University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Orchard Field Unified School District

(USC Thesis Other)

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Orchard Field Unified School District

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
®
UMI
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CONNECTING DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS TO IMPROVE TEACHING
AND LEARNING:
A CASE STUDY OF DISTRICT EFFORTS IN THE
ORCHARD FIELD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
by
Katherine Elizabeth Bihr
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2005
Copyright 2005 . Katherine Elizabeth Bihr
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
UMI Number: 3180488
Copyright 2005 by
Bihr, Katherine Elizabeth
All rights reserved.
IN F O R M A T IO N TO U S E R S
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 com plete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be rem oved, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3180488
Copyright 2005 by ProQ uest 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 Com pany
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 81 06 -1 34 6
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents James and Elizabeth Bihr. From a
very early age my parents taught me the joy of reading and the importance of an
education. Their love, support and belief in me has allowed me to grow both
personally and professionally. Thanks to both of you for being the single most
important influence in my life.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my gratitude to a number of individuals without
whom this dissertation would not have been possible:
First I would like to thank my parents, James and Elizabeth Bihr, for their
support and encouragement. My brothers and their families have each played a
significant role in my personal growth as well. Jim - my bike-riding and hiking
buddy, thank you for encouraging me to take some risks to make me a stronger
person. Tom - thank you for always showing an interest in me and making me
feel important. Bob - 1 appreciate your kindness, support and the caring that you
show for your little sister - and the golf tips are pretty good too. All of you have
shaped the person I have become. I am so lucky to have you all in my life.
To the Fullerton Joint Union High School District I would like to extend
my thanks to you and former Superintendent Mike Escalante for allowing our
cohort to invade your board room every Thursday night for three years. The
convenience of being able to meet at the district office made the accomplishment
of a life-long dream a possibility. The success of our cohort would simply not
have been possible without Dr. George Giokaris. George, thanks to you for
encouraging us each week and for keeping us all on track. All USC cohorts need
someone like you to help lead the way.
Dr. David Marsh, Dissertation Chair, thank you for your organization and
helping our dissertation group get off to a great start in the summer of 2004. You
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
were able to help us focus and spend our time wisely. The fact that many of us
will have finished on time is due to your efforts.
Thanks to my friends and colleagues in the Ocean View School District:
Jim Tarwater, Karen Colby, Mike Luker, Beverly Hempstead, and Louise
Glenning. To the staff at the best middle school in OVSD, Vista View, my
gratitude to each and every one of you for your support. To my dissertation
editor, Marty Walters, thank you for spending many hours to assure that my
thoughts were accurately reflected on each page. I don’t know how I would have
put this together without you. You are simply the best!
In addition, my deepest gratitude goes to the district staff interviewed for
this study from the Orchard Field Unified School District.
What can I say to my colleagues in the Fullerton Cohort? For three years
we have grown together and forged some wonderful friendships. Carlye, you are
probably the single reason why most of us were able to stick with the program.
Thank you for your kindness. Damon, thanks for making the call that got this
whole thing started. You are a gentleman and a fine leader, and someone whom I
greatly admire.
Finally, to the girls - Carolee, Myma, and Sofia. Thanks for the laughter,
the light-hearted talks, the focus sessions at the library, and for just being great
friends through this whole process. We have all made it - together!
