Thus, the principals decided to bring about changes in their schools knowing
that it was right for the students. From the findings, they infer that to increase
the principals’ actions to facilitate school change -behavioral dimension, steps
to increase the principals’ cognitive dimension are necessary so that changes
will lead to increased student learning - affective dimension. Taylor (1999)
emphasized that early in the process of change, in order to obtain substantive
systemic change one must emphasize creating an official and psychological
climate for change, including overcoming institutionalized resistance, negative
attitudes and barriers to change. Research conducted by George, Hall, and
Uchiyama (2000) demonstrated the constructs and techniques from the Concerns
Based Adoption Model (CBAM) (Hall & Hord, 2001). CBAM focuses on the
change receiver becoming aware of the change, internalizing the information,
considering the personal implications, wondering how they will manage the
change, determining the consequences and then beginning to collaborate with
colleagues on best practices to implement change and finally refocusing the
concerns to other areas. In the George study, the goal was to document the
results obtained when the hypothesized best practices were implemented.
Conclusively they validated research-based to be research-verified. The U.S.
Department of Education (1998) indicated that school reform requires a
willingness to leam, to alter old practices and to act in new ways. This process
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
demands changes in the relationships among adults within schools and between
educators as well as partners at all levels of community and government.
Strategies to implement HPSG
Part of the HPSG legislation was to ensure that principals know research
based reform strategies. California accomplished this through the Principal
Training program initiated by AB 75 (Chapter 697, Statutes of 2001). The
HPSG program demands and research acquiesces (Adelman, Taylor n.d.;
Ancess, 2000; Cuban, 1998; Ruenzel, 2003; George, Hall, Uchiyama, 2000;
Marshall, 2003; Matsumura, Gamier, Pascal, 2002; Stecher, Barron, Kaganoff,
Goodwin, 1998; Towns, Cole-Henderson, Serpell, 2001; U. S. Dept, of Ed.
1998) key strategies to bring about implementing accountability and standards-
based school reform. The action plan team creates the action plan previously
outlined as specified in EC 52055.62.
Some schools may have existing plans such as Single School Plan for
Student Achievement they may use instead of developing a new plan. That plan
must meet all of the HPSG program mandates. The first step in the action plan
for HPSG programs is to identify the barriers at the school and the district
hindering improvements in pupil academic achievement and pinpointing causes
for low achievement. Adelman and Taylor (1999) point out that few youngsters
start with internal problems but that they internalize negative experiences.
Therefore, it is important to identify barriers to learning so the schools can
identify strategies to overcome these barriers. George, et al. (2000) noted that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
the higher fidelity teachers have the higher the effect on student achievement.
Principals must implement high levels of fidelity. Cuban (1998) found similarly
that the fidelity standard is the first step toward the effectiveness standard of
higher test scores.
Setting annual academic growth targets is another action required of
HPSG. Ancess (2000) clarifies that setting goals can be a rich source of teacher
learning and a powerful opportunity for improving student performance as a
reciprocal influence to student outcomes. Research conducted by Towns, et al.
(2001), the one thing the successful schools had in common was that their goal
was beyond merely reaching a destination. To the schools studied it meant,
“going the extra mile.” The extra mile meant looking beyond the goal,
extending the curriculum, not accepting the restrictions of readily available
funds and not being satisfied with “getting by.” They had an inherent
inclination toward something objectionable - academic achievement for all
students. According to the US Department of Education (1998), schools need to
include parents when setting school goals and choosing improvement strategies.
The parental inclusion in HPSG helps improve the culture of the school
community.
Analyzing assessment, learning from it and allowing assessment to drive
instruction are also built into the HPSG program. Amid complaints about too
much testing, Jerald (2003) called for more regular assessment. He referred to
the testing as “snapshot assessments” which districts would conduct at intervals
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
throughout the year. The district could quickly process the data and feed it back
to teachers in time to identify students needing extra help. This allowed time to
modify instruction before the end of the year state testing came along.
Principals were able to discuss student needs with teachers to better set the pace
of instruction and the rigor of their lessons.
Hertert and Teague (2003) state that much research agrees, “The single
most important school resource linked to academic success is the teacher.” The
HPSG program requires recruiting, retaining, and training of highly qualified
teachers with a goal of increasing the number of fully credentialed teachers and
offering ongoing professional development. Hertert and Teague (2003) further
noted, that schools with particularly disadvantaged students are likely to have
less-educated and less-experienced teachers. The state established Assembly
Bill (AB) 466, the Mathematics and Reading Professional Development
program to meet the needs of professional development for HPSG programs.
AB466 is a three-year training program. The first year is for initial training; the
second is for teachers to practice what they learned and the third is the year of
mastery. Yet, the state or federal government has not ratified a criterion of what
constitutes a highly qualified teacher.
“One of the findings of effective-schools research is that schools provide
a safe and orderly learning environment,” stated Hertert and Teague (2003). In
the HPSG program requirements school crime statistics that negatively affect
student achievement is the emphasis. Teachers that spend extended amounts of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
time disciplining student behavior can have a negative affect on the learning
environment. The goal is to increase the number of teaching minutes with
academic areas such as English and mathematics. The US Department of
Education (1998) highlighted a program in Long Beach, California. In 1994,
this district adopted a school uniform requirement that reduced crime as much as
seventy-two percent (72%). Proponents of the program assert that uniforms
decreased fights over clothes, gave students a common identity and are
convenient for parents.
Out-of-state Reform Efforts
California is not alone in the reform effort. The achievement gap is a
nationally renowned issue gaining support in 1965 with the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. The standards-based reform and accountability
movement is more recent but still a nationally acclaimed necessity. The Goals
2000: Educate America Act, which became law in 1994 and later amended in
1996, intended to support comprehensive and coordinated state and local reform
efforts, including the development and implementation of content standards.
Content standards were included in the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), known as the Improving America’s
Schools Act. Title I under the 1994 reauthorization also required states to
develop challenging content standards in at least reading and mathematics.
As of 1998, Camoy, Elmore and Siskin (2003) cataloged thirty-nine
states that currently administer some form of performance-based assessment,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
twenty-four of which attach stakes and forty states that use test scores for school
accountability. When reviewing state reform efforts of the 1990’s, Hurst, Tan,
Meeks and Seller. (2003) catalogued eight (8) states that offer rewards to
districts based on their performance, twenty (20) states that offer rewards to
schools based on performance, twenty-nine (29) states that sanction districts
based on performance and thirty-two (32) states that sanction the schools based
on performance. Others, Elmore (2003); Hurst et al. (2003), point out that while
the details vary considerably from state to state, almost all states have
undertaken some type of reform effort that centers on setting academic
standards. The Hurst et al. review specified performance indicators that states
use to evaluate schools. Twenty-seven (27) states use student test scores, ten
(10) states encompass attendance rate, and fourteen (14) states include dropout
or graduation rates. Further resources show the sanction types various states
incorporate. Five (5) states offer written warning, eleven (11) states place the
schools on probation, thirteen (13) states withhold funding, nineteen (19) states
reconstitute the school, ten (10) states close the school and fifteen (15) states
take over the school.
With the inception of the No Child Left Behind reauthorization of ESEA
of 1965 all states must have an accountability system in place. Many of the
states that have been working on reform efforts for the past decade are a step or
two ahead of the process. For example, California’s standards-based reform and
accountability programs leave them in good standing for implementing the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
mandates of NCLB, contends No child (n.d). Other states such as New York
and Vermont, Camoy et al. (2003) point out, must add or change several
components of its accountability system to comply with the recent mandates,
which indicate a bumpy road ahead. Vermont’s accountability system does not
have stakes for students or adults. Vermont policy makers feel that the
publication of assessment results will stir the local schools to implement their
own reform efforts.
Few states have had stronger success at establishing and implementing
an accountability system as Michigan, Kentucky and Texas. According to the
Michigan Department of Education (2004), Michigan initiated the Michigan
Revised School Code of 1977 and the State School Aid Act (SSAA) of 1979
requiring the establishment of educational standards and the assessment of
students’ academic achievement. It approved a system of academic standards
and frameworks. The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) tests
were developed for the purpose of determining what students know and what
students are able to do, as compared to the standards set forth by the SSAA, at
key checkpoints during their academic career.
Under Education YES!, the states accountability system, schools now
receive grades of A, B, C, D-Alert, or Unaccredited. Every individual school
building in Michigan receives seven letter grades, six individual grades based on
Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) achievement status, MEAP
achievement change, MEAP achievement growth, indicators of engagement,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
indicators of instructional quality, indicators of learning opportunities and an
overall composite grade (MDE, 2004). Schools that receive an “A” are
summary accredited. Schools that receive a “B”, “C”, or “D/Alert” are in
interim status. Unaccredited schools will also be labeled as such (MDE 2004).
According to the SSAA of 1979, schools receiving unaccredited status,
the Superintendent of Public Instruction may place into escrow up to five
percent (5%) of state school aid attributable to students in an unaccredited
school until the school submits an acceptable plan for improving student
achievement. An administrator may be appointed to operate the school, the
parents have the opportunity to send their children to another school of their
choice, the school may affiliate with a research based improvement program or
the school may be closed. These high stakes sanctions have serious
ramifications for the current administration of a school.
Kentucky is another that many states have modeled reform efforts after.
In the late 1980s, a lawsuit filed challenged the state’s finance formula for
public schools claiming it unfairly placed too much emphasis on local resources.
Kentucky Supreme Court declared the state’s system of schools unconstitutional
in teaching, learning and funding, states Camoy, Elmore and Siskin (2003) thus
beginning Kentucky’s reform initiatives of an efficient system of common focus
from what teachers do in the classroom to what students learn. Kentucky’s
initiatives include high-stakes accountability and sanction models.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
The Kentucky Department of Education chronicled the Kentucky
Education Reform Act (KERA) that brought about Kentucky Instructional
Results Information System (KIRIS) and later the Commonwealth
Accountability Test System (CATS) that are currently in use (Kiris
Accountability, n.d.). In this reform effort, according to KRS 158 (2002),
schools that do not meet the established progress rate are eligible to receive
Commonwealth school improvement funds. Consequences for the school site
include, but are not limited to, a scholastic audit process to determine the
appropriateness of a school's classification and to recommend needed assistance.
Education assistance appointed by the state are highly skilled certified staff to
train team members to evaluate each certified staff member assigned to the
school and make recommendations to the state board of education. The focus is
a positive approach on improving teaching and learning for all students.
Texas, considered a close cousin to California because of demographics,
has seen impressive growth in the closing of the achievement gap according to
NAEP (2004). In January 1996, Governor George W. Bush announced his
reading initiative for the State of Texas including six major elements:
Leadership Development, Diagnostic Assessment, Comprehensive Research-
based Programs, Intermediate Intervention, Progress Monitoring, and End-of-
Year Performance Analysis.
According to the Texas Education Code §28.002 (TEC, 2004), a district's
accreditation rating may be raised or lowered based on the district's performance
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
in the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) or may be lowered based
on the unacceptable performance of one or more campuses in the district. Two
indicators that affect a schools rating and accreditation are comparable
improvement and required improvement. Sanctions required under TEC
§39.131 include ordering a hearing conducted by the board of trustees of the
district for the purpose of notifying the public of the unacceptable performance,
the improvements in performance expected by the agency, and the sanctions that
may be imposed under this section if the performance does not improve.
In the Texas accountability mode, the pressure is at the district level to
prepare a student achievement improvement plan that addresses each academic
excellence indicator for which the district's performance is unacceptable.
According to Camoy, Elmore and Siskin (2003), the sanctions for continued
failure to improve ranged from peer review and on site investigations, to notices
of deficiency, school reconstitution, and old-fashioned public ridicule. They
further point out the proponent argument that by simply drawing attention to
low-performing schools, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills has been
able to force improvement, particularly for minority students.
Texas determined that overarching district leadership was the key to
reform efforts. The key components focused on a compelling need to change, a
common sustained vision, visible leaders, high expectations, ownership and
community. They observed specific practices that they felt lead to successful
reform: focused and strategic planning, aligned and pervasive academic focus,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
use of assessment information, an empirical basis for practice, coherent and
consistent professional development, and the district staff as a service
organization, as well as flexible and creative use of funding. It is the contention
of the Texas Education Agency, Long range (n.d.) that enhancing student and
school performance is only possible when true systemic reform occurs.
Everyone - every component of the education system - has a role to play, each
supporting the other in maximizing student learning.
In North Carolina’s reform effort, the state addressed school-related
variables that adversely affect educational outcomes by implementing
collaboration with all stakeholders, identifying and developing programs and
strategies to close the achievement gap and disseminating research findings on
best practices. Intervention may involve a more directive approach from an
assistance team, including recommendations to dismiss or demote personnel.
The assistance teams implement the sanctions for low performing schools
according to the Assistance teams (n.d.). Throughout the school year, the
Assistance Team collects information using the Principal Performance Appraisal
Instrument (PPAI) concerning the principal's performance and abilities in the
areas of instructional leadership, resource management, and communications.
The assistance team then makes recommendations to the SBE based on their
finding.
As a committee member on the Steering by Results task force of 1997,
David Marsh, Ph.D. (personal communication, February 11,2004), was able to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
offer insights into California’s reform efforts. California based their reform
model on the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA). A few key issues that
California did not incorporate made California’s initiative somewhat weaker.
Kentucky set a higher bar of expectations when establishing the performance
standard of what every child should know and be able to do. California’s
political agenda required a rapid implementation process. The Kentucky time
frame for implementation was significantly longer than California’s, allowing
the implementation process to be smoother and have a stronger foundation for
success. Equally important, the longer time frame allowed the implementation
of a strong incentive piece, lacking in California’s initiative, which created buy-
in from all entities. California’s incentive was more of an after-thought that was
incomprehensible to those receiving the reward. The task force argued for
longer implementation process and that fewer schools be picked out for
assistance when not meeting performance levels. They also contended that too
much money was being awarded to schools for assistance over a short period of
time which they felt would force schools to spend a great deal of money on
short-term goals leaving no funds for continuation of achievement after
completion of the HPSG program.
Ruenzel (1998) acknowledged that accountability is extraordinarily
complex. The literature appears to point to chunks missing in the plethora of
systems being implemented nation wide. In Ruenzel’s (1998) accountability
basics, one key issue is to remain flexible. “We need to be able to adjust
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
systems as we go along and make repairs accordingly. The biggest obstacle may
be the tendency to function from the top level down without sufficient buy-in
from the bottom level.” This was not an obstacle in Kentucky’s system of
implementation, which teachers facilitated in establishing.
Another issue Ruenzel (1998) noted is holding society accountable. The
point here is not that money will solve the problem but the problems that the
lack of money perpetuates. Student achievement is not all under the control of
the teacher. The teacher mandates of dealing with gangs and crime in California
classrooms leave considerably little time for academic achievement. The
change of political winds abruptly changes accountability for students, schools,
and society leaving any system lacking in the time necessary to implement the
change.
The case of Williams v. California reiterates issues that Ruenzel noted in
regards to standards. Standards are only the beginning—they set the body of
knowledge expected for all students to be able to learn but, as Oakes, Blasi &
Rogers (2003) point out the absent pieces are the resources conditions and
opportunities. Further, acknowledged is that the Governor, Legislature,
Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Board of Education or local district
officials are not held to account for anything. It is the opinion of these authors
that reform must be systemic rather than piecemeal including standards,
sufficient teachers, tools, skills, and resources aligned to the standards as well as
holding schools accountable for their results. Students and parents should be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
accountable for things that are within their control such as, doing homework,
arriving at school on time, rested and ready to learn and adhering to reasonable
and fair discipline.
Camoy, Elmore and Siskin (2003), noted problems in the area of how to
employ the data as not being self-evident. Schools have long had data
concerning students’ academic achievement. With the reform, new data is to
inform school practice but the latitude is broad in finding the appropriate
approach. Many school leaders feel paralyzed by a sense of hopelessness as
they work in virtual isolation to determine best approach with the principal
assuming primary responsibility.
Elmore (2003) acknowledges the multitude of states initiating reforms
yet nothing in any of the states’ accountability efforts has equipped them to
handle the number of schools that will most likely be classified as low-
performing. Superintendents and principals report that the teachers are
demoralized by the designation of being a failing school. The systems do not
distinguish between schools that have stabilized their inner workings and started
on the process of improvement. Elmore (2003) states that these schools lack
agreement and coherence around student learning expectations and the means to
influence instructional practice. As EdSource (1998) stated these systems
assume that the people working in the schools already have the capacity to
perform to the level of the accountability system they are putting in place.
Elmore (2003) feels that knowing the right thing to do is the central problem of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
school improvement and that these improvements are not always obvious. It is
Elmore’s recommendation that states must treat differently low-performing
schools that are making progress and that accountability systems should not
penalize schools that are making significant improvements in instructional
practice and showing academic gains.
Conclusion
From the literature, it is apparent that a strong public education system is
the moral, economic, political and social obligation of the United States. The
moral obligation is apparent because of the myriad of laws created and funding
allocated to make education equitable to all. The social obligation is evident by
the comparisons the RAND organization and others continue to make (RAND,
2000). If society were not obligatory to higher academics, no achievement gap
would exist because it would not matter if one student, school or state learned at
a higher level than another did. Economically, the future of American depends
on education. Wage trends in California suggest that workers without a high
school diploma suffer severe loss in earning power. There is a general belief
that a college degree increases a person 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
California. If one considered the supply and demand principle, it would be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
obvious that as the supply for workers increases the demand for higher levels of
education would also increase. According to Benner, Brownstein, and Dean
(1999) thirty-four percent (34%) of jobs required a bachelor’s degree, and
ninety percent (90%) of all jobs require a high school level or greater education
specifically in reading and math related skills. Politically, education is a usual
consideration in establishing a platform and in determining the quality of the
candidate. Politicians that are in favor of academic improvement programs, the
public typically holds in higher esteem. The literature confirms that education is
the moral, economic, political and social obligation of the United States. An
educational gap may occur among racial lines, or socio-economic status of
various learners creating an inadequate education . It is the educators’
responsibility to close the achievement gap at that learner’s site by offering
service appropriate to the educability of the learner. As the leader of a school
site, it becomes the principal’s responsibility to carry out the task of ensuring
that all children receive the instruction necessary that guarantees an equal
educational opportunity for all students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
Introduction
This case study compared the staffs perceptions of the principal’s role in
enhancing high stakes accountability and the teacher’s perception of what the
principal is doing to achieve that goal. The study centered on the principal as
instructional leader, community liaison and managing corporate executive
officer. A crucial point of the study was on investigating the roles the principal
plays in implementing school accountability within California’s high priority
schools. In 1999, California applied pressure on the education system by
implementing the Public School Accountability Act forcing the accountability
for tax dollars spent on reform efforts to improve student academic achievement.
It is imperative to conduct research to better understand what principals are
doing at state reform schools to raise student achievement, specifically where
white students drastically surpass minority students and those from
economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
With this in mind, the researcher explored the following questions:
1. How do principals view high stakes accountability in HPSGP
schools, and what do they see, based on specific objective data
through tests aligned to standards, as the strengths and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
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 work of the principal in this
regard—do the teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial
or detrimental?
A multi tiered system for collecting and analyzing data included:
• A study of the literature
• A conceptual framework to address the research questions
• Selection of data collection instruments
• Selection of a state reform school
• Selection of participants for surveys and interviews
• Analysis of data to determine trends
• Distribution and collection of surveys
Research Design
The study employed the use of two levels of reporting to clarify how
principals view high stakes accountability, what they do to hold teachers
accountability and how teachers perceive the principals efforts. For the first
level, a researcher-developed survey instrument elicited the perceptions of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
principal’s role in effectively implementing the mandates of high priority
schools. A similar instrument elicited the teachers’ perceptions of whether the
principals’ efforts are beneficial or detrimental. The purpose was to gather data
regarding the effectiveness of the principal’s role in implementing the goals of
HPSG. Usability by Design Ltd (2004), clarified the use of a Likert scale as a
measure of the strength of agreement towards statements provided in the survey
tool. The scale for the teacher survey gauges the staffs attitude, preferences and
subjective reactions to the principal’s efforts. The scales for the principal’s
survey helps get at the principal’s attitude, preferential and emotional responses
others have to her efforts to raise academic achievement. Using a Likert scale,
the two surveys reflect the components of the Action Plan the school created in
the first year of implementation of the HPSG. The Action Plan lists barriers to
improvement in student achievement and underlying causes for low
performance. Components of the Action Plan that align to the survey instrument
include parents and community involvement, fiscal management, personnel
management and curriculum management. The teacher survey specifically
addresses research question two and asks teachers to respond to statements
about what the literature suggests principals should be doing or what the action
plan requires the principals to do. The teacher survey also addresses research
question three and asks teachers to respond according to their perception of what
the principal does, how they feel about what the principal requires of them and
how they perceive the implementation of these new requirements. The principal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
survey addresses three research questions and asks for responses based on their
perceptions.
The second level gained data through principal and teacher group interviews.
The interview process offered a more in-depth view of the staffs perceptions of
the reform efforts. The principal’s interview was in a one-on-one setting. The
researcher conducted the teacher interviews in small groups: one primary grade
level group and one upper grade level group. The researcher used trends and
direct quotations. Using the Critical Incidents Technique (CIT) developed by
Flanagan in 1954, the researcher analyzed patterns of the teachers’ and
principal’s perceptions to develop core concepts regarding the role of the
principal in implementing school accountability within the HPSG. Critical
incidents concentrated on in the interview questions take account of what the
principal did or did not do that was especially effective or ineffective. The
researcher used the answers to these questions to identify and report on the
trends represented by the incidents.
Sample and population
The setting selected for this study is an elementary school in Orange County.
This school is a Pre-kindergarten through sixth grade school in the Anaheim
City School District. Of the twenty-three schools in this district, the selected
site is one of the five state approved High Priority Schools in the northern
section of the city. Anaheim City School District is a severely impacted, multi
track, year round district with more than half of the schools on staggered
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
sessions. In order to leam the heartbeat of what the principal does and how
others perceive those actions, the researcher determined that a study of one
school would be most useful. The selection of the school was on the following
criteria:
• Schools that are at or above the eighty-fifth percent (85%) poverty
level
• Currently in the HPSG program implementation process
• Schools that demonstrate an achievement gap between racial/ethnic
groups, students of low socio-economic backgrounds and white
students
• Have a numerically significant white population at least district-wide
for the purpose of showing a closing of the achievement gap
• School has written a grant proposal, been approved by the California
Department of Education and already begun the implementation of
the grant.
• The administrators selected are those of the selected school and at
least one of which was at the site at the writing of the grant proposal
Table 1 shows the student enrollment according to the School Accountability
Report Card for 2001-2002. The California state mandates students from grades
two through eleven participate in the STAR program. Therefore, the number of
students tested during this school year for this school would be seven hundred
forty-seven second through sixth grade students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Table 1
Student Enrollment, by Grade Level
Grade Enrollment
Kindergarten 174
Grade 1 152
Grade 2 138
Grade 3 157
Grade 4 154
Grade 5 153
Grade 6 145
Total 1073
Chaps school is predominately an English Learner school (See Table 2). The
number in the White (Not Hispanic) group demonstrates the lack of numerical
significance at this school site demonstrating a need to compare the closing of
the achievement gap to the white population district-wide. The economically
disadvantaged students are the second highest category. Six hundred forty-four
(644) students meet the criteria established by the state identified as
economically disadvantaged for ninety-five percent (95%) of the school’s
population.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
Table 2
Student Enrollment, by Ethnic Group
Racial/Ethnic
Category
Number
of
Students
Percentag
e
of
Students
Racial/Ethnic
Category
Number
of
Students
Percentag
e
of
Students
African-American 3 0.3 Hispanic or
Latino
1025 95.5
American Indian
or Alaska
2 0.2
Pacific Islander
0 0
White (Not
Hispanic)
28 2.6 Filipino-
American
10 0.9
Native
0 0
Asian-American 5 0.5
The percentage of students is the number of students in a racial/ethnic category divided by the school's
2002 California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) total enrollment.
The requirements contained in Education Code Section 52054 specifies
that the action plan, which serves as the grants blueprint, must provide a strategy
to attract and retain the highest quality staff. Table 3 illustrates the number of
teachers with various credentials during the history of the HPSG.
Table 3
Teaching Staff
2000 2001 2002 2003
Total Number of Teachers 45 46 49 52
Full Credential 35 42 47 50
(full credential and teaching in subject area)
Teaching Outside Subject Area 0 0 0 0
(full credential but teaching outside subject area)
Emergency Credential 13 4 2 2
According to schools most recent CBEDS
Figure 4 further identifies the teachers’ education levels at Chaps school and
the professional growth made throughout the HPSG process. The number of
teachers with a Bachelor’s Degree plus thirty units has decreased from twenty-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
seven to twenty-one as the number of teachers with a Master’s Degree has
increased from five to ten teachers. Those with a Master’s Degree plus thirty
units has also increased from two teachers to five teachers.
25
4 - *
c
m
3
a
00-01 01-02 02-03
■ Master's Degree
-Master's Degree +30
- Bachelor's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
+30
Average Years
Teaching
Year
Figure 4. Staff Education Level and Years of Experience. According to Data Quest, 2004
A variety of programs are available (see Table 4) to support the needs of all
students at all levels. Chap School offers numerous special services to meet the
needs and interest of children. These special services promote a positive
learning community and academic growth. Several of the listed services
provided are through special funding, volunteer teachers, and other community
agencies. The professionals at Chap School strive to provide a balanced,
standards-based curriculum to students at all instructional levels. Some of the
programs available are:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
Table 4
Chap School Programs
Program GATE At-
Risk
English
Learners
Special
Education
Differentiated Instruction X X X X
Math Club X X X X
Homework Club X X X X
ELD After School X
Super Study Sessions X X X
(Extended Day)
RSP X
Student Council X X X X
Anaheim Achieves X X X X
Rolling Readers X X X X
Off-Track Tutors X X X X
Nutrition Advisory Council X X X X
Accelerated Reader X X X X
Pentathlon X X
Math Deduction Program X X X
Basic Facts X X X
Off-Track Teacher Support X X X
A key component of the HPSG program is involvement from all
stakeholders. Chap school offers multiple opportunities for parents to be
involved at the school.
• Anaheim Neighborhood Council
• Eli Home: Child Abuse
• Straight Talk (4 weeks)
• Women’s Health
• Public Library: Reading on the Green
• CAFE
• Nutrition Classes (4 weeks)
• Home School Partnership Classes (8 weeks)
• Crafts
• Math Academy for Parents (weekly)-3rd and 4th grade basic facts program
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
• Math Academy for Parents (weekly)-5th grade math deduction program
• Project SAY
• Gang and Drug Awareness
• Math Academy for Parents (weekly)
• Eli Home: Spousal Abuse
Chap School is most proud of their community outreach program that includes
home visits and neighborhood walks.
Instrumentation
The researcher-developed questions were created during the winter semester
of 2002 by the principal investigators and Dr. David Marsh, Ph.D., Associate
Dean of Academic Programs. This researcher developed a working set of
questions based on the previous researcher’s review and recommendations to
determine effectiveness. A matrix of the research questions and the structured
questions for the interview and survey helped to determine essential questions to
this study. After refinement, an expert panel piloted the instruments. The expert
panel consisted of two principals of high priority schools and teachers from the
researchers own staff. The researcher incorporated the suggestions of the pilot
group and created the final instruments.
The principal and teacher survey included forty-five (45) descriptive as well
as interpretive statements. Responses given quantified subjective information
on a Likert rating scale, defined by the Usability by Design Ltd. (2004) as a
design used to measure the principal’s and teachers’ attitudes and reactions to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
the statements. The respondents indicated where along a continuum their
attitude or reaction resides. The researchers designed the surveys to answer the
research questions addressing the following broad areas:
• The principal’s view of high stakes accountability in HPSG schools
• The principal’s view of what they see as the strengths and weaknesses of
such accountability in their own schools
• What principals do to enhance high stakes accountability in their schools
• Teacher’s response to the work of the principal
• Teacher’s views of what principals do, and whether it is helpful.
An Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research accompanied the surveys
informing participants of their rights in accordance with requirements of the
University of Southern California.
Because the researcher taped the interviews, the University of Southern
California required an Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research informing
the principal and teachers of their rights when participating in audio taped
interviews. Those choosing to participate returned a signed form to the
investigator. The interviews correlated the teachers’ and principals’
perception/view of the effectiveness of High Priority School Grant (HPSG)
program implementation, and its effect on the achievement gap. The purpose of
the HPSG was to monetarily assist low performing schools as measured by the
Academic Performance Index mandated by Assembly Bill 961, Chapter 747,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
Statutes of 2001. The interviews served to clarify data gathered from the
surveys and to gather more specific and detailed responses to gain a clearer
picture of the principal’s role. The researcher asked participants approximately
twenty-five (25) questions during the interview process. The questions
prompted open-ended answers on the view of high-stakes accountability as well
as strengths and weaknesses of the reform effort. During the interviews, specific
examples clarified data as well as some dilemmas that occur during the
implementation of the grants and any trade offs that allowed for compromises.
The interviews were approximately forty-five minutes in duration.
Data Collection
The researcher administered the Teacher and Principal Survey at the
selected school site during a portion of the weekly staff meeting. Chaps school
has two administrators: one principal and one vice-principal. Thirty-two (32)
teachers attended the staff meeting of fifty-two (52) teachers on staff. All thirty-
two teachers and both administrators returned the completed surveys necessary
to measure the school’s data in a qualitative approach. After the surveys, the
researcher interviewed the principal and randomly selected teachers to volunteer
for the interview portion of the data collection. Therefore, surveys, interviews
and test results from STAR archives are the data collection.
During the data collection, the researcher provided complete anonymity
and confidentiality to all participants. The Information Sheet and Informed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Consent for Non-Medical Research outlined procedures taken to ensure this
process including the omission of names from the surveys, not using names
during the interview process, and the use of a pseudo for the name of the school
participating in the study. After establishing anonymity and confidentiality, the
researcher administered the surveys. The researcher collected and analyzed data
from the surveys. The analysis of the data guided the researcher in the final
interview questions that added clarity to the study. The researcher tape-recorded
and later transcribed the interviews to assure accuracy in responses. Some note
taking strategies helped the researcher to establish tone for non-audible
responses.
Data Analysis
The researcher collected, sorted and analyzed the data by surveys and
interviews to determine patterns and trends. A computer database program,
used by the investigator, organized the data to facilitate analysis. The
investigator analyzed data for correlating the teachers’ and principal’s
perception and or views of the effectiveness of HPSG program implementation.
The researcher used Descriptive statistics to describe the survey data. Further,
the researcher analyzed the STAR data to determine the HPSG program's effect
on the achievement gap. The researcher used trends based upon the responses to
develop the overall picture of the principal’s role in a state reform school.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
CHAPTER 4
Findings
Introduction
The purpose of this qualitative study was to gain new knowledge
regarding the principal’s role in implementing the goals of a High Priority
School Grant. Reflection on the problem stated at the start of this project is the
unknown of what principals do to improve student achievement. Of further
importance to the study was academic attainment in closing the achievement
gap. Organization of this chapter is first by the findings according to each
research question, a discussion of the findings reflecting upon the literature, and
as a final point a summary of the meaning of the findings with insights gained
by the principal investigator. Reflection upon student academic achievement
between white, Hispanic and economically disadvantaged students towards
closing the achievement gap at the school site selected for study lead to a
determination of whether the principals efforts have been detrimental or
beneficial. This link will establish strengths and weaknesses, which will
critically impact policy makers, school districts, and school leaders as well as
principals.
The researcher created the principal and teacher surveys and interview
guides to align with the components of a state reform High Priority School
Grant action plan in mind. The action plan addresses the implementation of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
twenty-four strategies to eliminate the barriers to improvement and underlying
causes for low performance. A discussion of the action plan will take place
through out the findings, specifically the items determined to be the
administrator’s responsibility.
Findings by Research Questions
Question One
How do principals and teachers view high stakes accountability in HPSG
schools, and what do they see, based on specific objective data through tests
aligned to standards, as the strengths and weaknesses of such an accountability
system in their own schools?
The investigator gathered data from surveys, interviews, the school
action plan and California Department of Education (CDE) data. The tables
reflect the teachers’ and principal’s view of high stakes accountability in High
Priority Schools. Analogies also compare data gathered from a parallel study
conducted by Dr. Martha Tienda-Ayala (2003). Table 5 will reflect whom the
teachers and principal feel holds the majority of the ethical responsibility for
raising academic achievement. Table 6 addresses job security. Table 7
addresses whose responsibility it is for student learning, Table 8 the influence of
school reform on student performance. Table 9 addresses the challenge of
balancing professional and personal life by looking at the perception of morale.
Table 10 answers whether HPSG provides the resources needed to raise student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
achievement and lastly, Table 11 looks at the value of the external entities
feedback to the program improvement.
The ethical responsibility, according to the data in table 5, for raising
academic achievement is agreeably with the school. The administrators strongly
agree one hundred percent (100%) that it is their responsibility and the teachers
strongly agreed at a rate of ninety-three percent (93%) that it is their
responsibility to raise academic achievement for all children. The survey data
show that while a few teachers feel it is somewhat their responsibility to raise
academic achievement for all students, the interview data shows that teachers
similarly feel that parents should incur more of the responsibility than what they
currently observe at their school. The Upper Grade Interview Group (2004),
when asked about parent involvement stated:
Parents are involved in a variety of programs at the
school: The Diabetes action walk, the education fair,
Math academy to help parents know how to help their
children, English classes, Health classes, and classes at
North Orange County Family Center. What they are not
involved in is helping their children accept
responsibility for their education. The parents are not
active when it comes to making children do their
homework or in discipline.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
When interviewing the Primary Group (2004), the teachers declared:
The parent involvement in the school is not visible in
our situation. Parents come to the school for the
activities provided.
Yet, they are not participating in the daily classroom
activities of their children. The parents do not
communicate with us about their children’s work,
behavior or other needs. They do not take an active
interest in what goes on in the classroom. Parents need
to be more accountable for their child’s educational
program.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s 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 2 6.7
Agree Strongly 28 93.3
Total 30 100.0
One of the initial barriers addressed in the action plan was that a parent
collaboration component was missing that would support parents understanding
of the academic expectations of their children thereby adding parental support of
their child’s learning. The solution to this barrier was to increase the number
and frequency of school-site parent contacts. A further solution is to increase
the number of home communications with parents to deepen their understanding
of the state standards and concurrent requirements. According to the US
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
Department of Education (1998), schools need to include parents when setting
school goals and choosing improvement strategies. The parental inclusion in
HPSG helps improve the culture of the school community.
The staff conducts frequent home visits by going out in groups of
teachers to visit families during staff meeting time. This has been somewhat of
a burden to the staff. One staff members claimed, “We are doing too much for
the parents and the parents do not equally reciprocate. The only time the parents
talk with us about their child’s academic issues is when we go to the home.”
Another teacher felt, “Some parents need to be making daily contact to
determine if solutions to barriers are being effective.”
With the Primary Interview Group (2004), teachers stated, “The parents
should accept a higher level of responsibility than they currently accept.”
Teachers defined what they feel represents parent involvement as the
determining factor used to measure the parents degree of accepting
responsibility for their child’s learning. “The parents need to be active in the
classroom not just at the school participating in activities that we offer for
them.” The data from the survey show a fifty-fifty (50/50) split in the
percentage of teachers that agree that parents volunteer in their classrooms.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of teachers feel that parents actively serve on Parent
Teacher Association and School Site Council teams. One teacher in the Primary
Interview Group (2004) stated, “Accepting these responsibilities is only a
beginning. These are monthly meetings. We need daily support from parents.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
My job security is threatened if student achievement does not increase.
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrator Agree Somewhat 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 1 3.4
Disagree Strongly 5 17.2
Disagree Somewhat 6 20.7
Agree Somewhat 16 53.3
Agree Strongly 1 3.4
Total 29 100.0
Table 6 presents findings of the threat to the staffs’ job security if student
achievement does not increase. One hundred percent (100%) of administration
“agrees somewhat” to a threat of their job security if students do not achieve;
while only fifty-six percent (56%) of teachers agree to some degree that the lack
of student achievement is a threat to their job security. Thirty-eight percent
(38%) of teachers disagree to some degree that if students do not demonstrate
academic achievement their jobs are in jeopardy.
The school reconstituted before applying for the HPSG program and the
Keys to Excellence for Your Schools (KEYS) initiative went into effect. The
KEYS program is a National Education Association’s initiative that assesses the
organization’s performance using forty-two research-based indicators of a high
quality school. The school uses the results of the assessment to identify and
build upon the strengths and areas of need of the organization. The district
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
appointed a new principal during the reconstituting of the school. Teachers
wanting to participate in the KEYS program that were on staff reapplied and
went through an interview process in order to keep their position at the school.
Those that did not want to participate received assignments at other schools in
the district. Participating in this process as tenured teachers, those remaining
have a clear understanding of the union bargained agreement and know their job
security is more in the hands of the union than in the hands of the state
sanctions. According to the Principal Interview (2004), “This ensured that
tenured teachers remaining were those willing to go the extra distance to
improve academics for all students.” Mrs. Stores felt confident that the teachers
remaining were the ones, “setting high goals, willing to extend the curriculum,
and not being satisfied with “getting by.” She further stated that, “Those newly
hired were eager to work to the level of the veteran teachers on staff. U.S.
Department of Education (1998) states, that recruiting qualified teachers
enthusiastic for change is the key. “In chronically low-performing schools,
improvement can be undermined by staff cynicism. Overcoming cynicism is
just as central to making things happen.”
Table 7 addresses responsibility for increasing student achievement. The
data show administrators “agree strongly” that they are responsible.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
I am the person responsible for the increase of student achievement.
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrator Agree Strongly 2 100.0
Teachers Agree Somewhat 7 23.3
Agree Strongly 23 76.7
Total 30 100.0
Therefore, it is understandable that further survey responses demonstrate
eighty percent (80%) of teachers believe there is a strong link between their
professional development and the improvement of their students academically;
while twenty percent (20%) agree there is some link. Yet, only fifty-three
percent (53%) of the teachers “agree strongly” that all of this professional
development helped them develop a repertoire of research based teaching
strategies; while forty-seven percent (47%) “agree somewhat” that the
professional development helped.
During the interview process of the teaching staff, a main topic of
discussion was the overwhelming amount of training received during the
implementation of the reform effort. The teachers discussed trainings that were
well conducted and productive as well as those that had little to no impact on
their teaching. The teachers stated that the AB 466 trainings in Language Arts
and Mathematics were the most helpful. Other trainings they felt were useful
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
were the Reciprocal Teaching and GLAD trainings. They explained that the
shorter trainings, packed into one session, with no follow-up coaching were the
least beneficial.
Table 8
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
School reform positively influences student performance.
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrator Agree Strongly 2 100.0
Teachers Agree Somewhat 9 30.0
Agree Strongly 21 70.0
Total 30 100.0
Table 8 demonstrates that teachers as well as administrators either "agree
strongly" or "agree somewhat" one hundred percent (100%) that the HPSG
reform effort has had a positive influence on student performance.
When the researcher questioned the principal about the influence of
school reform on student performance, Mrs. Stores responded:
The school reform effort gives administrators the
power to say we need to do this intervention or that
intervention program. The External Evaluator report
asks, “How are we going to improve?” The team
analyzes the report. They [teachers] make the
recommendations. Hence, you have teacher buy in to a
positive effort to raise achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
In Table 9, the data demonstrates the positive attitude the teachers have
toward the HPSG process. Sixty percent (60%) of the teachers agree that the
HPSG process has a positive impact on their morale. On the other hand, the
administrators split their decision on whether the process is positive on morale.
According to the Primary Interview Group (2004), “The quality of the staff
development we received boosted our morale. It has helped use to become
better teachers. That is our desire - to become the best teachers we can
become.”
One barrier addressed in the Action Plan, Barrier 2, identified a number
of new or inexperienced teachers. Consequently, they ascertain the need for
ongoing, formal, effective professional development such as the AB 466
trainings available in Language Arts and Mathematics. Mrs. Stores
acknowledged, “The amount of time spent in trainings has been overwhelming
at times, for example, the AB 466 trainings required one hundred twenty hours
of professional development in the areas of Language Arts and Mathematics.”
The primary teachers stated during the interview (2004),
“In the past we could select from a larger variety of
trainings, now the trainings have to relate to one of the
two areas of AB 466 and incorporate research-based and
data driven strategies. They are not always the choices
we would like.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
Table 9
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
The HPSG process has a positive impact on my morale.
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrator Disagree Somewhat 1 50.0
Agree Somewhat 1 50.0
Total 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 1 3.3
Disagree Somewhat 11 36.7
Agree Somewhat 16 53.3
Agree Strongly 2 6.7
Total 30 100.00
The action plan developed twenty-four (24) solutions and strategies for
overcoming the barriers and underlying causes of underachievement. When
analyzing these items it becomes apparent that this process will be difficult to
achieve under the current school site budget. The action plan calls for the
purchase and/or funding of an electronic tool to track and disaggregate data,
purchase of textbooks and other supplemental instructional materials, training
for teachers in the areas of developing and administering benchmark
assessments, curriculum mapping and use of pacing guides, collecting,
analyzing, planning and pacing instructional units and to provide ample
collaboration opportunities. Further expenses of the action plan include the
hiring of an external evaluator, literacy coach and funding for training parents
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
on techniques for helping their students at home and providing parent education
classes so parents can support their children’s academic achievement. The
principal must provide the resources needed to meet state accountability. Bennis
and Goldsmith (1997) illustrates the difference between leaders and managers,
“ A good manager does things right. A leader does the right things. Most losing
organizations are over-managed and under-led. Their managers accomplish the
wrong things beautifully and efficiently.”
Table 10 indicates that ninety-seven percent (97%) of the teachers agree
that the principal provides the resources needed to meet the accountability
mandated by HPSG.
Table 10
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
The principal provides the resources needed to meet state accountability.
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrator Agree Somewhat 1 50.0
Agree Strongly 1 50.0
Total 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 1 3.3
Agree Somewhat 10 33.3
Agree Strongly 19 63.3
Total 30 100.0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
In the Upper Grade Teacher Interview (2004), the teachers stated,
With the solutions/strategies linked to the identified
barriers, not providing funding to implement the process
would be contemptible. Surely, some solutions may be
possible with the categorical funding but fewer solutions
implemented would result in limited closing of the
achievement gap. You would not see the same amount
of growth that we have made in the past three years.
Improving the school environment, promoting a culture conducive to
learning and making the school into a safe and orderly environment is another
barrier that the principal provided resources to overcome. According to survey
data, sixty-nine percent (69%) of the staff “agree strongly” that the principal
promotes a culture conducive to learning and seventy-two percent (72%) of the
staff “agree strongly” that the principal provides resources for a safe and orderly
environment. From the information presented in the Action Plan, crime is not a
factor negatively affecting student achievement at Chaps School.
The purpose of the external evaluator (EE) as outlined in the Action Plan
is to facilitate, support and monitor the schools work throughout the
implementation process by providing on-going evaluation to effectively
implement the action plan. The EE will assist the principal and School Site
Action Team in selecting research based strategies and faithfully replicating
them across all content areas. The EE will be a representative of the analysis
team that will meet quarterly to review the summative and formative section of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
the Action Plan. The on-going comprehensive evaluation will facilitate project
improvements and provide information for long-term site planning. It is the
responsibility of the EE to collect data three times a year and prepare it for
District presentation. This data will then be used to review and realign, as
appropriate, the existing instructional program for all students and for all
subgroups. Furthermore, it is the evaluator’s responsibility to analyze the data
and progress of the students and provide feedback to the School Site Action
Team to assist them in meeting their project goals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
Table 11
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s and Teachers’ View of High Stakes
Accountability: Strengths and Weaknesses
The HPSG external entity provides valuable feedback for program
improvement. _________________________
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrator Agree Somewhat 1 50.0
Agree Strongly 1 50.0
Total 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 1 3.3
Disagree Strongly 1 3.3
Disagree Somewhat 2 6.7
Agree Somewhat 13 43.3
Agree Strongly 13 43.3
Total 30 100.0
In Table 11, the survey ascertained that eighty-three percent (83%) of the
teachers and administrators “agree strongly” that the EE is providing the
feedback requested for program improvement. Similarly, eighty-three percent
(83%) of the teachers and administrators “agree somewhat” the EE is providing
the services hired to provide.
In an interview with the principal, she made it clear that she holds the EE
feedback to a high level of professionalism. When asked, “How do you see the
work of the External Evaluator as mandated through the HPSG?” The principal
responded:
The feedback received is not always easy to digest.