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ' iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ABSTRACT x
CHAPTER ONE 1
Overview of the Study 1
Introduction 1
Problem Statement 15
Purpose of the Study 16
Research Questions 17
Importance of the Study 17
Limitations 18
Delimitations 18
Definition of Terms 19
Organization of the Study 22
CHAPTER TWO 24
Review of Literature 24
Status of Student Performance 25
Historical Trends 25
Patterns of Student Sub-groups 30
Factors that Affect Student Performance 33
Instruction as a Key to Improving Learning 34
Shifting the View of Instructional Improvement 36
The Need for Good Instruction 40
A Shift in Philosophy 40
Standards-Based Reform 42
Role of School Districts in Instructional Improvement 45
The Need for Systemic Change 45
District Design Elements 47
Factors that Influence District Design Development 49
Current District Methods for Instructional Improvement 50
Conclusion 61
Summary 61
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
vi
CHAPTER THREE 63
Research Methodology 63
Introduction 63
Sample and Population 64
Instrumentation 68
Frameworks for Instrument Design 70
Conceptual Framework A 70
Conceptual Framework B 72
Framework for the first research question 72
Framework for the second research question 73
Framework for the third research question 73
Framework for the fourth research question 74
Framework for the fifth research question 74
Data Collection Instruments 74
Case Study Guide 75
District Profile 77
Document Review Guide 77
Researcher Rating Rubric 77
Data Collection 78
Data Analysis 81
Summary 82
CHAPTER FOUR 84
Data Findings, Analysis, and Discussion 84
Introduction 84
Elements of the District’s Instructional Improvement Design 86
Factors Impacting the District’s Instructional Improvement Design 99
District’s Implementation Strategy 107
Extent of Implementation 117
Effectiveness of District Plan 133
Discussion 137
Summary 147
CHAPTER FIVE 148
Summary, Conclusions, and Implications 148
Background of the Study 148
Purpose of the Study 150
Summary of Findings 150
Research Question One 151
Research Question Two 152
Research Question Three 153
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Vll
Research Question Four
Research Question Five
Conclusions
Promising Practices
Implications
Recommendations for Future Research
156
157
159
160
163
164
REFERENCES 166
APPENDIX
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Case Study Guide
Conceptual Framework A
Conceptual Framework B
School District Profile
Document Review Guide
Researcher Rater Form
184
185
192
195
203
205
206
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Relationship of Data Collection Instruments to Research
Questions
Table 2. Extent of Implementation of Six Components within Conceptual
Framework A
Table 3. Level of Implementation of Six Components within Conceptual
Framework A
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework A - Domains of District Action
Figure 2. Six Components of High Performing Schools
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
ABSTRACT
While gaps in student performance may always exist, creating a cohesive,
district-wide plan that focuses on improving instruction may hold the key to
increased student achievement. Efforts to improve teaching and learning have led
school districts to focus more on classroom instruction as a way to improve
teaching and learning, and ultimately, student performance on state and local
assessments. However, understanding how school districts implement
instructional improvement plans could be as important as the strategy itself.
The five research questions investigated in this study identified the
elements of and the factors influencing a school district’s learning design, and
further, documented how the design was implemented to connect a district,
school, and classroom, ultimately leading to improved teaching and learning.
The elements of the design reflected six research-based components found
in high performing schools. These include: standards-based curriculum and
assessment, research-based instructional strategies, data-driven decision-making,
targeted professional development, achievement-driven structures and support,
and academic-centered family and community support. The change strategy
utilized by the district was incrementally conducted over a period of three years
beginning with school sites that were not meeting academic performance targets.
By year three all of the district’s elementary school sites were implementing all
components of the design, utilizing the Single School Plan for Student
Achievement as one method for monitoring site application of the instructional
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
improvement plan. District data indicated that leveraging existing programs,
relationships, and exogenous policies helped create a smooth plan for
implementation.
Overall the district’s design created a system-wide focus, a comprehensive
training program for teachers and administrators, and has led to improved
teaching and learning as revealed through consistent rising standardized test
scores. Recommendations regarding promising practices, district needs, and
implications for future research, based on the findings of this study, are included.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1
CHAPTER ONE
Overview of the Study
Introduction
Academic achievement of students must improve for the United States to
remain a global leader in the 21st century. The inconsistent performance of
students on multiple assessment measures has called into question the state of
education both nationally and internationally. Educational data collected as a
result of prominent studies has attracted the attention of legislators and educators
across the country. It is common for legislators to respond to published reports of
low scores and achievement gaps, with legislation aimed at leveling the playing
field.
Initial concerns for inequality in education led to Chapter I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. This was the federal
government’s pledge to children from economically disadvantaged homes to
provide them with a quality education. Qualifying schools receive federal dollars
to provide supplementary resources to schools with students from low-income
homes (Wong, Meyer 1998). Criticism of Chapter I programs (now known as
Title I) has been focused on the inability of programs to challenge students to
higher levels of achievement. Initial support to students was provided through
classroom pull-out programs, or through the use of instructional aides.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Reauthorization of Title I every four years helps to focus educators on
creating appropriate programs for students while maintaining high expectations
for all students.
The publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983 claimed that the nation’s
schools were slipping further and further behind educationally. In the most recent
1999 report of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS), which presents a comprehensive look at the mathematics and science
achievement of students in grades four and eight, the United States scored above
the international average in mathematics and science and ranked nineteenth out of
the thirty-eight participating countries in mathematics.
The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) reports that while
the numbers of students who have attained a high school or college degree have
increased, there is a growing disparity between ethnic groups (NCES, 2004).
While African-American students demonstrated some growth in performance in
math, students of Hispanic or White descent showed no change from the study
four years earlier (NCES, 2004). Further analysis revealed that there was no
overall improvement in math or science by students in the United States.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which also
collects performance data in reading and math for students in grades four and
eight, reports that while there has been some growth in eighth grade reading
scores, subgroup comparisons report steady growth among African American and
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
White students, while Hispanic students recorded no improvement.
Determining the cause for the lack of growth and disparity among sub-groups has
been a focus of recent research.
Poor student achievement is linked to a variety of factors. Home
environment, socioeconomic levels, and a lack of resources by students from low-
income areas, particularly African American and Hispanic groups, are often
considered responsible for the lackluster achievement reported by NAEP, TIMSS
and others. Researchers have suggested that a link exists between home
environment and student performance (Whitmire, 1997; Maylone, 2002).
Students who live in urban cities often lack the exposure to events that may
enhance their ability to be successful in school. Further, students will most likely
come from a single-parent home if they live in the inner city. Frequently this
creates a situation that does not allow for parent and child to spend time reading
together, nor does it lead to the modeling and learning generally associated with
students from two-parent families. Many of today’s students in low
socioeconomic areas are often expected to perform poorly in school. Maylone
(2002) found that a student living in poverty and in a single-parent home places a
child at greater risk of not succeeding in school.
Another predictor of academic success is whether or not a child attends
preschool. Academically focused preschools are on the rise in the United States.
Students who attend preschool consistently outperform those who do not attend.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
However, accessibility by children from low-income, poverty areas
remains a critical problem. Affordability and accessibility of preschool programs
for all Americans continues to be a social issue.
Schools often decry that they cannot possibly be expected to teach when
students come to them with all of the excess baggage that are attributed to these
external factors. While raising student achievement is a national concern, local
schools and districts are the ones held ultimately responsible for their success or
failure. Linda Darling-Hammond (1998) calls for a shift in perspective from a
deficit model (which places the problem of poor achievement solely with the
child) to one that acknowledges classroom and school practices may be a
contributing factor to a student’s lack of achievement. Moreover, while student
achievement is enhanced by class size, school location and socioeconomic factors,
teacher effectiveness is still predicted to have the greatest impact on student
achievement. Providing students with the best opportunity to achieve requires
that teachers participate in ongoing professional development. This is usually
considered a responsibility of centralized organization, which has historically
carried a negative connotation.
Understanding the political and social context for improving instruction is
critical to learning why early staff development attempts have failed. Staff
development was originally designed as a deficiency model, making the
assumption that the district, school and/or teacher was either not doing something
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
that should be done for effective teaching and successful learning to
occur, or that what was being done was simply wrong. This thought is confirmed
by the 1950s and 1960s research of the National Science Foundation. Teacher
professional development was not successfully connected to improving student
performance, and educators were seen as consumers of reform who needed
retraining, rather than as partners in the curriculum reform effort (CPRE, 1993).
More specifically, decisions made at the top level of the organization
created little or no chance for the “voice” to be heard of those at the operational
level (Hannaway, 1993). Staff development plans were seen as haphazard
attempts to improve instruction and did not consider what teachers felt they
needed. Workshops were offered with little or no follow-up or feedback for
participants, creating reluctance on the part of the teacher to implement what they
had learned. Educational research often conducted outside of the classroom led to
a myriad of “quick fix” approaches to instructional improvement. Isolated
programs such as behavior modification, reading programs, spelling programs and
lesson plan formats, grounded in behaviorism, were presented as ways to ensure
that teachers had the latest teaching strategies. Goals and priorities of teachers
and training sessions were often not in alignment with federal, state or district
priorities.
District and site level accountability measures mandated by state and
federal reform over the past decade provided the impetus for change, following
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
the campaign for reform of the nation’s schools so that students in the
United States could compete in the global economy. In all but a few states, for
example, the anchor for educational reform has been the development and
implementation of rigorous academic learning standards for students, generally
accompanied by assessments to gauge the extent to which students are meeting, or
making progress toward, these standards (Hirsch, Knapp, & Koppich, 2001).
Improvement of schools, and ultimately student performance, relies heavily on
this shift towards standards-based instruction and high-stakes accountability. By
the time of the standards-based reform era, educators were ready for a fresh
approach to professional development.
The standards-based reform movement, coupled with high-stakes
accountability measures, provides the control that the government sought to level
the playing field for all students, regardless of race or socioeconomic background.
In response to federal legislative mandates, states developed minimum
competence standards for each content area. The NCES (2003) associates
standards-based reform, assessment and accountability as key policy issues for
improving student achievement. Reforms focused on identifying and monitoring
how students learn provides a strong model for school and districts to follow.
Leading the way in developing rigorous standards for student learning were the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the state of California
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
7
(CPRE, 1993). Both entities began by defining what students should
know and be able to do as a result of high quality instruction.
In the ease of California, frameworks for learning were developed,
followed by a more detailed standards blueprint for students in grades K-12. But
just providing teachers with a list of the most important items that students should
know and be able to do was simply not enough. California needed to look for a
way to assure that the standards were being taught and that students were indeed
learning. To support instruction, textbook adoption procedures were put in place
so that materials used in classrooms are also in alignment with state expectations.
State educational leaders instituted a standardized testing and accountability
process aligned with the content standards for all school districts.
The California Public School Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999
provided a way to evaluate whether or not students were meeting the state’s
rigorous content standards. This three-pronged comprehensive measure of school
performance and improvement provided the Academic Performance Index (API),
the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP), and the
Governors Performance Award (GPA) program. A study of the effectiveness of
these measures by the American Institute of Research in 2003 found that the
PSAA is most successful when district policies and procedures support the goals
for improving student achievement. The energy and resources provided from the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
district level to the school site can have a positive effect on classroom
instruction, but cultivating a culture of collaboration is essential to enduring
results.
With a collaborative model in place, new methods for improving
instruction need to be implemented with the advent of the standards-based reform
movement of the 1990s. Supported by a constructivist view of education,
instructional methods were designed to ensure that all students would be able to
learn at high levels. An emphasis is placed on metacognitive strategies designed
to assist students with being responsible for their learning. By putting into place a
variety of strategies aimed at developing student responsibility, habits are created
that enable the student to feel more successful, and ultimately, academic
achievement should increase.
Schools that are successful in this reform movement have been able to
embrace and develop a collaborative, caring culture on campus. Classrooms are
more dynamic, with varied experiences being provided to students. Instruction is
guided by student performance under the umbrella of the content standards. Good
instruction, characterized by the differentiation of instruction by the teacher,
provides all students with the opportunity to learn at their individual level.
Flexible grouping, based on the Success for All model developed by Robert Slavin
in 1990s, ensures that students will not be placed and remain in a slow reading
group, or for that matter, struggle in a high math class.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
9
Instructional strategies in standards-based reform are heavily
supported by a strong research base. Classroom Instruction that Works outlines
nine effective teaching strategies that teachers can use to increase student
achievement (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Each of the instructional
strategies is aligned with the constructivist view of learning, and places the
teacher in the role of facilitator of learning. Reciprocal teaching is one strategy
outlined in this book that encourages students to question, clarify, predict and
summarize in small groups, with and without teacher support, to assist in reading
comprehension.
The standards-based reform movement places the emphasis on what
students are learning. Past eras have focused on the structures that have built the
nation’s schools. For example, districts initially attacked student achievement
problems by allocating more time through the use of block schedules, by reducing
class size, tracking and detracking students. Elmore (1996) states that it is now
time to focus efforts on the core of education — the classroom.