However, I see the person as an expert evaluator and I
respect her guidance. Some of the changes she suggests
would be easier to leave as they are, that is when a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
positive attitude and trust come into play. Not using the
EE feedback would be a waste of the money used in
hiring this entity. (Stores, 2004)
Summary of Research Findings for Question One
The researchers’ purpose in question one was to reflect on the teachers’
and principal’s view of high stakes accountability in High Priority Schools and
determine strengths and weaknesses of the accountability reform effort. The
data gathered including surveys, interviews and STAR data indicate that Chaps
school has shown significant improvement in student achievement during the
implementation of the HPSG. Surveys and interviews determined that the staff
feels an ethical responsibility to raise student achievement but that the parents
could demonstrate more responsibility by increased activity in the classroom
setting. The parents’ level of accountability is an apparent weakness. The staff
exhibited an aura of security with the work they have accomplished in student
achievement; not threatened by sanctions if achievement does not occur. The
teachers’ positive outlook on staff development and the impact it has on student
performance was strong at Chaps school - a definite strength. The teachers felt
the positive influence improved their morale as they saw themselves become
better teachers. The amount of time demanded for extensive staff development
was very draining on the teachers’ energy level but not their morale, hence, a
weakness in the reform effort.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Question Two
What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability in
their schools?
Table 12 addresses provisions for providing the needed resources to raise
student achievement, Table 13 school vision and leadership. Table 14 weighs
the benefits of data collection and analysis and Table 15 looks at the principal’s
weekly classroom observations to ensure the use of data, standards, and
strategies. Table 16 adds detail to the work of the External Evaluator. Table 17
clarifies the home-school relationship.
Not only must the principal provide the resources necessary to meet the
state accountability mandates she must also provide the resources to meet the
teachers needs in order for them to raise student achievement. According to
Table 12, ninety-three percent (93%) of the teachers agree that the principal
provides the resources needed to meet their needs in the classroom so that they
may effectively do their job. In both the Primary and Upper Grade Teacher
Interviews (2004), the teachers stated, “The support we need is never an issue.
When it comes to materials and supplies for our classrooms anything we ask for
we get.” The two groups elaborated on the amount of supplemental materials,
classroom books and supplies that the principal ensured they received to make
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
the tasks of implementing such a rigorous reform effort as positive as possible.
During the interview process, Stores (2004) stated that the teachers,
“ ... [Teachers] want for nothing. We have an
awesome staff. They are enthusiastic about
implementing the reform efforts. They have very
positive attitudes concerning intensive trainings and
living under a microscope. It is important to supply
their needs not only for the academic outcome of the
students but to reduce stress as much as possible.”
Table 12
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s Role in Enhancing High Stakes Accountability
The principal provides resources to meet teaching needs to raise student
performance.____________________________________ ___________
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrator Agree Somewhat 1 50.0
Agree Strongly 1 50.0
Total 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 1 3.4
Disagree Somewhat 1 3.4
Agree Somewhat 7 24.1
Agree Strongly 20 69.00
Missing Response 1
Total 30 100.0
The principal providing release time and training for analyses of data are
areas the teachers do not feel the principal can provide. Currently the staff has
one day a year when they are all together for staff development. Because Chaps
is a year-round, multi-track, staggered session school, getting everyone together
during planning time or staff meeting times is not possible. The staff has had to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
have Saturday meetings in an attempt to get everyone together as a group. This
is not always successful.
Further survey questions demonstrated thirteen percent (13%) of the
teachers “disagree somewhat” that teachers collaborate to meet the demands of
high stakes accountability or even receive release time for peer collaboration.
This percentage may be low but these teachers representing kindergarten, first
and second grade teachers, never get to meet with their colleagues at the same
grade level because of the staggered sessions. Only thirty percent (30%) of the
teachers “agree strongly” that they receive allocation of time or training to
engage in curricular mapping. The Primary Teachers (2004) stated, “We had a
day at the beginning of the year to map out science units for the year but we do
not know how effective the units are because we have not had an opportunity to
discuss them since that time.” Rettig, McCullough, Santos and Watson (2003)
concede that creating pacing guides and collecting assessment data is no more
than busywork unless a process for periodic reviewing of student progress and
updating the guides is in place. They recommend a minimum of three meetings
a year to monitor progress on the instruction described in the pacing guide.
Table 13 presents the staff’s view on vision and leadership toward school
accountability. All administrators “agree strongly” that the school’s vision and
leadership clearly demonstrate school accountability. Eighty-nine percent
(89%) of the staff also “agree strongly” or “agree somewhat”.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Table 13
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s Role in Enhancing High Stakes Accountability
The school’s vision and leadership clearly demonstrate school accountability.
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrator Agree Strongly 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 1 3.3
Disagree Somewhat 2 6.9
Agree Somewhat 7 24.1
Agree Strongly 19 65.5
Missing Response 1
Total 30 100.0
Key in the vision of the school, according to the Primary Teachers’ Interview
(2004), are the high expectations. “We require them [students] to shoot for the
top.” When interviewing the principal, the researcher asked, “What strategies
do you see as most effective?” Mrs. Stores responded:
Professional development supported with strong
effective leadership. Leadership has to be the motivator
of the staff, they have to be supportive every step of the
way. As a leader you have to know how hard to push
and how fast. It is very important to get staff buy-in on
programs and projects without hidden smoke screens.
You cannot boastfully state we are running this program
and this program and have the teachers rolling their
eyes. If they have not bought into the programs, they
will not be successful; resentment begins and morale
goes down.
In table 14, the staff one hundred percent (100%) agreed to the benefits
of data collection and analysis in the survey format. Yet, in the interview
process the teachers in the primary group stated that they collect data but never
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
analyze it and do not know if anyone does. According to the Primary Interview
Group (2004), they collect data and file it in the portfolio that is passed along to
the next year’s teacher. The only time the teachers stated that they really look at
the data is when a student is having difficulty and they are searching for past
patterns trying to form a big picture of the student’s weaknesses. The area of
analyzing data is one that the teachers commented on that they could use more
training. They feel very weak in the area of analyzing the data and making
determinations of the use of the data once analyzed.
Table 14
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s Role in Enhancing High Stakes Accountability
I see the benefits of data collection and analysis.________________
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrator Agree Somewhat 2 100.0
Teachers Agree Somewhat 9 30.0
Agree Strongly 21 70.0
Total 30 100.0
When the researcher discussed the amount of training teachers received
in the area of data collection and analysis with the principal, she discussed a new
program they have added to the reform effort that is one hundred percent
(100%) data driven. At a staff meeting, the principal offered training on a
variety of data collection tools and how to analyze the data collected. Mrs.
Stores stated, “This process is a three-year on-going project that means the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
teachers continuously learn more and we recognize this area still needs
addressing.”
The principal at Chaps school conducts frequent classroom observations
(see Table 15) but they are not necessarily weekly, according to the teacher
interviews. During the group interviews, the teachers speculated, “The principal
concentrates on classrooms in which the teacher may be struggling or new and
needing extra support. If she [principal] knows the teacher is on task she does
not go in as often.” When the principal comes through the classrooms, she uses
a check off list to document the use of data, standards and strategies observed.
The principal leaves the check off list with the teachers as feedback for their
information. The teachers enjoy getting this feedback from the administrator
that comes through their rooms. It helps them to know that they are on the right
track and have not wandered from the vision.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
Table 15
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s Role in Enhancing High Stakes Accountability
The principal conducts weekly classroom observations to ensure the use of data,
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrator Agree Somewhat 1 50.0
Agree Strongly 1 50.0
Total 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 2 6.7
Disagree Strongly 1 3.3
Disagree Somewhat 5 16.7
Agree Somewhat 11 36.7
Agree Strongly 11 36.7
Total 30 100.0
During the Principal Interview (2004), the researcher asked, “How do
you ensure that teachers use research based teaching strategies in their
classroom?” Mrs. Stores responded:
The Vice-principal and I start at opposite ends of the
campus. We go into every classroom once a week,
usually crossing paths mid week. We carry clipboards
with check off lists, these lists are available in the
teachers handbooks so that they know what we are
looking for when we come in. We leave the lists with
the teachers giving them feedback on strengths and
weaknesses.
According to the Action Plan, a school-wide data analysis team was to
be established with the purpose of reviewing quarterly summative and formative
sections of the Action Plan. Furthermore, the team would use the data gained
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
from the evaluations to facilitate project improvements and provide information
for long-term planning.
Table 16
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s Role in Enhancing High Stakes Accountability
Our school analyzes the external entity’s assessment in order to implement
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrators Agree Strongly 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 1 3.3
Agree Somewhat 14 46.7
Agree Strongly 15 50.0
Total 30 100.0
Table 16 demonstrates that administration “agrees strongly” that this process is
in place and that the school analyzes the EE assessments. The teachers agree
ninety-six percent (96%) to some extent that the EE assessments are analyzed in
order to implement modifications.
Approximately one-third of the teachers do not agree that the HPSG
strengthened the home-school relationship. (See table 17.) Eighty-six percent
(86%) of the teachers “agree somewhat” or “agree strongly” that HPSG has
strengthened the home-school relationship. The survey further uncovered the
basis for the teachers’ determination of whether the reform effort strengthened
the home-school relationship. When asked if they saw evidence that parent
groups are actively involved in the pursuit of raising their child’s achievement
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
the teachers agreed to some degree seventy-two percent (72%). Other data
gathered in the survey stated that the parents attend education classes at the
school. Ninety-six percent (96%) of the teachers agree that the parents are
attending classes because of the strengthening of the home-school relationship.
The teachers did not feel that the parents’ participation in the Parent Teacher
Association (PTA) has changed since the inception of the HPSG.
Table 17
Descriptive Statistics: Principal’s Role in Enhancing High Stakes Accountability
HPSG strengthened the home-school relationship. ______________
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrators Agree Somewhat 1 50.0
Agree Strongly 1 50.0
Total 2 100.0
Teachers Disagree Strongly 2 6.7
Disagree Somewhat 8 26.7
Agree Somewhat 14 46.7
Agree Strongly 6 20.0
Total 30 100.0
Summary of Research Finding For Question 2
Tables 13 through 17 demonstrate the many roles of the principal in
enhancing high stakes accountability. In the area of providing resources, the
principal ensures the campus is a safe and orderly environment, promotes a
culture conducive to learning, allocates time and training to engage in curricular
mapping, and ensures teachers have supplemental materials, classroom books
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
and supplies to implement a rigorous reform effort. The principal sets high
expectations and requires students to shoot for the top.
The principal must ensure the staff analyzes the EE assessments in order
to implement modifications. A final role discussed here is the principal’s role in
strengthening the home-school relationship.
Minimal evidence demonstrates a weakness in the area of analyzing data
and making determinations of the use of the data once analyzed. Further
weakness is evident in the area of weekly observations. The lack of consistent
weekly observations gives the impression to some teachers that the process is
somewhat evaluative instead of informative to the implementation process.
Question Three
How do teachers respond to the work of the principal in this regard—do
the teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or detrimental?
Mandated in the implementation of the HPSG is the participation by all
staff in continuing professional development. The administrators participated in
AB75 training with additional hours mandated to complete the component.
Teachers participated in AB466 training in the areas of Language Arts and
Mathematics.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Table 18
Descriptive Statistics: Teachers’ Response to the Principal’s Enhancement of
High Stakes Accountability, Beneficial or Detrimental
I have participated in the AB466 training. _____________________ _
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrators (AB75) Agree Strongly 2 100.0
Teachers Agree Somewhat 1 3.3
Agree Strongly 28 96.6
Missing Response 1
Total 30 100.0
Both of these trainings required forty hours of in-depth training with sixty
follow-up hours for a total of two hundred hours of professional growth. Table
18 demonstrates the percentage of teachers that participated in these trainings.
The one teacher that “agreed somewhat” stated in the interview process that she
has not completed the additional hours at this time. The teachers stated during
the interview process that the AB466 trainings were among the highest-level
trainings they participated in during the implementation process.
As stated in question two results (See Table 14), the teachers see the
benefit of using data to plan instruction. In Table 19, administration and staff
agree one hundred percent (100%) the teachers use data to plan instruction. The
survey demonstrates that seventy-three percent (73%) of teachers feel the
principal holds them accountable for using data to plan instruction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Table 19
Descriptive Statistics: Teachers’ Response to the Principal’s Enhancement of
High Stakes Accountability, Beneficial or Detrimental
I use data to plan instruction.
Frequency Valid Percent
Administrators Agree Somewhat 2 100.0
Teachers Agree Somewhat 8 26.7
Agree Strongly 22 73.3
Total 30 100.0
Survey questions related to using data to plan instruction found that only sixty-
six percent (66%) of teachers “agree strongly” that the principal holds them
accountable for increased student achievement using data. Furthermore, sixty-
three percent (63%) of teachers “agree strongly” that they implement data driven
teaching strategies. When asked if teachers turn in data on an ongoing basis
only forty-three percent “agree strongly”. During the interview process, the
Primary Group stated that they turn in data but they do not know what is done
with the data collected. Mrs. Stores stated during the Principal Interview
(2004),
The staff is mid-way through the implementation of
the reform effort. With more than a full year remaining,
we are still not finished with all the training and
implementation of solutions to the barriers
acknowledged in our Action Plan. Data Collection and
analysis is one area in which training is ongoing. Just
since the collection of survey data, for example, we
offered yet another training on using data to drive
instruction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
The district provides portfolios for every student with a list of required
documents to place in the portfolio. The required documents to collect changes
as assessment needs change, as state mandates change and as curriculum
adoptions change. Further results of the survey showed that only sixteen percent
(16%) of teachers “agree strongly” to utilizing student portfolios for planning
instruction.
The HPSG Action Plan requires capacity building in the area of
eliminating the barriers to the quality of staff. The teachers’ collective
bargaining agreement provides for teachers to have one hour weekly for
planning. Anaheim Elementary Education Association (2004) Article VII
Section 7, allows teachers to volunteer to participate in other school or district
activities. Administration may, therefore, encourage planning time to become
peer collaboration time but they may not mandate collaboration during this time.
The principal mandating teachers to use this time in any specific manner would
be against the bargaining agreement. Therefore, time for collaboration is
continuously a negotiated issue.
Table 20 shows that fifty-five percent (55%) of teachers “agree strongly”
that peer collaboration benefits their teaching ability. The Action Plan states
that capacity building will occur as grade level teachers collaboratively plan to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
implement the standards and monitor the implementation through the use of
pacing guides and as they implement and monitor the effectiveness of specific
instructional strategies.
Table 20
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 Somewhat 1 50.0
Agree Strongly 1 50.00
Total 2 100.0
Teachers Don’t Know 1 3.3
Disagree Somewhat 3 10.3
Agree Somewhat 9 31.0
Agree Strongly 16 55.2
Missing Response 1
Total 30 100.0
In the Primary Teachers Interview (2004), the teachers stated that they had one
opportunity to collaborate on a pacing guide for science this year. They do not
know what happened with the pacing guides, if anyone is using them or the
quality of the guides. This team is the group most affected by staggered session
dilemmas of not having collaborative time.
Contrarily, during the principal interview Mrs. Stores elaborated on the
collaboration routine that is in place at Chaps. When asked, “How are regular
opportunities for collaborative work built into the school plan and into the
school day?”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
She responded:
We devised an elaborate plan to incorporate everyone
and allow equal time. Once a month a teacher receives
release time to work together with their grade level or
track. The intention of the collaboration time is for
discussion of data analysis or collaborative projects.
After about six months, the teachers asked to give up the
collaboration time for a few months to allow more
planning time.
Summary of Research Findings for Question 3
The researcher, using survey and interviews, wished to determine the
teachers’ response to the principal’s enhancement of high stakes accountability
and how they viewed the efforts as beneficial or detrimental. The teachers
viewed the professional development through AB466 as a benefit. They felt it
was the strongest training they received throughout the reform effort. The
teachers see the benefit of data collection and use but feel that it is detrimental
that they have not had adequate training in this area. The teaching staff would
like more time for collaboration. The current time allotted needs to be increased
as well as structured so that teachers on staggered schedules may benefit from
the collaborative time.
Findings Relative to the Achievement Gap
In analyzing the data on API scores available through the CDE, the
investigator considered API scores over time focusing on Hispanic, and
socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups. Because of the limited white
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
population at Chaps, white subgroup scores are not numerically significant. In
order to show a closing of the achievement gap between white, Hispanic and
socioeconomically disadvantaged students, the investigator considered the
districts API scores.
760
720
* ■Hispanic
* — White
• - 'SE Disadvantaged
680
640
600
560
Figure 5. District API comparing Hispanic, White and socioeconomically disadvantaged
subgroups of students base and growth scores.
District API scores were not calculated until the initiation of No Child Left
Behind. Many of the schools that are in decile 1 are schools with high poverty
and a high minority rate. Therefore, to look at the achievement gap between
Hispanic, white and socioeconomically (SE) disadvantaged students it was
necessary to look at white subgroups from different schools but within the same
area. When looking at Figure 5, the first score shows the base score. White
student’s scores were not at the level considered proficient by the state of
California yet they were not low enough to qualify for grant money available for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
school improvement. In the base year, Hispanic and SE subgroups scored the
same. The second year of testing, all three subgroups showed academic growth
and met their state established target. The SE disadvantaged subgroup scored
one point higher than the Hispanic subgroup. An achievement gap of one
hundred thirty-two (132) points is present in the base year and one hundred
twelve (112) points in the growth year, thereby closing the gap by twenty (20)
points in just one year.
620
SE Disadvantaged
base
Hispanic base
580
540
Hispanic growth
2 500
- * - S E Disadvantaged
growth
460
420 4
99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03
Years
Figure 6. Chap School’s disaggregated API base, target and growth over time.
The base year for API scores placed Chaps school at-risk for school
improvement. The Hispanic base of 1999 was four hundred twenty-nine (429)
and the SE disadvantaged base was four hundred thirty-four (434). The state set
the growth target at eighteen (18). The growth data show an increase of thirty-
six (36) points doubling the growth target. In year two of the API, the Hispanic
base was four hundred sixty-five (465) and the SE disadvantaged base was four
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
hundred seventy-two (472). The growth target for each subgroup was set at
thirteen (13). The 2001-2002 school year found Chaps school creating an action
plan for HPSG program. The base score for Hispanic subgroup in 2001 was five
hundred four (504) with a growth target of eleven (11). The base score for SE
disadvantaged was five hundred eight (508) also with a growth target of eleven
(11). The Hispanic subgroup showed a growth of twenty-four (24), again more
than doubling the target. The SE disadvantaged showed a growth of eighteen
(18) meeting the growth target but not at the rate of the Hispanic subgroup. The
first year of HPSG program implementation found the Hispanic subgroup base
at five hundred forty-five (545) and the SE disadvantaged at five hundred forty-
three (543) forty points higher and thirty-five points respectively than the
previous year. The school will continue in the HPSG program if they meet their
targets in the 2003-2004 school year for one more year.
750
700
650
District White Student API
Chaps Schoolwide API
600
550
500
Figure 7. Chaps Closing the Achievement Gap
Of importance to this study was the principal’s role in implementing
school accountability with the goal of closing the achievement gap between
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
white students and students of Hispanic origin along with those of low socio
economic backgrounds. Figure 7 looks at the White students API reported as
item 1, and compares them to Chaps Schools overall API. Chaps school has
only two significant subgroups; Hispanic and socioeconomically disadvantaged.
The base scores demonstrate an achievement gap of two hundred one (201).
The growth scores demonstrate a reduction bringing the gap to less than one
hundred points.
Discussion o f Research Findings
The findings presented in this study have significant implications for principals,
political and educational leaders as academic reform continues to evolve. Many
of the findings touch upon significant areas that deserve further discussion of the
implications. The researcher drew comparisons here to the parallel work of
Martha Ayala.
Question One
How do principals and teachers view high stakes accountability in HPSGP
schools, and what do they see, based on specific objective data through tests
aligned to standards, as the strengths and weaknesses of such an accountability
system in their own schools?
1. Teachers feel some degree of threat to their job security because of
state sanctions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
Education Code 52055.5 initiated by Senate Bill 1552 of 1999 states the
initial sanctions for a school that does not meet the annual state goal. First of all
sanctions is that the state assume all legal rights of the school and reassign the
principal, following that action one of seven other actions is required.
Reassigning other certificated employees of the school is one of those options.
Data gathered through the survey and interview process indicates that the
teachers have a moderate concern toward Senate Bill 1552. The school
reconstituted before applying for the HPSG program and Keys to Excellence for
Your Schools (KEYS) initiative went into effect. Knowing the reassignment
process maybe why the teachers do not feel their job is in jeopardy.
2. The principal and teachers share the responsibility for increased
student achievement.
The research verified that leadership was repeatedly cited as the essential
ingredient required in generating support for the idea of responsibility,
motivation for creating a monitoring system and adherence to the expectations
(Koschoreck, 2001). At this school, the leadership has generated strong
agreement, seventy-six percent (76%), that the teachers and administration share
the responsibility for increasing student achievement. The Primary Interview
Group stated that if teachers do not feel a responsibility for increased student
achievement then they should not be teaching.
In Perreault’s (2000) study, the principal offered advice focusing on
skills rather than meeting the students’ needs causing a decrease in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
professionalism. At Chaps school, the principal focuses on data to guide
instruction needed for the students. From this point, there appears to be an
increase in professionalism. Leithwood & Riehl (2003) suggest improvement in
leadership capacity and practice; this data supports their claims.
In the Ayala (2003) study, the researcher found an insecure feeling in the
teacher’s ability to impact student achievement based on the argument that
children’s limited English language skills, low socio-economic levels and
parents’ low literacy rates effect the child’s learning potential. Ayala’s study
showed that seventeen percent (17%) of the teachers felt that it is the parents’
responsibility to educate their children, not teachers.
Ayala (2003) further determined that administrators felt strong
leadership is the answer to improving student achievement. The teachers, on the
other hand, agree that it is their responsibility but at varying degrees. Seventy-
six percent (76%) “agree strongly” that they are responsible for the increase of
student achievement. The teachers related this to the amount of professional
development they have received through the HPSG process.
3. Teacher morale is high because of the mandates of the HPSG
resulting in an increase in student achievement.
More than half of the teachers felt that the reform had a positive impact on their
morale. Stretcher, et al., (1998) found that as principals focused on encouraging
teachers to improve their instruction the results equaled improved coverage of
the state mandated materials. Chaps School saw this in equaling improved
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
student achievement thereby boosting their morale. During the Primary and
Upper Grade Interview (2004), the teachers agreed that they continuously look
for ways to improve their strengths as teachers. They want to be the best
teachers they can possibly be through the professional development they
encounter.
Guth, et al., (1998) found that principals viewed accountability as having a
positive influence on achievement and that the potential for even higher impact
exists. Chap School teachers agree one hundred percent (100%) either
somewhat or strongly that the reform efforts positively influence student
achievement for their school. Guth, et al., further found that principals did not
object to the accountability because of the shift to higher outcomes and “no
more closed door” policy. The teachers looked forward to the implementation
of the HPSG and the data from the state demonstrates their efforts are
successful.