Reform-minded organizations such as the National Center for Educational
Accountability, Action Learning Systems, Professional Learning Communities,
the Coalition of Essential Schools and others have received praise for maintaining
a standards-based framework for schoolwide improvement (CPSE, 1997; Resnick,
1999). Each of these groups maintains a similar constructivist philosophy: all
students have the capacity to learn. Organizational change is monitored and
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
10
supported along the way, while rigorous staff development plans
emerge to transform the way that teachers approach instruction. Each of these
organizations has acknowledged the need for district level support for these
changes to occur.
Strong district level leadership is needed to provide a vision for
instructional improvement. Past reforms focused primarily on organizational
structures did not make a direct impression on classroom instruction per se, but
did address some of the environmental factors believed to be important to student
success. A second dilemma was trying to impact instructional improvement with
isolated programs. It was as if district level administration and site level
personnel were operating separately. Butler (1991) suggested that the quality of
the actual learning experiences provided by those who run schools needs to be
changed in order to make a definitive difference in student achievement. Districts
may need to mobilize their resources and designate individuals with
responsibilities to fulfill the vision for instructional improvement. School
superintendents were charged with carrying the vision and developing the people
around them into instructional leaders in order to move the district closer to that
idea. Similarly, Corwin (1975) argues that effective change at the institutional
level is primarily dependent upon leadership.
Since the advent of standards-based reform, districts have utilized a
number of different strategies to improve instruction: district driven, site-based,
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
and collaborative. The centralized approach to improving instruction is
typified by the hiring of outside consultants to support district-wide initiatives.
Common themes focus on developing instructional leaders, aligning curriculum to
content standards, data analysis, and improving community relations (Regional
Educational Laboratory Network, 2000).
Site-based efforts to improve instruction have been tailored to the
particular schools implementing them. Typically, school leadership teams have
focused on a program that will benefit a specific site goal. When these programs
are successful, they often receive a lot of attention and then are attempted by other
sites seeking to better their own school (Datnow, 2000). While on the surface this
makes sense, to address issues that are pertinent to a specific population, for large
school districts, it can become problematic with every site “doing their own
thing.”
Collaborative approaches, on the other hand, tend to focus on a
convergence model where a blend of district-driven and site-based efforts prevail.
Teachers, site administrators, and district personnel come together to determine a
district vision and create a model for continuous improvement. The Professional
Learning Communities is one method developed by Dr. Richard DuFour which
encourages the development of a focused approach to instructional improvement.
Under this model, students from all abilities are held to high standards, and there
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
12
is a requirement for district and school site staff to work together to
ensure their success.
Other models that have received attention include The Accelerated
Schools Program, intended to improve schooling for students in “at-risk” settings;
The Coalition o f Essential Schools, which promotes a personalized education for
students, with the creation of a smaller setting; Success for All, which is designed
as a way to develop cooperative learning strategies using a flexible grouping
method; and, The Six Components o f High Performing Schools, which identifies
six concepts common to schools where students are meeting grade level
expectations. These programs all promote a model of differentiated instruction,
so that each student has the chance to be successful. It is common within school
districts to have pockets of both low- and high-performing schools. The move
away from these islands of excellence to systems of success is the focus of The
Learning First Alliance (LFA). Improved student achievement across entire
school systems is facilitated by the development of district-wide solutions (LFA,
2003).
The governance and organization of school districts also plays a role in the
success of instructional improvement. Conway and Galzi (1995) point out that
the process of governing does not need to be a choice between centralization or
site-based management. The key is to find the right balance between the two
models. District level leadership is paramount in identifying and supporting the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
13
right model of governance for the implementation of a model of
instructional improvement.
Districts that have implemented strategies that provide a vision for
instructional improvement serve as exemplars nationwide. In 2000-2001, San
Diego City Schools implemented the Blueprint for Student Success in a
Standards-Based System, an intensive program of improvement for classroom
instruction focused on teacher practice and student learning. The San Diego
reform provides a case of district leadership that has prioritized high-quality
instruction and professional learning through a forceful district-led agenda that
turned upside-down many of the traditional notions of the relationship between
bureaucracy and innovation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002). Included in the
district’s design are efforts to improve instructional leadership for both district
and site level principals, intensive professional development for principals and
teachers, additional instructional time for low-achieving students, special attention
and resources for the lowest performing schools, and high quality materials
(American Institute of Research, 2003). Preliminary findings are encouraging,
with the district receiving recognition for developing and maintaining a strong,
comprehensive vision for school reform. Additionally, elementary students are
demonstrating higher growth rates in reading when compared to students across
the state.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
14
Although highly criticized for not meeting its goals, the
Philadelphia Children Achieving challenge reform movement still provides
lessons from which school leaders and reformers can learn. In 1994, armed with
$50 million from the Annenberg Foundation and another $100 million from local
Philadelphia corporations and foundations, Superintendent David Hombeck set an
ambitious goal for students: all students will meet or be above standards in twelve
years. To support his vision, he launched a ten-point plan for the district to
follow, designed to make dramatic improvements in student achievement. In
contrast with the San Diego reform, Hombeck’s plan was to shrink the centralized
bureaucracy and let schools make more decisions. Other key elements of the plan
included intensive and sustained professional development, evaluation standards
to measure results, a plan for community support, technology and publicity so that
the results were available for everyone. Another aggressive aspect of the plan
was to simply jump in and do it all at once. Although Hombeck left in the
summer of 2000 as a result of political and financial problems, only modest gains
were made in the first five years of the plan (CPRE, 2002).
Lessons learned from the San Diego and Philadelphia reforms assist
educators and researchers in the design of strategies that will stand the test of
time. Of prime importance in both cases is the acknowledgement that
instructional leadership is critical to the success of any initiative. In addition,
district level leadership can and should play a significant role in the design and
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
15
implementation of any reform strategy. The intended purpose of
this study is to learn about the school districts’ design for instructional
improvement and to identify those elements and processes that impact student
achievement at the classroom level. Data gathered will be presented as
information for use by district personnel, classroom teachers, researchers and
professional development organizations as they develop effective reform
strategies.
Problem Statement
As a result of the standards-based reform movement, school districts have
paused to reflect on the processes and procedures they use to improve classroom
instruction. Design models are helpful for districts to explore possible changes
for improvement. Conflicting views emerge in the literature with respect to the
elements of design that a district must have to create a successful instructional
improvement plan that links district action with school site and the classroom
practices.
District success or failure as measured by student performance data has
provided some of the impetus for change to a standards-based reform model. But
the factors that influence the development of the design have not been clearly
identified for all districts.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
16
Additionally, school districts have approached instructional
reform with a variety of differing methods, giving the appearance that there is not
any one reform strategy that works for all situations.
When changes occur as a result of district reform, a level of stress and
frustration is expected. The plan for implementation becomes critical to the
success of the reform. Also, the extent of implementation of any reform has been
directly related to the effectiveness of the change. Therefore, determining the
extent of implementation is important to understanding why the reform has or has
not been effective.
Finally, the effectiveness of the district’s design for instructional
improvement has not been widely studied. Clearly there must be a link from the
district to the school site and into the classroom.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to analyze and identify the elements and the
factors influencing a school district’s learning design. Further, the study
determines how the design works to connect the district/school/classroom and
ultimately leads to improved teaching and learning. Finally, the extent and
effectiveness of the district design for instructional improvement implemented at
the site and classroom level will be evaluated as a measure of success.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
17
Research Questions
The research questions being addressed by this study are:
1. What were the elements of the district’s design for improving
teaching/learning?
2. What were the factors that shaped the district design?
3. How did the district carry out the change strategy to implement the
design?
4. What was the extent of implementation of district design?
5. How effective was the district in implementing the reform effort?
Importance of the Study
This study has importance for district and site administrators, researchers,
and professional development organizations. Federal legislation, including the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), holds educational leaders responsible for
ensuring the academic success of all students. Moreover, the standards-based
reform movement continues to drive state policy for school districts. California
school districts must comply with NCLB as well as the PSAA and needs to
examine how to ensure that each student achieves. Analyzing current district
designs will provide school district leaders with a framework for instructional
improvement.
Site administrators can learn from this study the integral role they play in
standards-based reform. Bridging the gap between the district design and
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
18
classroom practice is the primary role of the school site principals
within district reform.
Professional development organizations will benefit from discovering the
factors and elements of instructional design that districts use when determining a
plan to follow. By understanding these aspects of the design, organizations will
be able to tailor staff development to meet the needs of the individual
constituents, as well as the district as a whole.