4. It is the principal’s responsibility to provide needed resources to
meet state accountability.
It is the principal’s responsibility, according to the Action Plan:
• to determine research-based strategies for staff development,
• to establish high expectations for students, teaching staff and
parents,
• to purchase tools necessary to implement the action plan
• to collaboratively set goals
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
All of these areas the teachers describe as the principal’s strengths with the one
weakness being in allowing adequate time for collaboration.
George, Hall, and Uchiyama (2000) described a technique of the
Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) after determining the consequences
of the change beginning to collaborate with colleagues on best practices to
implement change. Collaboratively groups discuss the results obtained when the
hypothesized best practices were implemented validating the research-based
strategies to be research-verified. Insufficient time in collaboration, at Chaps,
leaves teachers wondering which best practices allowed them to reach the results
they see in their student achievement. The data analysis component is an on
going piece of the reform process. At this point, the pieces have not all come
together. The principal stated that this has already becoming clearer since the
collection of the survey data. It is the principal’s challenge for the final year of
the HPSG implementation to create more collaborative time for the teachers.
The Ayala (2003) study determined that seventy-seven percent (77%) of
the teachers “agree somewhat” or “agree strongly” and one hundred percent
(100%) of the administrators “agree strongly” that the principal provides the
resources needed to meet state accountability. The principal in this study,
however, acknowledged that at the end of the year there was a great deal of
money left over and that they could have possibly made the improvements with
the categorical monies if they had to. The majority of the budget, sixty-two
percent (62%) was used for personnel and professional development. At that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
time, thirty-four percent (34%) of the budget remained unspent with no definite
plans for the expenditure of that surplus.
Question Two
What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability in their
schools?
5. The principal provides the vision and leadership for school
accountability. Then backs up the vision by providing resources to
meet teachers’ needs in order to raise student achievement.
Texas focused on a common sustained vision as an overarching key to their
reform effort. Elmore (2000) focused on a new type of leadership as distributive
leadership or as multiple sources of guidance and direction. He states that it is
about enhancing the skill and knowledge of people. This is what the Chaps
School action plan attempted. Leadership is distributive the interview groups
affirm. “Everyone is on a committee, called KEYS groups,” stated the Upper
Grade Interview Group (2004). One representative from each KEYS group
makes up the Leadership Team.
The teachers overwhelmingly agree that the principal provides the needed
resources to meet the needs in their classrooms necessary to raise student
achievement. Teachers in both interview groups stated the support they felt
whenever they asked for materials and resources to implement reform. Fullan
(1991,1993) stated deploying funds to spur change as one of the components to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
effect the change process. “We have tons of materials and books and have used
most of the money to purchase instructional assistance to facilitate smooth
implementation of the program,” stated the Primary Interview Group (2004).
“Anything we want we can get, money is no object,” stated the Upper Grade
Interview Group (2004). When the principal can offer this type of support the
anxiety level dissipates and the excitement level rises.
6. The principal ensures teacher accountability by conducting weekly
observations.
Principals must hold staff accountable for implementing state standards and
improving student achievement as evidenced by state standardized testing.
Other leadership qualities to meet the high-stakes demands include knowledge
of identifying and analyzing quality lessons and data. The principal weekly
walking through classrooms does this. Twenty-five percent (25%) of teachers
disagree that the principal obtains a fair analysis with these observations. The
Primary Interview Group (2004) expressed that the principal does not stay in the
classroom long enough to see anything when she does come through. Yet, the
Upper Grade Interview Group (2004) described the visits quite differently. The
observation gives the principal an idea of what the teachers are doing. She talks
to the students to see if they know what is going on around them in the
classroom. These observations are very informal, very comfortable. The
expectations are clear, they are not stressful. The objectives of the observations
are in the teacher handbook so everyone knows what the principal is looking for.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
7. The principal facilitates parental involvement at the school.
The action plan specifies the principal’s responsibilities as: ongoing training for
parents, parent education classes and family nights to build support for their
children, and to provide regular publications focused on academic and social
growth themes. The purpose of these actions is to build a social network among
the parents, to assist parents in understanding academic expectations and to
support their child’s learning. This ongoing process has not reaped the rewards
expected. The greatest percentages of teachers “agree somewhat” but as stated
in the interview process they still have work to do in this area.
Question Three
How do teachers respond to the work of the principal in this regard—do the
teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or detrimental?
8. Teachers attend mandated AB 466 trainings yet, a lack of training in
the use of data collection and analysis creates difficulties for teachers
to use data to plan instruction. Furthermore, teachers have a vague
picture of the principal’s data collection and analysis.
During the interview process, both the primary and upper grade groups were
happy about the AB466 training in Language Arts and Mathematics. The
teachers felt that these were the two strongest most effective trainings they
received since the implementation of the grant. This training, adopted by the
State, aligned to the State adopted curriculum for Language Arts and
Mathematics, taught teachers specifically how to use all components of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
curriculum to better ensure coverage of the State standards. Although this
training was quite extensive, it failed to address key components the teachers
missed such as data collection and analysis and how to let the data drive
instruction.
The initial barrier identified in the action plan was the inconsistent focus
in the use of assessment data to guide instruction. The strategy to overcome this
barrier was to hire a literacy coach to assist in five quality attributes, one of
which is analysis of data including student achievement, coaching process and
strategy implementation to begin in the first year of the reform process. It is the
literacy coach’s responsibility to conduct initial trainings, offer in-classroom
demonstration and observation of lessons, tender collegial support and planning.
The support staff delegation is to support the intervention programs leaving the
literacy coach short of assistance to meet the above attributes.
The state built analyzing assessment, learning from it and allowing
assessment to drive instruction into the HPSG program. Jerald (2003) discussed
the overwhelming complaint of too much testing and called for assessment that
is more regular. Appropriate collection and analysis allows time to modify
instruction before the end of the year state testing. Jerald’s recommendation is
for principals to discuss student needs with the teachers to better set the pace of
instruction and the rigor of the lessons. At Chaps, the teachers do not feel the
data they are collecting receives appropriate analysis; therefore, it is not guiding
instruction.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
In the Ayala (2003) study, teachers administered, analyzed, and used
teacher made assessments to monitor student progress and to inform
instructional groupings. Yet, this study as well, found that only thirty-seven
percent (37%) of teachers “agree strongly” that they use data to plan quality
instruction. Interestingly, the teachers believed the time spent in assessment
would be better used in lesson planning. Yet, they still state they see the
benefits of data collection and analysis.
9. A lack of peer collaboration and time make it challenging to meet
the mandates of the grant.
A lack of time in this area spans across several weak points the teachers feel
need to improve. Peer collaboration time is necessary for planning pacing of
instruction, meeting with the literacy coach, analyzing data to guide instruction,
and partaking in distributive leadership. The desire of the teachers of Chap
School is to become the best possible instructors in helping students achieve
academic excellence. It is their belief that more time for collaboration would
greatly benefit the process.
With the amount of funding available through the HPSG program, it
appears that some of these funds might be used to hire instructors, for example,
in the area of art or music, allowing release time for the teachers to collaborate
as teams. Schools such as El Camino Real Elementary in Irvine offer art and
music (vocal and instrumental) specialists to provide instruction to students,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
according to the School Accountability Report Card (2004). This may be a
solution to Chaps dilemma.
The Ayala study (2003), found a similar lack of time for collaboration.
The teachers interviewed by Ayala expressed a desire for HPSG monies spent
for substitutes to cover their classrooms allowing them added time for
collaborative planning time. The EE recommended the principal designate one
Tuesday a month plus a portion of weekly staff meetings for horizontal (grade
level) and vertical (by track) collaboration time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
CHAPTER 5
Summary, Conclusions and Implications
Introduction
California students’ academic performance falls significantly below the
national average in reading and mathematics. Furthermore, California
demonstrates an astounding achievement gap between white, Hispanic and low
socio-economic students. These two anomalies spurred public outcry calling for
policy makers to led California into the age of accountability also identified as
the standards-based reform movement. This movement led to a surfeit of
initiatives in the areas of standards, curriculum, assessment, accountability,
sanctions, rewards and professional development. The Public School
Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999, Senate Bill IX launched Senate Bill 1552
(2000) which was an urgency statute necessary in order to implement the
provisions of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999, and to provide
clarification. The state sanctions established by the PSAA if schools do not
meet their academic growth targets redefine the role of the principal at state
reform schools.
This qualitative case study examines Chaps Elementary School in one of
the largest urban elementary school districts in Orange County, California. The
focus of the study was the principal’s role in implementing accountability in one
of California’s High Priority School. A further dimension of this analysis is a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
comparison to the parallel study of Dr. Tienda-Ayala (2003). Data were
collected and analyzed in the following ways.
• An intensive study of the literature
• A conceptual framework to address the research questions
• Selection of data collection instruments
• Selection of a state reform school
• Selection of participants for surveys, interviews, and observations
• Analysis of data to determine trends
• Distribution and collection of surveys
The first and foremost data collection tool was the survey; a researcher-
developed survey instrument elicited the perceptions of the principal’s role in
effectively implementing the mandates of high priority schools. A similar
instrument elicited the teachers’ perceptions of whether the principals’ efforts
are beneficial or detrimental. The second tool gained data through principal and
teacher group interviews. The interview process offered a more in-depth view
of the staffs perceptions of the reform efforts. An analysis of the state archived
test data served as a third piece establishing triangulated data for a more
thorough examination.
The social, economic, political and moral well being of the United States is
vested in the academic achievement of its children. A crucial point of the study
was investigating the roles the principal plays in raising student achievement
within the accountability of California’s high priority schools. Data collection
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
and analysis is imperative to validate research-based reform efforts if principals
at state reform schools are to raise student achievement, specifically where white
students drastically surpass minority students and those from economically
disadvantaged backgrounds. 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.
Research Findings
The California Reading Initiative (CRI) gave standards-based reform the
foothold in the accountability system currently in use for California schools.
Four major components from the CRI include: content standards, frameworks, a
statewide assessment system and accountability. The first content standards
adopted were the English-Language Arts Standards in 1998. Prior to this
adoption, in 1997, Senate Bill 376 established the Standardized Testing and
Reporting (STAR) program. The STAR program has three components of
standardized testing: nationally norm-referenced tests, currently the California
Achievement Test, version 6 or CAT/6, the California Standards Tests (CST)
and the Spanish Assessment of Basic Education (SABE). The accountability
piece came to fruition with the establishment of Senate Bill IX (Chapter 3,
Statutes of 1999) or the Public School Accountability Act (PSAA).
The historical beginning of PSAA came with Governor Pete Wilson in
1992 and went through several forms until enacted in April, 1999 to hold public
schools accountable for student performance. It is the goal of policymakers in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
California to aggressively create and implement high-stakes assessments to
increase accountability and leverage instructional improvement. Three
components of the PSAA do just that. The first component is the Academic
Performance Index (API) designed to measure performance of schools, assign a
school ranking and compare them numerically to significant subgroups within
schools. Second is the Governor’s Performance Awards (GPA), an incentive
program that rewards schools for achievement; and finally, the Immediate
Intervention for Underperforming Schools (II/USP). II/USP brings intervention
programs and high stakes sanctions to schools that do not meet the API annual
growth targets.
Under the umbrella of II/USP is the High Priority Schools Grant
program (HPSG) established by Senate Bill 961, in 2001. All schools that rank
in the lowest decile, the lowest ten percent of the state, must participate in the
program or inform the community why they chose not to participate. Even if a
decile one school is showing improvement, they must fulfill this mandate. Such
is the case analyzed in this study, Chaps school.
Numerous conclusions were identified as a result of the research.
1. Teachers feel some degree of threat to their job security because of state
sanctions.
2. The principal and teachers share the responsibility for increased student
achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
3. Teacher morale is high because of the mandates of the HPSG resulting in
an increase in student achievement.
4. It is the principal’s responsibility to provide needed resources to meet
state accountability.
5. The principal provides the vision and leadership for school
accountability. Then backs up the vision by providing resources to meet
teachers’ needs in order to raise student achievement.
6. The principal ensures teacher accountability by conducting weekly
observations.
7. The principal facilitates parental involvement at the school.
8. Teachers attend mandated AB 466 trainings yet, a lack of training in the
use of data collection and analysis creates difficulties for teachers to use
data to plan instruction. Furthermore, teachers have a vague picture of
the principal’s data collection and analysis.
9. 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 HPSGP
schools, and what do they see, based on specific objective data through tests
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
aligned to standards, as the strengths and weaknesses of such an accountability
system in their own schools?
Conclusion One: Teachers feel some degree of threat to their job security
because of state sanctions.
Data gathered through the survey and interview process indicates that the
teachers have a moderate concern toward Senate Bill 1552. Tenured teachers
know they will have a job in the district so their job security is not a threat. The
unknown of where they would move and what the circumstances in the new
school are is more of a fear than a threat. Not being a part of a reform school
would actually be a relief in many instances. Being under constant observation
by the state, district and local governing boards is a stressful situation. The
teachers feel that they are always on display and having to do one more thing to
prove that they are doing their jobs as best they can.
Conclusion Two: The principal and teachers share the responsibility for
increased student achievement.
Both the teachers and administration share the responsibility for increasing
student achievement. At Chaps school, the principal focuses on data to guide
instruction needed for the students academic achievement as well as guiding the
staff in fidelity to the program. The teachers focus on strong instructional
strategies to deliver the best possible instruction to gain the highest level of
student achievement. It is a shared responsibility the administration and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
teachers are happy to contribute to in the endeavor. The teachers feel very
strong in their ability to meet the needs of all students with the trainings they
received. Yet, the teachers also feel that if the parents equally shared in the
responsibility like the administration and staff do they would have an even
stronger team in guiding students to the highest level of achievement possible.
Conclusion Three: Teacher morale is high because of the mandates of the
HPSG resulting in an increase in student achievement
The teachers agreed that they continuously look for ways to improve their
strengths as teachers. Although, there was a hint of complaint on the amount of
training the teachers endured because of the HPSG, they were pleased with the
overall quality of the training they received. Not all teachers saw this as
improving their teaching strategies but they did see it as increasing their
awareness to fulfilling their career goals. The teachers and administration take
great pride in the growth the students are continuously making. The progress is
an intrinsic reward that is not possible to mandate.
Conclusion Four: It is the principal’s responsibility to provide needed
resources to meet state accountability.
The teachers describe this as the principal’s strengths with the one weakness
being in allowing adequate time for collaboration. The Chaps principal
continuously determines research-based strategies for staff development keeping
the teachers accountable for lifelong learning of their craft. She established high
expectations for students, teaching staff and parents and continues to hold those
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
high expectations from the time stakeholders invest in Chaps school and well
beyond their years at Chap school. The staff clearly states that the principal
purchase tools necessary to implement the action plan and that they have
everything they need to do the best for the students. The one area of weakness,
the teachers’ feel, is in collaboratively setting goals. The teachers want more
time for collaboration and to share more in the decision making of the school.
Question Two
What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability in their
schools?
Conclusion Five: The principal provides the vision and leadership for
school accountability. Then backs up the vision by providing resources to
meet teachers’ needs in order to raise student achievement.
The principal of Chaps established a vision equally or more rigorous than that
established by the district or the State. She has high expectations of students,
staff and parents and she is cognizant of efforts in all areas to raise student
academic achievement and to reduce the achievement gap between minority and
economically disadvantaged students.
Conclusion Six: The principal ensures teacher accountability by
conducting weekly observations.
In holding staff at a high level of expectation, the principal makes certain that
she visits all classrooms every week. She feels responsible for knowing what
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
the teachers are teaching as well as what the students are learning and what areas
she can assist in to ensure that the expected results are obtained.
Conclusion Seven: The principal facilitates parental involvement at the
school.
The principal of Chaps school worked diligently to build a rapport with the
parents of the school and the community. Many programs added for parents
were at the direction of the principal based on insights gained through her
attachment to the parents. It was a goal to assist the parents in becoming
comfortable at the school in speaking with the teachers and become better
equipped to help their children.
Question Three
How do teachers respond to the work of the principal in this regard—do the
teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or detrimental?
Conclusion Eight: Teachers attend mandated AB 466 trainings yet, a lack
of training in the use of data collection and analysis creates difficulties for
teachers to use data to plan instruction. Furthermore, teachers have a
vague picture of the principal’s data collection and analysis
AB466 was an exhaustive training in the implementation of the newly adopted
state curriculum. The component of data collection and analysis did not fit into
the extensive hours already imposed on teachers. The state must adjust the
training accordingly to accommodate this integral component. The principal
already addressed this component. She discussed future staff meetings to gain a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
clearer view of the data collection and analysis she conducts to add clarity for
the staff.
Conclusion Nine: A lack of peer collaboration and time make it challenging
to meet the mandates of the grant.
Time is a difficult commodity to purchase. If God cannot figure out a way to
get more than twenty-four hours in a day then we should not be trying to figure
it out either. The Anson, (1994) papers stated, “Change will eat up as many
resources as you want to give it. On going resources are an important part of
making change work.” The papers discussed linkages similar to teachers linking
together or collaborating and determined that collaboration develops
commitment and empowers problem solving strategies. Where change
succeeds, collaboration activities were more frequent. Teachers need more time
for collaboration.
Implications o f Research Findings
Student academic performance in California falls significantly below the
national average in reading and mathematics, a problem which is compounded
by an astounding achievement gap where white students drastically surpass
minority students and those from low socio-economic backgrounds. The results
of this achievement gap ignited public outcry for policy makers to initiate drastic
reform efforts aimed at equalizing the education system. In 1999, California
applied pressure on the education system to be accountable for the tax dollars
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
spent on reform efforts to improve student academic achievement through the
Public School Accountability Act. The intention of the policy makers is to
prepare all children to the extent of his ability to become a lifelong learner (EC
52050.5). The expected outcome is not only to increase the number of students
successfully completing high school through graduation but also to increase the
number of minority and economical disadvantaged students completion of high
school. A further expectation is to raise California from being below the
national average in reading and mathematics. To raise the effectiveness of the
High Priority School Grant program in California stakeholders must take steps
to resolve barriers present with the current policies.
Implied Stakeholders
State Policymakers
Policymakers must now rethink what they have given rise to.
California’s policymakers created problems by policies instituted. It is crucial
for them to conduct further analysis of the impact on the learning proficiency of
California’s children to aid in decisions on future policies. Climacteric to
California’s budget deficit, state policymakers must consider the cost of the
impact. It is imperative that these policymakers redesign the criteria for
selection of schools mandated to participate in the HPSG program.
Redesign criteria fo r selection
Chaps school, before receiving an invitation to participate in HPSG,
began implementing the National Education Association’s initiative, KEYS.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
Under a reform program already, Chaps school began making progress in the
area of academic improvement and reducing the gap. By allowing full
implementation of the KEYS initiative and analyzing the improvements, the
state would have reduced the number of schools under program improvement.
In Texas, the district has a stake in the selection of schools. One or more
campuses in the district receiving unacceptable performance may cause the
district’s accreditation to drop. This may lead to earlier recognition of a
problem and quicker intervention to reduce the number of district’s schools in
program improvement.
Impact on learning proficiency
For Chaps School, the HPSG program has had a positive impact. The
data gives evidence to the improvement with student test scores increased and
the achievement gap decreased. According to the CDE (2004), of the five
hundred sixty-nine (569) schools receiving funding since the inception of
HPSG, seventeen (17) received sanctions at the end of three years participation
in the program, two hundred forty-five (245) schools made some growth and are
still on watch. Of the schools participating in program improvement only eighty
(80) schools exited and one hundred forty (140) more are eligible to exit before
beginning a third year. The HPSG program is not having a significant impact on
the learning proficiency level of low achieving schools. The state policyholders
must create other interventions to assist schools that after years of participation
are not making adequate progress. These interventions must include help other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
than financial. For example, an on site coach or team may be necessary for
some schools before sanctions take over. The purpose of the External Evaluator,
according to the school Action Plan, is solely to assist in selection of research-
based strategies and insure faithful replication across all content areas. This
mandated expense desperately needs reconsideration. It is dire to the site
fiscally as well as functionally that this person be more actively involved in the
process similar to that of a coach. Dropping in a couple of times a year walking
through the building and then offering input is insufficient for a school in such
drastic need of improvement that the state mandate a reform program.
In Kentucky, the state appoints assistance to train team members in
evaluating certified staff members and make recommendations to the state board
of education. Allowing more time for the implementation of the reform effort is
another benefit that other states, such as Kentucky, have seen. Texas’
accountability system places the pressure on the district to prepare a student
achievement improvement plan. Texas has forced improvement by drawing
attention to low-performing schools using their tool for assessing academic
skills, Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, TAAS.
Consider the cost o f the impact
The budget allowed additional resources for the lowest performing
schools in the state to raise academic achievement, according to CDE (2003).
Chaps school received $416 thousand in awards for each year of the
implementation process, an exorbitant amount of money to spend in a short
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
amount of time. Had the state considered the reform effort underway at Chaps
school, over $1.2 million dollars could have been averted to other areas in need
during California’s budget despair. It is, therefore, imperative that the State
reevaluates the amount of money designated per student incorporating the
amount of categorical funds received by the school. The Steering by Results
task force advised that too much money over a short amount of time would force
schools to spend a great deal of money too quickly to achieve long term
effectiveness after completion of the HPSG program.
California still has an interest in HPSG programs to support schools in
raising student academic achievement. Vital to the intention of EC 52050.5, the
policymakers must require/establish a parent accountability system including
sanctions and rewards to families of minority and economically disadvantaged
students for achievement. In Adelman and Taylor’s (n.d.) model for an enabling
component at a school, the focus is on involving the home to a greater extent.
“Simply offering family assistance and crisis prevention is not sufficient,” they
stated.
District Stakeholders
Crucial to the district level, the Board of Education and its cabinet must
gauge the morale of the staff members employed at high priority schools. The
added responsibility to the employee causes administration and teachers alike to
flee from schools under program improvement leaving a deficit of experienced
teachers at the schools of highest need. The district must design a clear plan of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
data collection and analysis that is continuous and consistent from one year to
the next. Elmore (2002) states that the goal should reflect a path of continuous
improvement adjusting performance expectations upward while remaining
consistent from year to year. In the Texas accountability system, they
determined that district leadership was the overarching key to the reform effort.
Furthermore, the district must increase teacher collaboration. Elmore (2000)
believes that privacy of practice produces isolation; isolation is the enemy of
improvement. How is it possible to hold individuals accountable for their
contributions to the collective result if they do not have the opportunity to
collaborate effectively to make improvements? Finally, it is imperative that the
district eliminates staggered session for schools implementing HPSG. A
reduction in the number of students bussed into Chaps school would reduce the
need for staggered sessions at this low-performing school.
Site level stakeholders
Crucial at the site level, to augment high stakes accountability, principals
must review the research, determine the barriers to high student achievement
and become effective instructional leaders that push back the forces to narrow
the gap and bring a first rate education to every child. To facilitate the teachers’
view, principals must conduct workshops in accountability to build
understanding of required tasks. The staff needs to understand the requirements
of the administration in holding the teachers accountable. By making the staff
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
aware of these requirements, less confusion of why the administration does
certain things would build cohesion among the staff.
In augmenting high stakes accountability, the principal must also make
the staff aware of the methods they use to complete tasks for improving student
achievement. The staff should be equally aware of the methodology the
principal implements to build understanding of components they are required to
undertake. These are areas the Assistance Teams of North Carolina collects
information on using the Principal Performance Appraisal Instrument. North
Carolina’s Assistance Teams then make recommendations to the State Board of
Education based on their findings of the principal’s instructional leadership,
resource management and communication in implementing the reform effort.
Areas for Further Research
1. A suggested area for further research includes ways of increasing the
level of parental involvement at the school site. Parents involved in their
child’s education are a characteristic of a high performing school.
Schools need assistance in involving parents above the superficial level
currently seen.
2. A suggested area for further research includes ways for the State and
district level to incorporate a component on the use of data collection and
analysis to drive instruction. As extensive as the AB 466 training was, it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
overlooked a key piece to increasing student achievement - allowing
data to drive instruction.
3. A suggested area for further research includes ways for schools to allow
more collaborative release time. Specifically for schools that are on
staggered session, time to collaborate with colleagues is non-existent.
Collaborating once or twice a year is not sufficient in allowing teachers
to analyze student work and design appropriate lessons that are
standards-based and data-driven.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
References
Accountability overview, (n.d.). Retrieved November 29,2003 from
http://www.edsource.org/edu acc.cfm
Achilles, C.M., Finn, J.D., Bain, J., & Pate, H. (1998). Using class size to
reduce the equity gap. Educational Leadership v55. p40.
Adelman, H.S., Taylor, L. (n.d.). A school-wide component to address barriers
to learning. Reading and Writing Quarterly. VI5 n4 p277-302
Alexander. K.L., Entwisle. D.R., & Linda. S. (2001). Schools, achievement, and
inequality: a seasonal perspective. Educational Evaluation & Policy
Analysis, Vol23 n2, 171-191.
Anaheim Elementary Education Association. (2004). [Collective Bargaining
Agreement]. (Available from ACSD, 1001 East Street, Anaheim, CA
92805)
Ancess, J. (2000). The reciprocal influence of teacher learning, teaching
practice, school restructuring, and student learning outcomes. Teachers
College Record, Vol. 102,n3 p590-619.
Anson, R. (Ed.). (1994). Systemic reform: Perspectives on personalizing
education. Commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education.
Assistance teams, (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2004 from
http://www.ncpublicschool.org/schoolimprovement/assistance/
Ayala, M. (2003). An analysis of the elementary principal's role in
implementing school accountability within California’s High Priority
Schools: A case study.
Bainbridge, W.L. (2000). Is the test score gap really color-based? School
Administrator v57 n7. p50.
Barton, P. (2001). Raising achievement and reducing gaps: Reporting progress
toward goals for academic achievement. [Commissioned paper],
Washington, DC. National Education Goals Panel.
Bell, L.I. (2002). Strategies that close the gap. Educational Leadership, p32-
34
Benner, C., Brownstein, B., & Dean, A. (1999). Walking the lifelong tightrope:
Negotiating work in the new economy. San Jose, CA
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
Bennis, W., Goldsmith, J. (1997). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a
leader. Perseus Books. MA.
Bernal, E. M., Valencia, R.R. (2000). The TAAS case: A recapitulation and
beyond. Hispanic Journal o f Behavioral Sciences, v 22. n4. p540-556
Betts, J.R., and Dannenberg, A., (2002). Brookings Papers on Education Policy
2002. School accountability in California: An early evaluation.
Retrieved November 17,2003 from
http://www.brooings.edu/gs/brown/bpep/2002.htm
California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS). [data file] Retrieved
March 4, 2004 from http://datal.cde.ca.gov/
California Department of Education. (2004). The Fact book 2004: Handbook of
education information. Retrieved August 28,2004 from
http://www. cde. ca. gov
California Department of Education, (October 2003). Reporting the Academic
Performance Index Growth for 2002-2003. [Assistance Packet].
Sacramento, CA
California Department of Education, SB IX Public schools accountability act of
1999 - Highlights [Data File]. Sacramento, CA: www.cde.gov
California Education Code. §52050.5, 52055.5 (1999). Retrieved October 31,
2002 from http ://www. le ginfo. ca. gov
California’ s lowest-performing schools: Who they are, the challenges they face,
and how they’ re improving. (2003) EdSource. CA
California reading initiative. (2001). Senate Bill 376. Retrieved February 11,
2004 from http ://www. cde. ca. gov/cilbranch/eltdiv/rdg init. htm
California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR). (2003). [Test Results].
Retrieved 10/20/03 from: www.star.cde.ca.gov/star2003/
Camoy, M., Elmore, R., and Siskin, L.S., (Eds). (2003). The new accountability:
High schools and high-stakes testing. NY/London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
Comprehensive School Reform Program. (2002). Retrieved November 26, 2003
from http: //www. cde .ca. gov/iasa/csrd/
Coulter, P. ( 1993). Consumer Guide. The Comer School Development
Program. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) of
the U.S. Department of Education.
Clauser,, P. S. (2001). Effects of education policy, school characteristics and
student background on Hispanic and Anglo students’ NAEP reading
proficiency. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of New Mexico, 2001).
Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol#62,
DAIp3753SeriesLetterl 1 A.
Critical incident technique, (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2004 from
http://www.air-dc.org/overview/cit.htm
Cuban, L. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success
and failure. Teachers College Record, v99 n3. p453-77
Data Quest. (2004). [data website] Retrieved March 4, 2004 from
http://datal .cde.ca.gov/dataauest/
Department of Public Instruction. (2004). North Carolina Public Schools.
Retrieved
January, 2004 from
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/schoolimprovement/closingthegap/repor
ts/role/
De Russe, J. T. (1999). The effect of staff development training and the use of
cooperative learning methods on the academic achievement of third
through sixth grade Mexican-American students (Doctoral Dissertation,
Texas A&M University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International,
Vol#60, DAIpage4286SeriesLetterl2A.
Educational Commission of the States. (2002). No child left behind issue brief:
A guide to standards-based assessment. Retrieved from www.ecs.org
Education in California: Looking through the prism. (2002). Retrieved January
26, 2003 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/iasa/califomia.html
Elmore, R.F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Retrieved
November 12. 2003. from www.ashankerinst.org
Elmore, R.F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Retrieved
November 12,2003, from www.ashankerinst.org
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
Elmore, R.F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, v61
n3. p.6
Explanatory Notes for the 1999-2000 Academic Performance (API) Growth
Report, (n.d.). Retrieved October 7,2002, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/
Facts about...State improvement lists, (n.d.) Retrieved October 9,2003, from
http://www.ed.gov/print/nclb/accountabilitv/state/improvementlists.html
Finch, S., Farbeman, H.A., & Neus, J. (2002). Differential test performance in
the American educational system: The impact of race and gender.
Journal o f Sociology and Social Welfare, v29 n3. p89-124.
Fullan, M. (1993). Changes forces: Probing the depths of education reform. PA:
Falmer Press.
George, A.A., Hall, G. E., & Uchiyama, K. (2000). Extent of implementation
of a standards-based approach to teaching mathematics and student
outcomes. Journal o f Classroom interaction. V35. nl. p8-25.
Guth, G.J.A., Holtzman, D.J., Schneider, S.A., Carlos, L., Smith, J.R., Hayward,
G.C., & Calvo, N. (1999). Evaluation of California’s standards based
accountability system: Final Report 1999. Retrieved from
http://www.wested.org/online pubs/accountabilitv/index.htm:
WestEd/MAP.
Hall, Gene E., Hord, Shirley M. (2001). Implementing change: patterns,
principles and potholes. MA. Allyn and Bacon.
Herman, J.L. (2002). Instructional effects in elementary schools. (CSE
Rpt#577). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Graduate school
of education & Information studies.
Hertert, L. Teague, J. (2003). Narrowing the Achievement Gap. [Report]
January 2003 EdSource. CA
Holland, R. (1999). Reauthorizing the elementary and secondary education act
of 1965: A new approach for a new century - Allegiance to the children.
Retrieved from http://www.ffeerepublic.com/forum/a376fel807581 .htm
Holman, E. (1998). Changing by Design: Comprehensive school reform.
NCREL Policy Publication. Retrieved from
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/pbiefs/98/98-lover.htm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
Howse, R.B., Lange, G., Farran, D.C., & Boyles, C.D. (2003). Motivation and
self-regulation as predictors of achievement in economically
disadvantaged young children. Journal o f Experimental Education. V71
Q p i51(24)
Jerald, C. (2003). Beyond the rock and the hard place. Educational Leadership.
V. 61 n. 3. pl2-17.
Johnson, F. H. (1995). Public elementary and secondary education statistics:
School year 1994-95. U. S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement. National Center for Education
Statistics
Just, A.E., Boese, L.E., Burkhardt, R., Carstens, L.J., Devine, M., & Gaffney, T.
(2001). Immediate intervention/underperforming school program
(II/USP): How low performing schools in California are facing the
challenge of improving student achievement. Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Education. Division of policy and evaluation.
Kiris accountability cycle 3 technical report, (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2004
from http://www.education.kv.gov
Klecker, B.M., Loadman, W. E. (1999). Measuring principals’ openness to
change on three dimensions: affective, cognitive and behavioral.
Journal o f Instructional Psychology v.26 n4. p213-225.
Koschoreck, J.W. (2001). Accountability and educational equity in the
transformation of an urban district. Education and Urban Society v33,
n3. p284
Lambert, L. F. (2002). The validity of end-of-source reading grades as indicators
of TAAS performance for third grade students in the Klein Independent
School District. (Doctoral Dissertation, Texas A&M University, 2002).
Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol63, DAIp.l260SeriesLetter
04 A.
Leithwood, K.A. & Riehl, C. (2003). What do we already know about
successful school leadership? AERA
Lewis, A.C. (2000). The notorious G-A-P. Phi Delta Kappan, v82, n2. pl03
Long range plan fo r public education 1996-2000. (n.d.) Retrieved March 4,
2004 from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
Marshall, K. (2003). A principal looks back: Standards matter. Phi Delta
Kappan. October, 2003. pl05-l 13.
Matsumura, L.C., Gamier, H. E., & Pascal, J. (2002). Measuring instructional
quality in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student
achievement. (CSE Rpt #582). Los Angeles, CA: University of
California. Graduate school of education & Information studies.
Michigan Department of Education. (2004). Retrieved from
http;//www.michigan.gov/mde/0.1607.7-140-22709 22877—.00.html
Mitchell, R. E. (2001). Class size reduction policy: Evaluating the impact on
student achievement in California (Doctoral Dissertation, University of
California, Riverside, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International,
Vol#,62 DAIpage2305SeriesLetter07A.
Morris, T.M. (2002). A study of reading and the reading assessment program at
South Elementary School (Ohio). (Doctoral Dissertation, Miami
University, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol63,
DAIp.543Series Letter 02A.
National Assessment of Educational Progress [Data File]. Washington, DC:
NCES
National Education Association. (2001). America’s top education priority:
Lifting up low-performing schools. The Opportunity to Excel.
Retrieved May 5,2003 fromwww.nea.org/lac/bluebook/prioritv.html
National Education Goals Panel. (2001). New panel report shows Math up,
while gap in Reading performance grows. [New Release]. NEGP.
Washington, DC
No child left behind, (n.d.). Retrieved October 9,2003 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/pr/nclb/background.html
Oakes, J., Blasi. G., Rogers, J., (in press). Accountability for adequate and
equitable opportunities to leam. In K. Sirotnik (Ed.), Accountability run
amok. NY: Teachers College Press.
Orr, A. J. (2000). Racial differences in academic achievement: The effects of
wealth (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 2000).
Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol#61,
D AIpage2053SeriesLetter05 A.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
Perreault, G. (2000). The classroom impact of high-stress testing. Education
v!20 n4. p705-710.
Public Policy Institute of California. (2001, June). School finance and
California’ s master plan for education. Retrieved March 1, 2002 from
http ://www.ppic.org/publications/PPIC 149/index.html
Public Policy Institute of California. (2000, February). For better or fo r worse?
School finance reform in California. Retrieved March 1,2002 from
http://www.ppic.org/publications/PPIC149/index.html
Public Policy Institute of California. (2000, February). Equal resources, equal
outcomes? The distribution o f school resources and student achievement
in California. Retrieved March 1,2002 from
http://www.ppic.org/publications/PPIC149/index.html
Ravitch, D. (Ed.) (2002). Brookings papers on education policy 2002.
Washington, DC.
RAND News Release. (2000). Rising math scores suggest education reforms are
working, state achievement differences tied to spending policies, Texas
first, California last in test scores of similar students. Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/news/press/naepscores.html November 2003.
Research-Based strategies to achieve high standards: A Guidebook on school-
wide improvement, (n.d.) Retrieved November 26,2003 from
http://www.wested.org/csrd/guidebook/elements.htm
Rettig, M.D., McCullough, L.L., Santos, K., and Watson, C. (2003). A blueprint
for increasing student achievement. Educational Leadership. 61, 71-76
Ruenzel, D. (1998). Shifting the focus to learning: California’s accountability
debates. [Report] June, 1998. EdSource. CA
Schugurensky, D. (2002). Selected moments o f the 20th century. (University of
Toronto). Work in progress retrieved December 3,2003, from
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel schugurenskv/assignmentl/1965
elemsec.html
Senate Bill IXPublic schools accountability act o f 1999: Highlights, (n.d.).
Retrieved November 18,2001 from
http://165.74.253.64/bills/SBlXHIGH.HTM
Sheldon, K.M., Biddle, B.J. (1998). Standards, accountability, and school
reform: Perils and pitfalls. Teachers College Record. vlOOnl. p i64-80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
Shin, J., Deno, S.L., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task
for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. The Journal o f
Special Education v34 n3. p i64-72.
Silvio, F., Sonstelie, J. (n.d.). Did Serrano cause a decline in school spending?
Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Department of Economics.
Smith, T.M. (U.S. Department of Education.) (1995). The educational progress
of Hispanic students. Findings from The condition of education, 1995.
Washington, DC: NCES
Stecher, B. M., Barron, S., Kaganoff, T., & Goodwin J. (1998). The effects o f
standards-based assessment on classroom practices: Results o f the 1996-
97 RAND survey o f Kentucky teachers o f Mathematics and Writing.
(CSE Rpt #482). Los Angeles, CA: University of California. Graduate
school of Education & Information Studies.
Taylor, L., Nelson, P., & Adelman, HS. (1999). Scaling-up reforms across a
school district. Reading & Writing Quarterly vl5. p303-325.
Towns, D. P., Henderson, B., & Serpell, Z. (2001). The journey to urban
school success: Going the extra mile. The Journal o f Negro Education
v70. p4-18.
U. S. Department of Education. (1995, September). The condition o f education
1995: The educational progress o f Hispanic students. (NCES
publication No. 95-767). Washington D.C.: Smith, Thomas
U.S. Department of Education. (1998, May). Turning around low-performing
schools: A guide fo r state and local leaders. Retrieved May 5 ,, from
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/tuming/
Usability Company, 2004. Resources on creating and using Likert-scales.
Retrieved from
http://www.theusabilitvcompanv.com/resources/glossarv/likert-
scale.html
Willie, C. V. (2001). The contextual effects of socioeconomic status on student
achievement test scores by race. Urban Education v36 n4. p461-478.
Wright, D. (1999). Student mobility: A negligible and confounded influence on
student achievement. The Journal o f Educational Research v92 n6.
p347-53.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A
UPIRB Documentation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
University of Southern California
Rossier School o f Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
AN ANALYSIS OF THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL’S ROLE IN
IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN
CALIFORNIA’S HIGH PRIORITY SCHOOL: A CASE STUDY
Principal
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by David
Marsh, Ph.D., and Wendy S. Opdycke, from the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. The results from this study will contribute
to Mrs. Opdycke’s doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible
participant in this study because you are the principal of the school being
studied. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying gain
new knowledge of the principal’s role in effectively implementing the goals of
the High Priority School Grant (HPSG). It will look at what principals and
teachers are doing to raise student achievement specifically for low performing
students. It will determine the effectiveness from the teachers’ point of view
whether or not the principals’ efforts are a benefit or detriment in enhancing
student success. Finally, it will address issues attached to effective expenditures
of specific budgets for HPSG and the ramifications of implementing this
program in the unforeseen instance of state budget cuts to schools.
Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview
questions will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to:
Surveys:
1. You will be asked to respond to survey questions using pen and paper
provided.
2. You will be asked to complete the survey at the beginning of your normal
staff meeting. The survey will take approximately ten minutes to respond to
all statements. The Principal Investigator will gather your completed or un
completed surveys after fifteen minutes.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
Interviews:
1. You will be asked to review interview questions prior to a scheduled
interview.
2. You will be asked to allow the Co-Principal Investigator to audio-tape
recorder the interview to accurately document your comments. You may
request not to be taped.
3. The interview will take one session approximately one hour long.
4. The interview will be conducted in an area that is quiet and free of
distractions.
5. After the interview, you may be asked to provide additional responses
and/or clarification upon request from the Principal Investigator via
telephone or email.
Observations:
1. The Co-Principal investigator will conduct observations at the school site
with proper consent from teachers.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks to the participants in this study.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this research study.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
You have a right to see any statements that may be used in the research study
prior to its publication. You have a right to see the written transcript and to
listen to the audio-tape of the interview.
When the results of the research are published or discussed, no information will
be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs, videos, or audio
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will
be protected. Your identity will not be revealed in any written communication
or within the research study.
Documentation and all other data collected from this study will be stored for one
calendar year after the publication of the dissertation by the Principal
Investigator. After one year, all related materials will be destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs,
videos, or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes,
your identity will be protected or disguised.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs,
videos, or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes,
your identity will be protected or disguised.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You
may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still
remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact David Marsh, Ph.D. Faculty Sponsor at 213-740-3290, or Wendy S.
Opdycke, Principal Investigator at 714-517-8911, c/o James Guinn Elementary
School, 1051 S. Sunkist, Anaheim, CA 92808, or at wopdvcke@acsd.kl2.ca.us.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions
regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB,
Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room
306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 orupirb@usc.edu.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
University of Southern California
Rossier School o f Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
AN ANALYSIS OF THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL’S ROLE IN
IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN
CALIFORNIA’S HIGH PRIORITY SCHOOL: A CASE STUDY
Teachers
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by David
Marsh, Ph.D., and Wendy S. Opdycke, from the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. The results from this study will contribute
to Mrs. Opdycke’s doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible
participant in this study because you are the principal of the school being
studied. A total of approximately 60 subjects will be selected from your
teaching colleagues and administrator to participate. Your participation is
voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in a research study because we are trying gain
new knowledge of the principal’s role in effectively implementing the goals of
the High Priority School Grant (HPSG). It will look at what principals and
teachers are doing to raise student achievement specifically for low performing
students. It will determine the effectiveness from the teachers’ point of view
whether or not the principals’ efforts are a benefit or detriment in enhancing
student success. Finally, it will address issues attached to effective expenditures
of specific budgets for HPSG and the ramifications of implementing this
program in the unforeseen instance of state budget cuts to schools.
Completion and return of the questionnaire or response to the interview
questions will constitute consent to participate in this research project.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to:
Surveys:
3. You will be asked to respond to survey questions using pen and paper
provided.
4. You will be asked to complete the survey at the beginning of your normal
staff meeting. The survey will take approximately ten minutes to respond to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
all statements. The Co-Principal Investigator will gather your completed or
un-completed surveys after fifteen minutes.
Interviews:
6. You will be asked to review interview questions prior to a scheduled
interview.
7. You will be asked to allow the Co-Principal Investigator to audio-tape
recorder the interview to accurately document your comments. You may
request not to be taped.
8. The interview will take one session approximately one hour long.
9. The interview will be conducted in an area that is quiet and free of
distractions.
10. After the interview, you may be asked to provide additional responses
and/or clarification upon request from the Principal Investigator via
telephone or email.
Observations:
2. The Co-Principal investigator will conduct observations at the school site
with proper consent from teachers.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks to the participants in this study. Your name will
not be written on the survey eliminating any risk of negative comments being
read by the principal. Your surveys will be kept separate from the principals.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit from participating in this research study.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
You have a right to see any statements that may be used in the research study
prior to its publication. You have a right to see the written transcript and to
listen to the audio-tape of the interview.
When the results of the research are published or discussed, no information will
be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs, videos, or audio
tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes, your identity will
be protected. Your identity will not be revealed in any written communication
or within the research study.
Documentation and all other data collected from this study will be stored for one
calendar year after the publication of the dissertation by the Principal
Investigator. After one year, all related materials will be destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs,
videos, or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes,
your identity will be protected or disguised.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs,
videos, or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes,
your identity will be protected or disguised.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You
may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still
remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact David Marsh, Ph.D. Faculty Sponsor at 213-740-3290, or Wendy S.
Opdycke, Principal Investigator at 714-517-8911, c/o James Guinn Elementary
School, 1051 S. Sunkist, Anaheim, CA 92808, or at wopdvcke@acsd.kl2.ca.us.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions
regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB,
Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room
306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 orupirb@usc.edu.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education]
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
AN ANALYSIS OF THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL’S ROLE IN
IMPLEMENTING SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN CALIFORNIA’S
HIGH PRIORITY SCHOOL: A CASE STUDY
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by David . Marsh,
Ph.D. Faculty Sponsor, and Wendy S. Opdycke, Principal Investigator, from the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. The
results of this research study will contribute to the completion of Mrs.
Opdycke’s doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in
this study because of your affiliation with the school being studied. A total of
100 subjects will be selected to participate including teachers, support staff, and
school leaders. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to gain new knowledge of the principal’s role in
effectively implementing the goals of the HPSG. It will look at what principals
and teachers are doing to raise student achievement specifically for low
performing students. It will determine the effectiveness from the teachers’ point
of view whether or not the principals’ efforts are a benefit or detriment in
enhancing student success. Finally, it will address issues attached to effective
expenditures of specific budgets for HPSG and the ramifications of
implementing this program in the unforeseen instance of state budget cuts to
schools.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the
following things:
Surveys:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
5. You will receive a set of survey questions and will be asked to respond using
pen and paper.