Limitations
The data for this study was collected from one K-12 school district in
California. This may limit the application of the results to other districts. Data
was collected over a six-week period of time using a qualitative case-study
approach. Because of the nature of qualitative research, the data analysis may be
subject to some researcher interpretation and bias. Additionally, the data
collection instruments included a variety of individual interviews, which the
researcher could not control for individual bias on the part of the participants.
Delimitations
This study will be a qualitative, descriptive-analytic case study. The data
will be delimited to one K-12 school district in California. This district was
purposely selected based on the belief that their population is representative of the
diversity of other school districts in California, and they are currently using an
instructional imprpvement design to improve student achievement. The size of
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
19
the sample is small, consisting of one Program Facilitator (Teacher on
Special Assignment), one elementary Principal, and four district level employees.
This small sample size may limit the ability to accurately generalize results.
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this study, the following terms are operationally
defined as specified below:
Accountability: A designed effort or system that holds districts, schools,
and/or students responsible for student performance. Accountability systems
typically consist of assessments, public reporting of results, and rewards or
sanctions based upon student performance over time.
Assessment: A measurement of a student’s particular skill or knowledge
that may be written, oral, or performance in nature.
Behaviorism: The theory that learning occurs when environmental
stimulus triggers a response. It advocates that children learn through a change in
behavior, so the use of rewards and punishment result in the establishment or
extinction of behaviors.
Benchmark: An expectation of student performance at specific grades,
ages, or developmental levels.
Capacity: The ability to flexibly respond to external demands in order to
translate high standards into effective instruction and strong student performance
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
20
that is comprised of both qualitative and quantitative factors that reside
in within structures, processes, and relationships (Massell, 1998).
Conceptual framework: A consistent and comprehensive integration of
research literature, theories, and other pertinent information that is the basis for
the analysis of findings within the study.
Constructivism: Children build new information on a foundation of
preexisting beliefs and modify their understanding based on new data. Within this
process, their ideas become more complex. This position advocates that students
need to be create their own knowledge and it can not be transferred to them
through listening to lectures or rote practice.
Data-driven decision making: A process of making decisions about
curriculum and instruction based on the analysis of classroom data and
standardized test data. Data-driven decision making uses data on function,
quantity and quality of inputs, and how students learn to suggest educational
solutions.
Design: A plan that is intended to affect change which may be district-
wide, specific to a certain level, or to specific schools.
Equity: Educational impartiality that ensures all students receive fair
treatment and have access to the services they need in order to receive a high-
quality education.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
21
Implementation: The translating of an idea into action in order to
accomplish the specified goal.
Innovation: A plan whose goal is to improve instruction through changing
what currently exists.
Instructional improvement: A change in the structures or opportunities
that enables quality teaching that results in improved learning (Gilbert et. al.,
2003).
Instructional leadership: An influence that guides the activities that impart
knowledge or skills to students.
Professional development: Opportunities for staff to develop new
knowledge and skills that will improve their teaching ability.
4
Reform: A change effort that is undertaken to improve instruction.
Sanctions: The consequences imposed for not meeting expected
performance outcomes in some accountability systems.
Stakeholder: Any person with interest in operation and outcomes of the
specific educational system, including administrators, teachers, parents, students,
and corhmunity members.
Standardized test: Assessment that is administered and scored in exactly
the same way for all students that are designed to measure specific skills and
knowledge.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
22
Standards-based accountability: The assessment of subject-
matter benchmarks to determine student achievement that are not only publicly
reported but also used to guide instruction.
Standards-based reform: The change to an educational system that utilizes
subject-matter benchmarks to measure student achievement
Systemic reform: Change that occurs in all aspects and levels of the
educational process and that impacts all stakeholders with implications for all
components, including curriculum, assessment, professional development,
instruction, and budgeting.
Teaching and learning: The eventual goal of instructional improvement
efforts is the improvement of student learning; however, in this study this
outcome is assumed as the result of good instruction. Therefore, although learning
outcomes are not specified, they are implied within the concept of instructional
improvement.