6. You will be given time during a normal staff meeting and will submit the
answers to the Principal Investigator.
7. Any information obtained in connection to this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law.
Interviews:
1. For your review, you will receive the questions prior to a scheduled
interview.
2. The Principal Investigator will have an audio-tape recorder to accurately
document your comments. You may request not to be taped. If requested,
the Principal Investigator’s fieldnotes will serve as the basis of record.
3. The interview will take approximately one hour.
4. The interview will be conducted in an area that is quiet and free of
distractions.
5. You have the right to answer or not to answer any questions.
6. After the interview, you may be asked to provide additional responses and/or
clarification upon request from the Principal Investigator via telephone or
email.
7. You will have right to review any of your quotations that may be used in the
study.
8. Any information obtained in connection to this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only
with your permission or as required by law.
Observations:
1. The school’s principal will be contacted to ask for permission to observe
various activities at the school site.
2. Formal observations of classrooms and common areas will be conducted and
will be scheduled in advance with the appropriate participants.
3. Observations will be recorded through note-taking by the Principal
Investigator.
4. Formal observations will be conducted where the role of the Principal
Investigator will be known and the Principal Investigator will observe
without participating.
5. Any information obtained in connection to this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
your permission or as required by law.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
Artifact Analysis:
1. The Principal Investigator will request select documentation of the
school from the school’s principal and support staff.
2. Document analysis will be conducted intermittently throughout the
study. As interviews and observations are conducted, more
documentation may be requested.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks to the participants in this study.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
While there may be few direct benefits to the participants who are
interviewed or complete surveys and/or questionnaires, there is much to be
gained by schools, educational leaders, and students in urban settings. Given the
heightened public awareness of high-stakes accountability, there is increasing
pressure on school leaders to create schools that assist all students to learn and
succeed. Researchers have identified high-priority schools across the nation and
have produced literature on the factors associated with their success..
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that
can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only
with your permission or as required by law.
You have a right to see any statements that may be used in the research
study prior to its publication. You have a right to see the written transcript and
to listen to the audio-tape of the interview.
When the results of the research are published or discussed, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. If photographs,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
videos, or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational purposes,
your identity will be protected. Your identity will not be revealed in any written
communication or within the research study.
Documentation and all other data collected from this study will be stored
for one calendar year after the publication of the dissertation by the Principal
Investigator. After one year, all related materials will be destroyed.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in
conferences, no information will be included that would reveal your identity. If
photographs, videos, or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for
educational purposes, your identity will be protected or disguised.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be
in this study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind.
You may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still
remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact David Marsh, Ph.D. Faculty Sponsor at 213-740-3290, or Wendy S.
Opdycke, Principal Investigator at 714-517-8911, c/o James Guinn Elementary
School, 1051 S. Sunkist, Anaheim, CA 92808, or at wopdvcke@acsd.kl 2.ca.us.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions
regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB,
Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room
226, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695, (213) 821-5272 orupirb@usc.edu.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT, PARENT OR LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE.
I understand the procedures described above, have carefully read the
information contained in the Experimental Subject’s Bill of Rights for
Psychosocial Studies, and I understand fully the rights of a potential subject in a
research study involving people as subjects. My questions have been answered
to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a
copy of this form.
Name of Subject
Name of Parent or Legal Representative (if applicable)
Signature of Subject, Parent or Legal Representative Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative, and
answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the
information described in this document and freely consents to participate.
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigator Date (must be the same
as subject’s)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
Appendix B
Data Collection Instruments
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
February 26, 2004
Dear,
I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California working under
the direction of Dr. Marsh. I am researching the extent to which the mandates of
High Priority School Grant action plans are implemented and the effectiveness
on student achievement.
Assembly Bill 961 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. Four hundred dollars ($400) per student with a two
hundred-dollar ($200) matching fund is awarded to the school to assist in raising
student achievement by offering additional resources to target student
intervention. All schools that rank in the decile one 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
must also meet the entire mandate of II-USP. HPSG schools are also required to
submit an action plan. Local and state boards to receive funding must approve
plans.
I will be studying how principals view high stakes accountability in High
Priority Schools as well as the strengths and weaknesses of such accountability
and how accountability is enhanced. The teachers’ response to the work of the
principal in this regard will also be studied.
This study will include formal interviews, informal classroom observations, and
the completion of a survey. I will arrange my schedule to best meet the time
schedule of the participants. All interviews and observations will be kept
anonymous and confidential.
If you would like a copy of the results of the study, I would be happy to share
them with you. The findings of the study should assist policy makers and
educators to better understand the effectiveness of state reform schools. Please
sign and date your permission to participate in the study on the attached sheet.
The permission to participate and survey are to be returned to the school office.
Thank you, your participation is instrumental to the success of the study.
Sincerely,
Wendy S. Opdycke
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
Don’t
Know
0
Disagree
Strongly
1
Disagree
Somewhat
2
Agree
Some
what
3
Agree
Strong
iy
4
Research Question: How do principals and teachers view high stakes accountability in HPSGP
schools, and what do they see, based on specific objective data through tests aligned to standards, as
the strengths and weaknesses of such an accountability system in their own schools?
Explanation: Answer these questions to show how you feel about high stakes accountability and
which items you see as strengths or weaknesses in your school.
I feel the state threatens my job by the sanctions
of the HPSG.
0 1 2 3 4
The HPSG mandates make it challenging to
maintain personal and professional balance.
0 1 2 3 4
My morale has been positively impacted by the
HPSG process
0 1 2 3 4
I feel empowered to assume leadership roles in
my school.
0 1 2 3 4
High priority schools are under high stakes
accountability to raise student achievement.
0 1 2 3 4
I am responsible for the increase of student
achievement.
0 1 2 3 4
The HPSG program threatens my job security if
there is a lack of student achievement.
0 1 2 3 4
The API is an accurate measure of my school’s
achievement.
0 1 2 3 4
HPSG provides the resource funding needed to
increase student achievement.
0 1 2 3 4
HPSG funding provides flexibility in spending. 0 1 2 3 4
The state’s top down reform limits teacher
creativity and buy-in.
0 1 2 3 4
High stakes accountability has strengthened the
teacher-principal relationship.
0 1 2 3 4
HPSG increases the workload for classified
staff.
0 1 2 3 4
I know what the HPSG expectation is of me
professionally and seek help when necessary.
0 1 2 3 4
I see the benefits of data collection and
analysis.
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
The HPSG program strengthens the home-
school relationship.
0 1 2 3 4
There is evidence that parent groups are
actively involved in the pursuit of raising
their child’s achievement.
0 1 2 3 4
The school promotes a culture conducive to
learning.
0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
Don’t
Know
0
Disagree
Strongly
1
Disagree
Somewhat
2
Agree
Some
what
3
Agree
Strong
iy
4
Research Question: What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes accountability in t
schools?
heir
Explanation: These questions correspond to items taken from a review of the literature that suggest
what principals should be doing or come from items that are required through the school action plan.
If you are not utilizing an item at your site, please answer “0” for “Don’t Know.”
The goals of the HPSG were determined from
an initial needs assessment.
0 1 2 3 4
High stakes accountability promotes the use of
data to plan instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
My school has a cohesive action plan for school
reform.
0 1 2 3 4
My school has investigated the needed
resources for program maintenance.
0 1 2 3 4
My teachers collaborate to meet the demands of
high stakes accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
I inform my teachers of new legislation that
increases school accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
I have attended the AB 75 principal’s
training.
0 1 2 3 4
Stakeholders are aware o f the schools
involvement in the HPSG.
0 1 2 3 4
I ensure teachers us research based teaching
strategies in their classroom.
0 1 2 3 4
My teachers use data to plan instruction. 0 1 2 3 4
I expect my teachers to use data to plan
instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
I feel there is a link between professional
development at our school and improved
student learning.
0 1 2 3 4
There is a link in professional development at
my school and changes in teaching behavior.
0 1 2 3 4
Professional development is collaboratively
determined in areas of greatest need.
0 1 2 3 4
I plan professional development on the
collection and use o f data analysis.
0 1 2 3 4
I hold my teachers accountable for increased
student achievement through the use o f data.
0 1 2 3 4
I analyze lesson plans to ensure data driven
lessons and state standards.
0 1 2 3 4
I conduct weekly informal classroom
observations.
0 1 2 3 4
I assist and monitor the implementation of
new data driven teaching strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
I allocate time and resources for teachers to
engage in curricular mapping.
0 1 2 3 4
I have effective, research based intervention
programs in place.
0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
Don’t
Know
0
Disagree
Strongly
1
Disagree
Somewhat
2
Agree
Some
what
3
Agree
Strong
iy
4
I collect and analyze student work samples. 0 1 2 3 4
Data action walk throughs assist me in
maintaining data and standards driven lessons.
0 1 2 3 4
The collection of data promotes personal
accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
I collect and analyze data on an ongoing basis. 0 1 2 3 4
Teachers utilize student portfolios for planning
instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
I have high expectations and standards for all
students.
0 1 2 3 4
My school has identified barriers to learning. 0 1 2 3 4
I have specific plans or increasing the
achievement of low performing students.
0 1 2 3 4
Parents volunteer in my school. 0 1 2 3 4
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 are welcomed here at school as partners
in education.
0 1 3 4
Stakeholders serve on the data action walk
through visits.
0 1 2 3 4
I articulate the mandates of a HPSG school
on an on-going basis.
0 1 3 4
My school vision and leadership clearly
demonstrate school accountability.
0 2 3 4
I have aligned the curriculum to state standards. 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
I provide the resources needed to meet state
accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
I 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
I provide the necessary resources to meet my
staffs teaching needs to raise student
performance.
0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
Research question: How do teachers respond to the work of the principal in this regard—do the
teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or detrimental?
Explanation: Please answer these questions according to how you feel the teachers perceive the
work that you do, how you feel they perceive what you require of them and how you feel, they
perceive how things are implemented.
Don’t Disag Disagre Agree Agree
Know ree
Stron
e Some
what
Some
what
Strongly
0
giy
1
2 3
4
I feel empowered to assume leadership roles in
my school.
0 1 2 3 4
High stakes accountability places pressure on
teachers to teach state standards.
0 1 2 3 4
The HPSG external entity provides valuable
feedback for program improvement.
0 1 2 3 4
The staff as a unit analyses and implements the
external entity’s assessment for program
modifications.
0 1 2 3 4
Professional development has helped my
teachers develop a repertoire of research based
teaching strategies
0 1 2 3 4
My teachers see the benefits of data collection
and analysis
0 1 2 3 4
The collection of data promotes personal
accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
I respond in a timely manner to teacher
concerns.
0 1 2 3 4
I now offer greater support to meet individual
needs.
0 1 2 3 4
Peer collaboration has benefited my staffs
teaching ability.
0 1 2 3 4
I provide release time for peer collaboration. 0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
An analysis o f 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.
With the California accountability legislation, everyone is interested in
schools that are struggling to achieve academically. The fact that Lock
school has been participating in High Priority Schools Grant Program in
order to obtain “Academically Above Average” status for the past 2 years
with a student population that is at or above the 85% poverty level makes
your school especially interesting. We are looking at the answers to
three questions: 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.
Research Question 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 accountability in their own schools?
1. What strategies do you feel will be most effective in overcoming
the barriers identified in your action plan? (If any responses are
unclear, respond, “ Tell me more about , or tell me what you
mean when you sa y _________.”)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
2. Is the resource funding adequate to increase student
achievement? Do you have flexibility in spending the funds?
3. Has the HPSG funding helped to overcome the barriers to
increased student achievement?
4. Is the API an accurate m easure of your school’ s achievement? Is
there a performance discrepancy in subgroups on the STAR test?
5. What are the high stakes of accountability that you feel you are
under as a high priority school to raise student achievement?
Who is responsible for the increase of student achievement? And,
how are they held responsible?
6. Has high stakes accountability strengthened/weakened the
teacher-principal relationship? If so, how?
7. In what way does HPSG increase the workload for classified
staff?
8. What feedback have you received from your external entity for
program improvement?
9. In what way do you see the link in professional development to
improving student learning in your school?
10. What reform efforts have had the most impact on you as an
administrator?
Research Question 2. What do principals actually do to enhance high stakes
accountability in their schools?
11. When you established your Action Plan you identified barriers to
achieving your plan. Tell me about your school barriers.
12. What goals did the initial needs assessm ent help in determining?
13. What do you see as needed resources for program maintenance?
14. In what way do you keep your staff and other stakeholders
abreast of new legislation that increases the school
accountability?
15. What have you gained from the AB 75 training?
16. Have you analyzed the external entity’s assessm ent and
implanted it in program modifications? What role does staff
development, or teacher learning of any type, play in
accomplishing your goal? Is the training 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. What do you do to determine the professional development
necessary for your site?
19. When reviewing lesson plans, how do you know that the plan is
data driven and standards-based?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
20. What do you look for on informal classroom observations?
21. Describe the research based intervention programs you have.
22. In what way do you plan to continue gathering data?
23. Which local assessm ents are used to modify instruction and
improve student achievement?
24. What kinds of assessm ent do teachers use to monitor gains in
student achievement on an ongoing basis?
25. How is this information connected with goals established for the
class or for individual students?
26. 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?
27. If 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 of
student work for clues to better teaching strategies, problem
solving, etc.)
28. How do you ensure a safe and orderly environment to promote
student learning?
29. What plans do you have for increasing the achievement of low
performing students?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
Teacher Survey
Don’t
know
0
Disagree
Strongly
1
Disagree
Somewh
at
2
Agree
Somewh
at
3
Agree
Strongly
4
Research Question: What does your principal actually do to enhance high stakes
accountability in your school?
Explanation: These questions correspond to items taken from a review of the literature that
suggest what principals should be doing or come from items that are required through the school
action plan. If you are not utilizing an item in your school, please answer “0” for “Don’t Know.”
The HPSG process has a positive impact
on my morale.
0 1 2 3 4
High stakes accountability promotes the
use of data to plan instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
High stakes accountability places
pressure on teachers to teach state
standards.
0 1 2 3 4
My school has a cohesive action plan for
school reform.
0 1 2 3 4
My school has investigated the needed
resources for program maintenance.
0 1 2 3 4
The HPSG external entity provides
valuable feedback for program
improvement.
0 1 2 3 4
Our school analyzes the external entity’s
assessment in order to implement
modifications to our program.
0 1 2 3 4
HPSG increases the workload for
classified staff.
0 1 2 3 4
Teachers collaborate to meet the
demands of high stakes accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
My principal keeps me informed of
new legislation that increases school
accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
I have participated in the AB 466
training.
0 1 2 3 4
I use research based teaching strategies
in my classroom.
0 1 2 3 4
I use data to plan instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
My principal holds me accountable for
using data to plan instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
Our school links professional
development to improving student
learning.
0 1 2 3 4
Professional development is
collaboratively determined in areas of
greatest need.
0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
Don’t
know
0
Disagree
Strongly
1
Disagree
Somewh
at
2
Agree
Somewh
at
3
Agree
Strongly
4
Professional development has helped me
develop a repertoire of research based
teaching strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
My principal holds me accountable
for increased student achievement
through the use of data.
0 1 2 3 4
My principal analyzes lesson plans to
ensure data driven lessons and state
standards.
0 1 2 3 4
My principal conducts weekly
informal classroom observations.
0 1 2 3 4
I implement data driven teaching
strategies.
0 1 2 3 4
Teachers receive allocations o f time
and resources to engage in curricular
mapping.
0 1 2 3 4
My school utilizes benchmark tests to
drive instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
I have effective, research based
intervention programs in place.
0 1 2 3 4
I collect and analyze student work
samples.
0 1 2 3 4
I collect data to monitor student
achievement.
0 1 2 3 4
I turn in data on an ongoing basis.
0 1 2 3 4
Teachers utilize student portfolios for
planning instruction.
0 1 2 3 4
My school has identified barriers to
learning.
0 1 2 3 4
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 are welcomed here at school as
partners in education.
0 1 2 3 4
Articulation o f the mandates of a
HPSG school is on going.
0 1 2 3 4
My principal provides the resources
needed to meet state accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
My principal has a clear plan for raising
the school’s API.
0 1 2 3 4
The school provides release time for peer
collaboration.
0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
Research question: How do teachers respond to the work of the principal in this regard—do the
teachers view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or detrimental?
Explanation: Please answer these questions according to your perception of what the principal does.
How do you feel about what the principal requires of you? How do you perceive the implementation
of these new requirements?
The goals of the HPSG were determined
from an initial needs assessment.
0 1 2 3 4
I feel empowered to assume leadership
roles in my school.
0 1 2 3 4
High priority schools are under high stakes
accountability to raise student
achievement.
0 1 2 3 4
I am responsible for the increase of student
achievement.
0 1 2 3 4
The lack of student achievement threatens
my job security.
0 1 2 3 4
High stakes accountability has
strengthened the teacher-principal
relationship.
0 1 2 3 4
I know what the expectations are of me
professionally and seek help when
necessary.
0 1 2 3 4
I link changes in my teaching behavior to
professional development at my school.
0 1 2 3 4
I see the benefits of data collection and
analysis.
0 1 2 3 4
Data action walk throughs assist me in
maintaining data and standards driven
lessons.
0 1 2 3 4
The collection of data promotes personal
accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
I see the benefits of data collection and
analysis.
0 1 2 3 4
I have high expectations and standards for
all students.
0 1 2 3 4
I have specific plan for increasing the
achievement of low performing students.
0 1 2 3 4
The principal’s 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
I now offer greater support to meet
individual needs.
0 1 2 3 4
Parents volunteer in my classroom.
0 1 2 3 4
HPSG strengthened the home-school
relationship.
0 1 2 3 4
There is evidence that parent groups are
actively involved in the pursuit of
raising their child’s achievement.
0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
174
The school’s vision and leadership
clearly demonstrate school
accountability.
0 1 2 3 4
Peer collaboration has benefited my
teaching ability.
0 1 2 3 4
I have aligned the curriculum to state
standards.
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
My principal provides the necessary
resources to meet my teaching needs to
raise student performance.
0 1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
An analysis o f 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.
With the California accountability legislation, everyone is interested in
schools that are struggling to achieve academically. The fact that Key
school has been participating in High Priority Schools Grant Program in
order to obtain “Academically Above Average” status for the p a st____
years with a student population that is at or above the 85% poverty level
makes your school especially interesting. With your group we would like
to learn how teachers respond to the principal’s enhancement of high
stakes accountability? Do you 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 your response to the
principal’s enhancement and how you see this as beneficial or detrimental.
Research Question 2. What do principals actually do to enhance high
stakes accountability in your school?
1. What is your perception of what the principal does?
Ensures use of research-based teaching strategies
Ensures use of 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.
176
2. Is what s/he does a benefit to you, the students and other staff
members? In what way/s? Is it research-based and data-driven?
3. How is professional development linked to improving student
learning?
4. In what ways does your principal respond to your concerns in a
timely manner?
5. What leadership roles have you been empowered to assum e?
6. Describe the benefits you have gained from peer collaboration.
7. Describe how you align the curriculum to state standards and
incorporate them into your lesson planning.
8. Has professional development at this school changed over time?
If so, in what way?
9. What financial resources have helped you to implement your
schools action plan in your classroom?
10. What human resources have been added to help in this area?
Research Question 3. How do teachers respond to the work of the principal in
this regard - do the teachers’ view the principal’s efforts as beneficial or
detrimental?
11. How did you participate in the initial needs assessment for your schools
action plan?
12. How has what the principal does affect your role in monitoring student
accountability to meet the state reform mandates?
13. What research based teaching strategies do you use in your classroom?
14. What are the benefits of data collection and analysis?
15. How does professional development affect your teaching behavior?
16. What do you feel are the benefits of data action walk-throughs?
17. How does data collection promote personal responsibility for you?
18. How do you use data to plan your instruction?
19. How do student portfolios help in planning your instruction?
20. Do you feel that all children will learn and every school can succeed?
21. What is your response to the work the principal has done in this regard?
22. What kinds of support do you offer to meet individual needs?
23. How do you get parents involved in your classroom?
24. What actions or responsibilities do you take on to help parents become
actively involved in parent education classes, PTA, SSC, etc.?
25. How much release time do you get for peer collaboration? Is the amount
of time sufficient or is more time needed?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ill
Appendix C
Chaps School Action Plan
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
1 . GOVERNING BOARD POLICIES
1A. School-wide and district-wide barriers to improvement in student achievement and
underlying causes for bw performance.
Anaheim City School District (ACSD) is located in Orange County,
California and provides educational services to more than 23,000 students at 23 K-
6 schools, all on a year-round calendar. The major ethnic populations include 80%
Latino, 5% Asian, 2 % African American and 12% White not Hispanic and 1%
Filipino. Approximately 60% of the districts’ students are classified as English
Learners (EL). Of these students’ primary languages, 95% speak Spanish and 5%
Other Languages. More than 11 % of the families in this area are eligible for Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), now CalWORKS, and about 84%
of all students in ACSD are eligible for free or reduced lunch. There are 1005
FTE Teachers, 93.4% of whom are fully credentialed.
CHAPS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Chaps Elementary School, located in the Anaheim City School District (ACSD)
is a year-round multi-track school. Due to the severe overcrowding in ACSD,
students in grades K-2 follow a double session schedule. This schedule requires
teachers to share classrooms. Chaps Elementary serves 1,073 students in
kindergarten through 6th grade representing a variety of ethnic populations including
95% Hispanic or Latino, 1% African American, and less than 2% each of all other
ethnicities. Of these students, 70% are English Learners (EL). During the 2001-2002
school year, 94% of the students received free/reduced lunch and 14% are from
families receiving CALWorks services. We serve students identified as Special
Education, including Resource Programs (RSP), Designated Instruction Services
(DIS), and Gifted and Talented Education (GATE). The school campus also
accommodates one Pre-School and two Headstart classes.
Additionally, Chaps Elementary is working closely with other community
agencies to provide interventions for our students. Anaheim Achieves is an After
School Learning and Safe Neighborhood Partnership program funded by 21st
Century Community Learning Center. This program provides students with academic
support, homework support, and other extra curricular activities. The Academic
Volunteer and Mentor Service Program provides community volunteers who tutor
and/or mentor at-risk students.
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: CHART ONE shows our 2001 Academic
Performance Index (API) is 497 with two subgroups identified. Numerically
significant subgroups include Hispanic/Latino and Socio-economically
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
Disadvantaged. Our first subgroup, Hispanic/Latino, had 640 students who
scored at 488, exceeding their target of 13 by 10 points (total growth of 23
points). The second sub-group, socio-economically disadvantaged, had 641
students who scored at 492. They exceeded their target of 13 by 7 points (total
growth of 20 points). However, even with these gains, Chaps Elementary
continues to score significantly below the median API for elementary schools in
California.
Chart One ■ Academic Performance Index
MANN API
HISTORY
A PI
1 999
API
2 0 0 0
A PI
2001
API
2 0 0 2
A PI
2 0 0 3
A PI
2 0 0 4
API
2 0 0 5
API
TARQET8
D id t h e s c h o o l m e e t API t a r g e t ?
2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5
S ch o o lw id e 44 2 47 8 4 9 7 S ch o o lw id e y e s
H isp an ic 515 46 5 4 8 8 H isp a n ic y e s
W h ite n/a n /a n/a W h ite n /a
E c o -D is a d v a n ta g e 48 8 47 2 4 9 2 E c o -D is a d v a n ta a e y es
800
Low Socio-E conom ic CA Median Hispanic Schoolw ide
750
Median API for all elementary
schools in California (Goal set bv
state is 800). m ~~
700
600
eoo
550
500
450
400
2004 2005 2001 2002 2003 2000
CHART TWO shows the school-wide distribution of scores for language arts and
math, by performance bands. Results of the nationally norm referenced test indicate
nearly half of all students tested in 2001 (49%) scored in the lowest quintile in
reading. Only 13% of the students met the statewide target of proficient or above on
the California Standards Tests (CST) for language arts. The indicator scores for each
content area (based on the API formula) show students are performing significantly
lower in reading than math (160-point difference) however, improvement in both
content areas is needed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180
Chart Two - Distribution of Scores - Norm Referenced (NRT) and California Standards Tests
(CST).
Reading
Standardized Test Results (NRT)
Percent of pupils in each percentile band
Language Arts
California Standards Test (CST)
Percent of pupils in each performance level
Performance
Bands
SAT9
1999
SAT9
2000
SAT9
2001
SAT9
2002
CAT6
2003
CAT6
2004
C
AT
6
20
05
Performance
Bands
CST
2001
CST
2002
CST
2003
CST
2004
CST
2005
At/above
50th%tile 12% 14% 18%
At/Above
Proficient 10%
At/Above 40th
NPR 21% 25% 26% At/Above Basic 37%
Below 20th NPR 50% 49% 48% Far Below Basic 29%
Indicator Score 425 435 Indicator Score 506
Mathematics
Standardized Test Results (NRT)
Percent of pupils in each percentile band
Mathematics
California Standards Test (CST)
Percent of pupils in each performance level
Performance
Bands
SAT9
1999
SAT9
2000
SAT9
2001
SAT9
2002
CAT6
2003
CAT6
2004
C
AT
6
20
05
Performance
Bands
CST
2001
CST
2002
CST
2003
CST
2004
CST
2005
At/above
50th%tile 21% 26% 31%
At/Above
Proficient 14%
At/Above 40th
NPR 30% 36% 42% At/Above Basic 38%
Below 20th NPR 46% 33% 32% Far Below Basic 16%
Indicator Score 525 545 Indicator Score n/a
CHART THREE examines all students including English Learners (EL) and
English Only/ Fluent English (EO/FEP) for a period of three years. These results
indicate that EL students are scoring well below their EO/FEP counterparts.
Especially apparent were the differences in scores for fifth and sixth grade, where
40% of the EO/FEP students scored at or above the 50th percentile. However, only 6-
10% of the EL students reached the 50th percentile.
Chart Three - Other Subgroups (students performing
at/above 50th NPR)______________________________
Comparison of
S u b g ro u p s
Reading Mathematics
SAT9
1999
SAT9
2000
SAT9
2001
SAT9
2002
CAT6
2003
CAT6
2004
CAT6
2005
SAT9
1999
SAT9
2000
SAT9
2001
SAT9
2002
CAT6
2003
CAT6
2004
CA T6
2005
ALL STUDENTS 12% 14% 18% 21% 26% 31%
Male 9% 11% 15% 16% 23% 29%
Female 15% 16% 20% 25% 29% 32%
English Leamei 4% 6% 10% 13% 18% 22%
Eng. Only/Fluent Eng. 31% 33% 35% 40% 47% 50%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181
Unfortunately this data fails to provide information for how long students have
been receiving instruction in English and whether or not students are making
adequate yearly progress. Also missing is the information for students formerly
designated as English learners (to indicate the rate at which students are acquiring
fluency in English). Chaps Elementary recognizes the need to expand and improve
data collection and analysis for English learners in order to better guide instruction
and improve student achievement.
CHART FOUR shows the baseline data for the California English Language
Development Test. Results indicate 80% of the students tested scored at the
Beginning and Intermediate levels indicating a strong need for a comprehensive,
sequential English language development program. Part of the annual evaluation for
Chaps Elementary will include multiple year analysis of the CELDT results
compared to time in program to determine individual student gain and program
effectiveness. Additional local measures aligned with the California English
Language Development Standards are needed to provide more frequent evaluation of
student progress.
Chart Four - California English Language Development Test (CELDT)
Chaps Baseline 2001
Total o f All Students Tested - 763
Grades K 1 2 3 4 5 6
Proficiency
Advanced 0 1 1 2 3 4 1
Early Advanced 10 39 6 12 8 20 20
Intermediate 36 47 28 35 40 49 37
Early Intermediate 53 24 52 37 33 19 18
Beginning 39 11 19 29 15 7 8
Number Tested 138 122 106 115 99 99 84
Skill Area Mean Scale Scores
Listening / Speaking 429.9 481.9 502.1 480.1 487.5 500.3 498.8
Reading 429.7 468.6 479.8 510.8 494.8
Writing 442.7 478.5 488.0 508.2 502.2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182
LOCAL ASSESSMENT MEASURES: The following charts summarize results
of two assessments used in the district-wide assessment program. CHART FIVE
shows results of the Emergent Literacy Survey administered to all students in grades
K-2. The survey is individually administered to each student with specific subtests,
aligned to California standards, designated for each grade level. Results show a need
to improve early literacy instruction at the primary grades to increase the number of
students meeting grade level standards.
Early Literacy
Emergent Literacy Survey Performance Level
Percent Meeting Grade Level Standards
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Kindergarten
Concepts o f Print,
Phonemic Awareness
Mastered
46%
Partial Mastery
45%
No Mastery
9%
Grade 1
Phonemic Awareness,
Word Recognition
Mastered
31%
Partial Mastery
20%
No Mastery
49%
Grade 2
Phonemic Awareness,
Word Recognition,
Sentence Dictation
Mastered
48%
Partial Mastery
32%
No Mastery
20%
The end-of-year writing samples collected for 2001 (CHART SIX)
support the need for ongoing staff development in the area of process writing
and the use of writing rubrics to guide instruction. Because writing so closely
reflects the student’s language acquisition level, Chaps Elementary will
investigate the use of student-involved assessments and rubrics designed
especially for English learners.
Chart Six - Grade Level
Writing Sample
(Holistic four-point rubric)
Percent Meeting Grade Level Standards (3 or 4)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Grade 2 35%
Grade 3 35%
Grade 4 46%
Grade 5 32%
Grade 6 31%
DATA COLLECTION
SURVEY: Along with API and SAT-9 data, an NEA KEYS (Keys for Excellence in
Your School) survey was administered to all faculty. This survey yielded the
following results. Areas identified by the school staff as needing improvement are:
School operates under the assumption that all students can learn; Teachers, parents,
community, and staff other than teachers are involved in decisions about school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
183
goals; School programs are consistent and coherent; Teachers have regularly
scheduled time to learn from one another, and opportunities are available for
mentoring; Space for instructional activities is adequate; Research conducted at
school influences programs and instruction. An additional survey was administered
to parents that asked questions related to school climate, school expectations,
parental involvement in their children’s education, instruction and assessment,
student safety, and use of content standards. The patterns that emerged from the
survey indicated that parents are not regularly apprised of, or encouraged to discuss
their child’s academic progress.
CLASSROOM VISITS; Classroom visits were conducted to determine if standards-
based instruction was being implemented throughout the school and if there was
visible evidence in the classrooms. District standards were posted in some
classrooms; however there was little to no evidence that teachers were applying or
transferring the State standards to their daily lessons. There was some evidence that
rubrics are being used on a limited basis. Teachers were using a wide variety of
teaching strategies.
RESULTS; Data was collated and analyzed by the school site planning team (SSPT)
and then used as baseline data to determine the barriers to success:
BARRIER 1: PUPIL LITERACY AND ACHIEVEMENT. There is a lack of
consistency in the implementation of State Performance Standards and in the
assessment of student work relative to the content standards across grade levels.
Teachers have varying degrees of experience and understanding in the alignment of
classroom instruction including classroom management skills, instruction of content
standards and in the assessment of student achievement relative to the standards.
There is inconsistent focus in the use of assessment data, both formative and
summative, to either guide instruction or monitor student achievement relative to the
content standards. Additionally there is inconsistent implementation of expected
behavior standards by faculty and staff resulting in significant loss of instructional
time.
BARRIER 2: QUALITY OF STAFF The school has a number of new or
inexperienced teachers. Consequently, there is a continuing need for an ongoing,
formal, effective professional development program. There is also insufficient
release time for observation of demonstration/model lessons, collaborative planning,
coaching by curriculum experts and/or peer coaching.
BARRIER 3: PARENTS and COMMUNITYINVOL VEMENT: Changes in family
structure within this school have resulted in a significant increase in the number of
students with social and emotional needs that severely impact their ability to achieve.
Parent and school communication/collaboration is limited and not focused on the
academic expectations of students and the ways in which parents may understand
those expectations and support their child’s learning. While linkages to available
external community resources have not been fully explored, we are beginning to
build a social network among the parent community.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
BARRIER 4: FACILITIES. CURRICULUM. INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS. AND
SUPPORT SERVICES The district is in a facilities crisis, however the recent passage
of a bond measure will alleviate the overcrowding and double sessions that currently
exist. Although there are ample materials and textbooks for all students, not all
teachers are trained in the optimum use of these materials. As new teachers join the
staff, they are not always provided the needed time to learn and be coached on the
best implementation of the materials. We are adopting State Board of Education
approved Math and Language Arts textbooks in the 2002-2003 school year. Support
services are limited to two Title-1 Resource teachers. In a school with significant
student needs, this is inadequate as they are servicing over 1,000 students._______
1B. Solutions/strategies for overcoming these barriers and underlying causes.
It was evident that the major issues that the School Site Action Team
(SSAT) needed to address included the implementation of state standards and
programs across and between grade levels that would meet the needs of all
students. A leadership team will be selected with representatives from each
of the grade levels (K-6) in both core and content that will work on school-
wide problems and problems specific to each grade level.
Teachers will begin a training program at the beginning of the 2002-2003
school year where they can examine the state standards as a group. In this
training, teachers will create lesson units aligned with the standards that they
would teach and assess in common and then meet at least twice monthly
throughout the year to share their programs and develop peer-coaching
techniques. District and contracted consultants will be used to facilitate, support
and monitor their work throughout the two years. Teachers will be trained in the
use of a wide variety of assessment tools and will receive training in Literacy
techniques, writing across the curriculum, and the use of SDAIE strategies,
among others. Support/tutoring programs will be instituted to assist the students
struggling with reading and math. Programs for parents will be developed to
increase parents’ ability to participate and support the implementation of state
standards. The delivery of special program services to parents and students will
be coordinated and integrated with services available through external
community resources.
In addressing the academic needs of our students and community, Chaps
Elementary in accord with the District’s Mission and Vision has set the
following objectives:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
185
> Provide all students with instructional materials aligned with content and performance
standards.
> Insure all subgroups will increase achievement equally as measured by the API
> Insure that all English Language Learners will increase their performance equally to the EO
peers
> Increase the number of credentialed teachers at each school site.
> Increase professional development activities to achieve the goals of the Action Plan and ELD
standards aligned with core content performance standards
> Implement an equitable program where all administrators can maximize their leadership and
instructional skills without sacrificing school-site obligations
> Increase the number and frequency of school-site parent contacts
> Increase the number of home communications with parents to deepen their understanding of
the state standards and concurrent requirements
> Implement a high quality curricular and instructional program aligned with state content and
ELD standards
> Provide for all children adequate instructional materials and supplies aligned with state
content and ELD standards
> Provide for all children adequate support services to help them succeed academically
A comprehensive three-year plan to eliminate the barriers to student
achievement is delineated on pages 3-21 including Pupil Literacy and
Achievement, Quality of Staff, Parents and Community Involvement and
Facilities, Curriculum, Instructional Materials, and Support Services.
The following 24 Steps to Success plan outlines the program the school will
undertake to improve student achievement school-wide, improve the SAT-9
scores for all students, and especially for the under-performing subgroup, which
will result in the school meeting and/or exceeding the state’s API expectations.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The following are the solutions and strategies for overcoming the barriers and underlying causes of underachievement
Action Plan Code P - principal, SSAT - School Site Action Team, LC Literacy Coach, GLT-Grade Level Teams, TOSA-Teacher
on Special Assignment, EE External Evaluator______________________________________________________________
Action # Solutions/strategies: Resp. Y 1 Y 2 Y3
1. Identify focus standards that are aligned to the CA Standards Test and High School Exit Exam,
including the CA English Language Development Test (CELDT)
SSAT X
2. Create standards driven curriculum maps and pacing guides that ensure coherence vertically and
horizontally across grade levels.
GLT X
3. Develop and administer standards-aligned benchmark assessments and administer to students on a
regular basis (writing benchmarks). Use multiple measures that are utilized and include norm-
referenced, criterion-based, and authentic assessments.
GLT
LC
X
4. Select research based strategies that are few in number and faithfully replicate across all content areas
(direct instruction, reciprocal teaching, process writing)
P,
EE,
SSAT
X
5. Establish high expectations that are clearly and fully expressed through posted rubrics, student self-
assessment, collective examination of work products and goal setting in class and in student led-
conferences. Create rubrics and scoring guides that focus instruction and guide what teachers teach,
what students learn and what is assessed, evaluated and reported.
P,
SSAT
, GLT
X
6. Collect, analyze, plan and pace instructional lessons and units. SSAT X
7. Implement a comprehensive coaching process that is aligned to the identification of research based
instructional strategies. Ensure that the coaching process includes 5 Quality Attributes: (1) Roles and
accountability for all responsible personnel and stakeholders, (2) initial training on strategy, (3) in-
classroom support through demonstrations and observations, (4) collegial support and planning, (5)
analysis of data including student achievement, coaching process and strategy implementation
LC X
8. Organize and structure school to optimize learning opportunities for all students and staff
P,
X
Reproduced with permission of th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SSAT
Action # Solutions/strategies: Resp. Y 1 Y 2 Y3
9. Create small learning communities and/or academies to provide opportunities to engage in multiple
teaming patterns, (vertical, grade level)
P,
GLT,
SSAT
X
10. Provide ample collaboration opportunities that are focused on the implementation of the California
Content Standards(Wednesday collaborative planning time) Promote staff to actively engage in
frequent collective planning, analysis of student work products, “Action Walks” and coaching strategies
that are specifically designed to increase student achievement.
P X X X
11. Create parent academies for parent training, (rubric assessments, standard implementation, promotion
and retention)
TOSA X
12. Action Walks: actively involve all (parents, site data teams, governance, school-wide teams) SSAT X X X
13. Hire an external evaluator and provide on-going evaluation to effectively implement action plan. SSAT X
14. Establish and train a team of school personnel (SSAT, principal, grade and content level teachers) to
analyze and use achievement data to determine academic needs of students and the subsequent
programs to meet those needs. Purchase an electronic tool to track, disaggregate data
P
SSAT
X X X
15. Hold quarterly meetings to discuss data and realign instruction and monitor implementation of HPSG
program
GLT X X X
16. Purchase textbooks and other instructional materials in literacy, mathematics, social studies and
science that are standards-based and aligned with state and District content and performance
standards and frameworks. Provide the necessary staff development to implement all instructional
components outlined in the Elementary District Reading Plan, e.g. explicit, systematic phonics,
phonemic awareness, oral language development and others.
P
DO
X X X
17. Tightly align before and after school programs with standards and individual students’ learning needs.
Establish rigorous reviews for effectiveness of extended learning programs, including maintaining strict
admittance and dismissal criteria.
P
SSAT
X
Action # Solutions/strategies: Resp. Y 1 Y 2 Y3
18. Create a leadership team that is part of the school governance and continue to expand the number of
“teacher leaders? throughout the school.
SSAT X X
19. Meet regularly with PreK-12 grade levels to articulate standards implementation and expectations for all
students.
GLT X X X
20. Provide ongoing training for parents in techniques for helping their students at home and in school. P X X X
21. Provide parent education classes and “family nights;’ so parents can support to their children. P X X X
22. Pilot a student-led conference program to improve student achievement, responsibility and attendance. GLT X
23. Provide regular publication for parents with focused academic and social growth themes. P,GL
T
X
24. Continue to notify parents of student progress regularly, provide notification if student is in danger of
receiving non passing marks prior to the issuance of formal report cards.
P,
GLT
X
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
YEAR ONE PROGRAM AND TIMELINE
Whole Group ^ Small Group/Grade-Level A Ongoing Support [
Type of Training/Technical Support - Year One July Aug Sep Oct
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Leadership / Administration Training
A ,
Data Team/Data Mining/Electronic Data Tools
A
♦ ♦ ♦
Standards Lessons and Curriculum Mapping
♦
A A I I
Reciprocal Teaching/Demo lessons/ln Class Support
I I
A
A
Houghton-MifRin Math Adoption (K-6)
♦
A
I
Language Arts Adoption (K-6) - to be determined by
ACSD and implemented K-1 (in year 1)
A
I
Guided Process Reading / Follow-Up Training
♦
I
Modeled Process Writing Follow-UpTraining
♦
I
Modeled Process Writing / In Class Support
I
A A A
Horizontal and Vertical Teams/Flexible Schedules
♦
A l
Student Led Conferences ♦ ♦
Parent Training on Standards/Action Walks
♦
A A A
♦
A A A
♦
190
1 . C. School and district crime statistics, addressing any of the factors that negatively
impact student achievement.
Crime Statistics-District
Enrollment
Drug/Alcohol
Offenses
Crimes against Persons Possession
of a
Weapon
Property
Crimes
Battery Assault
W/DW
Horn
icide
Robbery/Extort
ion
Sex
Offenses
8 40
21,820 0 143 12 0 3 0
Available data indicates that crime is not a factor affecting student achievement at Chaps
School.
Student Yearly
Attendance %
1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-2001 2001-2002 % Change
00-01 to
01-02
Chaps School 95.1% 95.1% 95.2% 94.53% 96.16% + 1.63%
1. D. How school and district conditions in the School Accountability Report Card are
being addressed, as needed.
Anaheim City School District outlines its Vision through Goals for District
Improvement, which in turn are communicated to principals and assistant
principals through monthly meetings and monitored through school and
classroom observations. District Goals for District Improvement effecting
elementary schools include:
• Meet or improve student achievement as measured by SAT-9 and meet/exceed API growth target
• Use multiple measures to assess student learning
• Conduct classroom visitations at all sites that focus on the implementation of teaching standards,
classroom management techniques and high expectations.
• Schools will develop a single coordinated plan that encompasses all improvement efforts and focuses on
improved achievement for all.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
191
The staff has addressed the need to focus school-wide on improving the
academic achievement of all students in reading, language arts and math.
Through involving students daily in speaking, reading and writing activities
across the curriculum they will address needed improvements in language
acquisition. Each grade level will focus on data analysis of District assessment
data and SAT-9 scores, District standards and effective instructional strategies.
The next chart looks at the redesignation rate over the past four years.
Although the rate increased between 1999-2000, progressive declines were
noted in the past two years.
% of Redesignation over a 4 year period
1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-2002 % Change
00-01 to
01-02
Chaps School 6% 8% 6.6% 4.4% -2.2%
1. E. Annual growth targets at least as high as those adopted by the State Board of
Education.
Growth Statements
It is the intent of the staff to improve scores yearly in compliance with the
state’s requirements. During this school year, Test Achiever materials are being
used to improve test-taking techniques and to make students more aware of the
importance of taking the test and to ease the stress associated with test taking.
However, these short-term interventions will not change the way students
perform. The Action Plan provides for systemic change by first changing the
techniques and processes that teachers use though the implementation of
research-based effective practices that will help them align their curriculum with
the state standards. Working together, staff will share the best and most effective
practices. Training will be provided for all staff in the skills of teaching reading,
language arts and mathematics. Based on this heightened test awareness that
occurred from the months of planning, we expect that students will meet or
exceed their API in all areas. In addition, we expect the following:
Growth Statements
By June 2003 the overall API scores will increase a minimum of 14 points
over the June 2002 score for the total school to the 2002 target of 526 or better.
By June 2004, the overall API scores for the total school will continue to
increase a minimum of 5% over the previous year’s scores. Yearly, the scores
will increase by a minimum of 5%. In addition, the scores for the significant
subgroups will improve as follows.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
192
All Students
2001 API Growth Target (GT) 2002 API Estimated GT 2003 API Estimated GT 2004 API
512 14 526 13 539 13 552
Hispanic/Latino Students
2001 API Growth Target
(GT)
2002 API Estimated GT 2003 API Estimated GT 2004 API
508 1 1 519 14 533 13 546
Socio-economically Disadvantaged Students
2001 API Growth Target
(GT)
2002 API Estimated GT 2003 API Estimated GT 2004 API
504 1 1 515 14 529 14 543
1.F. School-specific short-term academic objectives for pupil achievement for a two-year
period that will allow the school to make adequate progress toward the growth targets
established for the school
The following represents the STAR data for the 2001 school year. Students
made slight gains in most of the areas, but overall scores still fall well below the
50th percentile. Teaching of reading and writing across the curriculum is
essential to students improving their language arts skills and meeting the state
standards in the core areas.
STAR Comparison 2001vs. 2000 Percent Scoring At or Above the 50th Percentile
Reading Math Language Spelling
Grade 2001 Change 2001 Change 2001 Change 2001 Change
2 21% +6 39% +4 27% +6 30% +10
3 11% +2 25% +13 15% +5 20% +8
4 17% +2 23% -3 29% -2 16% +4
5 21% +5 32% +9 36% +9 28% +7
6 23% +2 35% -5 35% -10 38% +3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
193
The next chart looks at ALL students, English Only (EO) and English
Language Learners (ELL). This chart supported our need to provide our
teachers with professional development in research-based strategy instruction
for math and reading, as well as SDAIE techniques to enable more students to
perform at or above the 50th percentile.
Percent Scoring At or Above the 50th Percentile
Reading Math Language Spelling
Grade EO ELL All EO ELL All EO ELL All EO ELL
2 21% 25% 20% 39% 44% 37% 27% 28% 27% 30% 31% 30%
3 11% 16% 9% 25% 35% 22% 15% 26% 12% 20% 29% 18%
4 17% 41% 4% 23% 47% 12% 29% 60% 15% 16% 36% 7%
5 21% 45% 6% 32% 55% 18% 36% 70% 16% 28% 50% 15%
6 23% 41% 10% 35% 61% 16% 35% 61% 16% 38% 63% 21%
Based on this data, the SSAT agreed to the following:
> 100% of the teachers will implement an effective TARGETT Model to foster a
motivating learning environment that promotes student achievement.
> By June 2003 the number of students performing below the 20th percentile in
reading, language and spelling will decrease by 6%. The number of students
performing above the 40th percentile will increase by 6%.
> By June 2003 the number of students scoring below the 29th percentile in math will
decrease by 5%. The number of students scoring above the 40th percentile will
increase by 5%.
In addition, the initial administration in September 2001, of the California
English Language Development Test (CELDT) will be used to establish baseline
data for English Language Learners, and subsequent growth in ELD will be
determined from year to year using the new test. As the length of time an ELL
remains in school increases, the percentage of ELLs scoring at or near the 50th
percentile decreases, because the attainment of the 50th percentile assures the
English learner has met redesignation standards and is no longer classified as
limited in English. Upon redesignation, the SAT-9 scores of the former ELL
become part of the data collected by ethnic subgroup for all students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
194
1G. The process administrators and teachers use to monitor and evaluate the
implementation of the Action Plan and its impact on student achievement.
A school-wide data analysis team will be established composed of
representatives from the SSAT as well as other key school members and an
external monitor. This team will meet quarterly to review the summative and
formative sections of the Action Plan (AP). This ongoing comprehensive
evaluation will facilitate project improvements and provide information for long
term site planning. The evaluation design is basically a gap reduction model that
measures the educational progress of project participants among and between all
participants. The school will use a database program designed to disaggregate all
forms of state and district data in order to assist faculty in pin-pointing the
individual needs of students and design the appropriate interventions and
enrichments. Information will be evaluated and analyzed in grade level
meetings. Along with examining the yearly SAT-9 and API data, the evaluation
is designed to explore the following:
■ To what degree is the Action Plan successful in helping all subgroups as well as all
students achieve competency in meeting the state standards and SAT-9
performance standards?
■ To what extent does the Action Plan affect school educational programs such as: (a)
the ability of teachers to teach the core content areas and align their work with the
standards; (b) the degree to which new and emergency credentialed teachers have
learned and are using information from training programs designed to improve their
efficacy and; (c) the extent to which the parent training programs are positively
affecting student achievement?
> Are all our students learning to high levels and progressing towards the quantifiable
goals?
a How are EL students achieving in ELD and ELA standards to meet the rigorous
academic goals?
a How do we want to organize our students and our time to optimize the student
learning?
a How will the teachers collaborate and work together towards achieving student
academic goals?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
195
■ How do we want to relate to parents and community to form and strengthen
partnerships?
We will also monitor the extent to which each student has appropriate
textbooks and supplementary materials aligned with the state core content
standards and will also be responsible to provide and facilitate the use of all
assessments to alter instruction and improve academic achievement.
Finally, the SSAT will monitor the extent to which the staff and community
are building a capacity for change so that they will be able to sustain their
programs after the funding ends and they will also explore the availability of
district funds to help build capacity.
The degree of success in each of these areas will be measured through a
yearly formative and summative evaluation report. Surveys, evaluations, and
examination of hard data will all be measured. At the end of the three-year
process, staff, students and community will again be asked to complete the
original survey in order to compare their responses from the original study.
An external monitor with experience in data collection and analysis will be
hired to collect data three times a year preparing it for District presentation.
Results of this data will be used to review and realign, as appropriate, the existing
instructional program for all students and for all student subgroups. This
evaluator will, through analyses of the data and progress of the students, provide
ongoing feedback to the SSAT as to refinements and/or corrections necessary to
meet the project goals.
Summative data will be collected on the following:
■ The academic improvement of pupils within the participating school as measured by
the English Language Development Test (CELDT).
■ The availability and use of instructional materials in core content areas that are
aligned with the academic content and performance standards, including textbooks,
for each pupil, including English language learners.
■ The number of parents and guardians presently involved at the schoolsite as
compared to the number participating at the beginning of the program.
Data will be disaggregated by numerically significant subgroups, and have a primary
focus on improved scores in reading and mathematics as measured by the following:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
196
■ The Academic Performance Index, including the data collected pursuant to tests that
are part of the Standardized Testing And Reporting (STAR) program and the writing
sample that is part of that program.
■ The results of the English language development test (CELDT) or the primary
language test.
■ The number of pupils attending afterschool, tutoring, or homework assistance
programs.
■ Specific District mandated tests that measure the academic growth of students
■ The number of teachers at the schoolsite holding a valid California teaching
credential or district or university intern certificate, or credential compared to those
teachers at the same schoolsite holding a pre-intern certificate, emergency permit,
or waiver.
2. Parental and Community Involvement
2A How parents and the community have been actively involved in developing the
Action Plan and how they will be involved in carrying it out.
In order to assure that both parents and the community were involved in the
development of the Action Plan, several strategies were implemented. Four
parents and one business partner are members of the SSAT. The SSAT met with
both the School-site Council and English Language Advisory Committee
(ELAC) Parent Groups. The Teacher on Special Assignment for the KEYS
initiative conducted a separate focus group meeting with parents where they
were asked their opinions about the instructional program and 19 parents
responded to a survey that asked their feelings about the culture of the school,
their participation and their involvement. There was agreement among parents
that school communication is both infrequent and irregular. Parents rarely
receive information about the curriculum, are somewhat unclear about how
standards are used to inform them of their child’s progress, and stated that there
are limited established training programs for helping their child to become a
better learner. One of the major areas of discussion is how to provide timely
information to parents. One of the major action solutions in the plan is to
examine the current parent information system and institute a more equitable
program that will allow parents to help their student in a more timely Chapter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
197
Parent Involvement on the SSAT will include participation on the
quarterly team and evaluation meetings, assisting with the development of
parent training programs, assisting with the dissemination of materials,
recruiting parents for training programs. A cadre of parents will be invited to
participate in some of staff training sessions so that they will be able to act as
facilitators for parent education classes. Some parents will serve as tutors for
students.
The school’s plan for engaging and supporting parent/guardian participation
includes:
> Ability to meet with their child's teacher or teachers and the principal of the school.
> To volunteer time and resources for the improvement of school facilities and school
programs under the supervision of district employees, including, but not limited to,
providing assistance in the classroom with the approval, and under the direct
supervision, of the teacher.
> To be notified, on a timely basis, if their child is absent from school without
permission.
> To receive the results of their child's performance on standardized tests and
statewide tests and information on the performance of the school that their child
attends on standardized statewide tests.
> To have a school environment for that is safe and supportive of learning.
> To examine the curriculum materials of the class or classes in which their child is
enrolled.
> To be informed of their child's progress in school and of the appropriate school
personnel whom they should contact if problems arise with their child.
> To have access to the school records of their child.
> To receive information concerning the academic performance standards,
proficiencies, or skills their child is expected to accomplish.
> To be informed in advance about school rules, attendance policies, dress codes, and
procedures for visiting the school.
> To receive information about any psychological testing the school does involving
their child and to deny permission to give the test.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
198
> To participate as a member of a parent advisory committee, school site council, or
site-based management leadership team, in accordance with any rules and
regulations governing membership in these organizations.
> A description of the school's responsibility to provide a high quality curriculum and
instructional program in a supportive and effective learning environment that enables
all pupils to meet the academic expectations of the school.
The opportunity to work in a mutually supportive and respectful partnership
with schools, and to help their children academic and other standards of the
school by any or all of the following means:
> Parents and guardians of pupils may support the learning environment of their
children, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Monitoring attendance; (2)
ensuring that homework is completed and turned in on a timely basis; (3)
participation of the children in extracurricular activities; (4) monitoring and regulating
the television viewed by their children; (5) working with their children at home in
learning activities that extend learning in the classroom; (6) volunteering in their
children's classrooms, or for other activities at the school; (7) participating, as
appropriate, in decisions relating to the education of their own child or the total
school program and (8) signing a school-parent compact that supports the
appropriate academic achievement of their child(ren).
3. Fiscal Management
3. A. An effective and efficient allocation of HPSG, matching funds, and other resources.
The following is a summary of the allocation of HPSG funds, matching funds
and other resources.
Capacity building for teachers will occur through the hiring of an expert
teacher coach, the provision of opportunities for teacher collaboration and
articulation within and among grade levels. Resources will be used to support
the teaching and learning environment and to support the involvement and
participation of parents. HPSG and matching funds will be allocated to the
following:
■ Training sessions for the school data/leadership team.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
199
■ Building staff capacity through purchasing a full-time literacy coach, implementation of a
coaching model, opportunities for peer-coaching and peer consultation.
■ Providing ongoing professional development for teachers and teaching assistants.
■ Scheduling opportunities for collaborative planning and articulation within and among grade
levels.
■ Purchasing material and personnel resources to support standards-based instruction to
meet the needs of identified subgroups of students and to enhance language acquisition and
reading comprehension and fluency.
* Contracting experts in parent training to provide training sessions for parents.
■ A community liaison dedicated to increasing parent involvement and engagement.
■ See full details in budget narrative.
3. B. Linked to overcoming barriers to achievement.
The dollars projected for expenditure are each directly related to overcoming the identified
barriers.
BARRIER 1: PUPIL LITERACY AND ACHIEVEMENT
The amount of $169,254 has been allocated to alleviate this barrier
BARRIER 2: PERSONNEL & PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT and QUALITY OF STAFF
The amount of $73,400 has been allocated to alleviate this barrier
BARRIER 3: PARENTS and COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT:
The amount of $ 36,760 has been allocated to alleviate this barrier.
BARRIER 4: FACILITIES. CURRICULUM. INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS. AND SUPPORT
SERVICES
The amount of $136,685 has been allocated to alleviate this barrier.
3. C. Notin excess of available funds (HPSG and other sources).
The projected expenditures are within the funds available through HPSG and
current funds and other resources made available to Chaps Elementary. Based
on the 2000/01 October CBEDS student body enrollment of 1,073 the school
expects to receive $416,000 per year for three years for a total of $1,248,000.
The amount of $ 416,000 per year will be matched from the following major
resources; Title 1, Title 1 Improvement Plan, Limited English Proficient,
School Improvement and the General fund (also see budget pages for complete
information).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
200
4. Personnel Management
4. A. The number and percentage of fully certificated teachers that are in place in each
core academic subject area and at each grade level.
Approximately 97 percent of the 43 classroom teachers are fully
certificated with either a multiple subject or elementary credential. Of these,
approximately 58 % are in their probationary period working toward permanent
status. One District intern is enrolled in a program to obtain a multiple subject
credential, and only 1 teacher has emergency status. Several teachers have
additional authorizations that include reading or language arts specialist
credentials, or supplementary credentials in science, social science, or science.
74 % of teachers are authorized to teach ELs: 6 with a BCLAD, 26 with a
CLAD, and 0 with SB 1969 training. ELs represent 70% of the student
Grade PreK K K/1 1 2 3 3/ 4 4/ 5/ 5 6 Sp. Average yrs.
4 5 6 Ed Teaching
# Cred. 0 6 0 8 7 5 1 5 1 1 4 4 1 10
imerg. Intern 1
4.B How any lack of certificated/qualified teachers is addressed through specific
strategies with measurable outcomes.
The lack of certificated/qualified teachers is a statewide problem that has
been exacerbated in the last four years because of the implementation of Class
Size Reduction. Currently, there are 1 emergency credentialed teachers and 1
interns distributed throughout the grade levels. All are receiving a wide variety
of supports both from the school and the district. As an inner-city school with a
high percentage of new teachers, the school will fully implement an effective
support system, including team building strategies as well as peer-coaching and
peer-consultation opportunities. In addition, the new structured, ongoing
professional development training will be augmented by “mini” in-services for
timely and frequent assistance. The new teachers and their mentors or team
leaders will meet once a week to develop teaching methods, management
strategies, or lesson plans. They will be trained on ELD and ELA strategies to
support their learning of content and language in mainstream instruction. They
will learn how to provide EL students access to core curriculum through such
methods as SDAIE. The teachers will be encouraged to complete their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
201
BCLAD/CLAD. The paraprofessionals will also be encouraged and motivated to
complete their university degree process and be offered teaching positions at the
school.
Credential Activity Responsible Party Evaluation Method Timeline
Preliminary BTSA District and Literacy
Coach
CFASST Weekly
Monthly
Emergency Enrollment in Instructional
Coaching
District and Literacy
Coach
Observation
Peer Coaching
Monthly
Emergency Mini In-service Training Instructional Coaches Observation
Peer Coaching
Weekly
Grades K-2 &
Grades 3-6
Open Court training District
Consultants
Observation, Survey
Peer Coaching
Quarterly
All BCLAD/CLAD, SB 1969 District/Universities Certification Ongoing
Efforts to recruit and retain credentialed teachers are on going
throughout the year. Representatives recruit at California University teacher
fairs and travel out-of-state to recruit when necessary, as well as attending major
educational conferences such as California Association of Bilingual Education.
The District belongs to the American Association for Employment in Education
(AAEE) and the California Educators Placement Association (CEPA). We are
part of the Southern California Recruitment Center and utilize the Ed-Join
Internet recruitment site to advertise openings and search for qualified applicants
across the United States. We maintain a web page with up-to-date employment
information that is linked to Ed-Join for on-line application and applicant
tracking. We have a strong relationship with nearby universities and train many
student teachers throughout year, of which a large portion are hired. We are part
of a Paraprofessional Teacher Training Program grant and fund instructional
assistants to become credentialed teachers. During the 2001-2002 school year
the District received a $800,000 Teachers as a Priority (TAP) grant to offer
hiring and retention incentives to fully credentialed teachers. With these efforts,
the District reduced the number of emergency teachers assigned to a school from
a high of 23% at one school to 22 schools with under 9% emergency
credentialed. Our overall district percentage of non-credentialed full-time
regular education teachers has been reduced to 5% leading to our goal of fully a
credentialed teacher in every classroom.
There are many forms of teacher support provided. First and second
year teachers participate in Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
202
(BTSA) induction program. They are assigned a support provider who meets
with them weekly over a two-year period. They attend monthly BTSA
Academy meetings where they receive staff development related to their needs.
They are provided release time to observe and attend training. PAR staff
development funds are utilized to support veteran teachers who are referred or
volunteer for assistance due to a change in grade level or curriculum. Funds
have also provided instructional coaches to help teachers hired on emergency
credentials who do not qualify to participate in BTSA or PAR.
All teachers in the District are expected to hold CLAD certification due
to the large number of English language learners. Classes through the Bilingual
Teacher Training Program (BTTP) grant are provided and the District pays a
stipend for attendance, as well as the examination fees. For the last two years
we have maintained a partnership with University of California, Irvine to
provide a five-day English Language Institute for teachers. As well, we partner
with California State University, Fullerton for the Technology Institute and
soon to be implemented Mathematics Institute. This on-going training
continues to improve the skills of teachers and the quality of instruction.
4.CHow professional development is provided to all teachers.
Professional development for teachers, instructional aides and administration
is the major strategic action of this plan. Building staff capacity through
intensive training, coaching and monitoring will provide the long-term effect
that needs to be accomplished. Training will be provided during off track
sessions, during school time through release days, and through instructional
planning time days. Some of the training will include extra support in Reading
and Math programs, curriculum alignment, and SDAIE techniques for the ELL
student. Teachers will learn how to use assessment to improve teaching, among
others as outlined in the 24 Steps to Success.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
203
4.D How professional development is aligned to core content standards and is specific to
standards-based instructional materials at the schoolsite.
(ACSD) has adopted the rigorous curriculum of state approved content
standards in the areas of Language Arts, Mathematics, and English Language
Development. All training is based on the use of the core content standards
and state frameworks. The SSAT found that one of the main needs was the
institutionalization of a model where standards and frameworks are used as
the base of planning and assessment discussions and where teachers use these
materials to drive their lesson planning. The implementation of this model is
the focus of this plan.
The content standards assist teachers to establish and maintain focus for
instructional planning. Courses of study are available for all classes to ensure
alignment to state standards. Each school’s SSAT, led by the site principal,
will monitor the instructional program and professional development efforts.
Capacity building will occur as grade level teachers collaboratively plan to
implement the standards and monitor the implementation through the use of
pacing guides and as they implement and monitor the effectiveness of specific
instructional strategies.
4 £ How professional development is directly related to areas where student academic
performance needs improvement.
The analysis of state and district assessments identified the need to focus
professional development in the subject areas of reading, language arts and math
with particular focus on language acquisition, word analysis, reading
comprehension and fluency and problem solving in math. In reading, 81% of
our students are below the 50th percentile with almost the same statistics in math,
language and spelling. Although there were gains at all grade levels except the
3rd grade in reading and math, the number of students scoring above the 50th
percentile in most grades is lower than is acceptable. To address these areas
where academic performance needs improvement Chaps Elementary will focus
on professional development that is aligned to the content standards and content
clusters and that addresses the implementation and monitoring of specific
common instructional strategies. In addition, professional development will
focus on the analysis of assessment data from both formative and summative
assessments to target areas requiring immediate intervention. Both
differentiated and common staff development opportunities will focus on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
204
building teachers’ capacity as they identify through assessments the academic
needs of students and as they implement specific and appropriate instructional
strategies to address student needs.
5. Curriculum Management
5. A. Each student has a complete set of instructional materials aligned to the state core
content standards.
The district approves instructional materials in the same Chapser as they
approve textbooks, with all materials aligned with the adoption. All materials
will be aligned with the district’s selection. During Year One, teachers will
work together to align all Language arts (K-2) and Math materials with the state
content standards. During Years Two and Three, Language Arts (3-6), Science
and Social Science materials will be completely aligned to the state content
standards.
5, B Schools have instructional materials adopted by the State Board of Education for
kindergarten through grade eight.
The district sets a priority on assuring high standards for textbooks and
instructional program selection procedures. Prior to any adoption a team of
teachers and community personnel from schools throughout the district is
convened to examine the proposed materials. This team reviews the textbooks
and supplementary materials for content, ease of use and for alignment with the
state and district approved standards utilizing guidelines from the CDE. Once
the team reaches agreement, then the programs and/or textbook(s) are approved
for school use.
The State Approved Textbooks currently used include:
Content Textbook Supplemental Materials
Literacy Up for adoption: Houghton Mifflin Reading
California or McGraw Hill Open Court both with
integrated ELD
ELD Hampton Brown Into English Hampton Brown High Point (4-6)
Math Houghton Mifflin
Science Houghton Mifflin Science Discovery Works
Social Studies Hardcourt Brace Social Studies California
Edition
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
205
5. C. The local governing board selects instructional materials aligned to the State Board
of Education adopted content standards, for grades nine through twelve.
Not applicable to this K-6 school.
5. D Any lack of instmctional materials is addressed.
Multiple instructional materials are used to enhance and support the
reading and language arts programs such Hampton Brown’s Friend and Phonics,
Words Their Way, and Making Words to name a few. Additional resources
including literacy materials, computers and software will enhance language
acquisition, decoding strategies, comprehension and fluency and will support
varied reading levels for all students and in particular for EL students.
Additional equipment will be purchased to ensure that students have all the
appropriate supplementary materials required for the district adopted reading
and math programs.
We are also using the following instructional materials to enhance and support
the curriculum.
5. E How administrators and teachers use the results of state and local assessments to
modify instruction and improve student achievement.
Based on the informational database, administrators and teachers will be
able to disaggregate data in a wide variety of forms. For example, in order to
provide appropriate remediation and/or specific skills tutoring, staff could look
for all 3-6-grade students that scored below the 25% in reading on the SAT-9.
Staff would then make a list of these students, pull their SAT-9 individual scores
Content Grades SuDDlementarv Materials
Language Arts K -2 Hampton Brown F riends and P honics
4 -6 Hampton Brown H ig h P oint
Math K -6 Houghton Mifflin M ath Steps
Science
Social Studies
to see in whic l areas of the reading content clusters they were deficient and then
assign appropriate in school and after-school interventions. This type of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
206
disaggregated data could be applied to any grade level and/or specific area of
concern. Teachers could input their own assessment information, again in
reading, for example, and begin to see how this information correlated with the
skills in the SAT9. The purpose of all of these assessments is to pinpoint the
student’s weaknesses that need support as well as the student’s strengths that
need enhancement.
One of the expectations of this Action Plan is that student data along with
student work will be examined on an on-going basis or at a minimum once a
month and reported a minimum of three times a year. This examination of
student work and data will also allow teachers to provide more timely
information to parents as to the successes and needs of their child. Both
teachers and parents will be trained in the use of the assessment data so that
optimum support can be provided for each student.
As the Action Plan is implemented, weekly/monthly scheduled grade level
(department) meetings will be held to:
> Analyze SAT9 and District assessment data in reading, language arts and math.
> Develop plans for curriculum and instructional practices based on the results of assessments
for all students and all subgroups.
> Implement common targeted instructional strategies and assessment measures aligned to
the standards to meet specific student1 s needs as well as groups of students’ learning needs.
5. F. How disaggregated data regarding pupil achievement and other indicators are used
to determine adequate short-term and long-term progress among all groups of students?
Disaggregated data regarding student achievement will be used throughout
the school year to pinpoint student needs, both for tutoring and enrichment in
order to meet the short-term academic goals as outlined in Section 1G. However,
the Action Plan has been designed to be a data-driven process where teachers
use the state and district assessment information to determine how to change
their instructional needs to meet the needs of the students. The evaluation plan
delineates both the short term and long term assessment procedure and expects
that teachers (over a period of three years) will learn to use student performance
data to modify their instructional practices. But the major focus of this program
is to institute a model where all data is looked at quarterly and where both
instructional and school-wide management decisions are made related to that
data and to the needs of the students.
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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

A closer look at the impact of teacher evaluation: A case study in a high performing California elementary 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

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of an elementary school in the Beach Promenade Unified School District

PDF

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

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of Algiers Elementary School in the Orchard Unified School District

PDF

A case study of a principal's transformation of a high poverty urban school

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Opdycke, Wendy Sue (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 Tienda-Ayala, Marti (committee chair), Cohn, Carl (committee member), Marsh, David D. (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-421555

Unique identifier UC11340781

Identifier 3155460.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-421555 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3155460.pdf

Dmrecord 421555

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Opdycke, Wendy Sue

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