Organization of the Study
Chapter One contains a summary of the foundation for and importance of
conducting a study that looks at the elements of a district’s plan for instructional
improvement. In Chapter Two, a review of the current literature surrounding
instructional improvement design is presented. In Chapter Three, a description of
the methodology used for this study is discussed along with the rationale for the
sample, data collection techniques and data analysis. Presentation and analysis of
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
the findings by research question are included in Chapter Four. Chapter
Five, the final chapter, is a summary of the findings of this study, with
conclusions based on the findings and implications for future research.
References and appendices may be found at the end of this study.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
24
CHAPTER TWO
Review of Literature
Despite the efforts of schools and districts across the nation to raise the
level of education, student performance in the United States still remains a
problem. Efforts to close the achievement gap between Caucasian and minority
students and those students from economically disadvantaged homes have not
yielded the results expected, even though state and federal dollars have been
directed at schools where the gap is most evident. As a result of continuing
research, the focus has shifted away from teacher management and isolated skills
to student performance data as a means for improving instruction.
The standards-based reform movement, which began shortly after the
publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, has gained momentum through the
passage of various federal legislative measures, most notably Goals 2000 and No
Child Left Behind. Even though past systemic reform efforts have failed, the
establishment of grade level content standards, the alignment of assessments to
those standards, and accountability provisions for districts and schools have led
educators and researchers on a quest for the best methods for improving teaching
and learning.
The district’s role in improving student achievement has never been more
important than it is at this time. Past practices such as decentralization have given
way to a more centralized, focused approach to improving student achievement.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
25
Districts are now trying to connect with school and individual
classrooms by providing professional development for teachers and site
administrators, ensuring that instructional materials are aligned with content
standards, and celebrating student achievement gains on local, state, and national
performance measures.
Determining a design for instructional improvement that is accepted and
supported by all is a critical component for districts to consider. Districts who
have implemented systemic reform may approach the task differently but
ultimately gauge their success on student achievement. While the results of
standards-based reform may not be immediate, the insights provided by the
experience of these districts are invaluable to those districts trying to create a
workable plan.
Status of Student Performance
Historical Trends
The current status of student performance in the United States indicates a
continuing need for educators, legislators, and the nation at-large to stay focused
on education. Research and statistical examinations of the nation’s schools have
been in place since the development of the Department of Education DOE in 1867
(Vinovskis, 1996). The main role of the DOE was the collection and
dissemination of data related to student achievement. The publication of A Nation
at Risk in 1983 by the National Commission on Excellence in Education was a
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
26
pivotal movement in the educational history of the United States.
Reportedly, the commission felt that the future of the nation was being eroded by
a “rising tide of mediocrity,” and that passivity had overtaken the nation with
respect to our expectations for what students should be learning (NCCE, 1983).
This report also expressed concern for how the United States could continue to
ensure its citizenry a competitive place in a global marketplace.
The analysis of student performance measures cited in A Nation at Risk
also established that the current system of education was inequitable. The report
claims that while about 13 percent of seventeen year-olds are functionally
illiterate, the numbers climb to 40 percent for minority youth.
Researchers have challenged the legitimacy of the findings, in particular
questioning the statistics used for the report (Biddle and Berliner, 1995; Goodlad,
1997). Critics pointed out that the measures selected to gauge student progress
against foreign powers were simply inequitable. Others have asserted that the
report was nothing more than a political move to increase federal involvement in
schooling, which previously was a state and local responsibility (Elmore, 1997).
There is consensus, however, that this report has provided the impetus for
the comprehensive school reform efforts of the past twenty years. Further, it
attempted to present a means for evaluating and predicting the relative strength of
future Americans against foreign competition. According to the NCES (2004),
two goals of international comparative studies are to evaluate the level of
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
27
performance of students in different countries, and to attempt to
determine a reason for any performance differences. The process of international
and national comparison continues today through a variety of governmental and
educational research agencies.
The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and
the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat are the largest
and most comprehensive international comparative analyses of mathematics and
science achievement, as well as teaching practices. Since 1959 the International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement has been conducting
TIMSS and other comparative studies for educators, policy makers, and
researchers. TIMSS was originally administered in 1995 and included students
from 41 countries across five grade levels. Comparison data was gathered from
U.S. students in grades four, eight and twelve (NCES, 1998).
United States fourth grade students in 1995 performed above the TIMSS
average in mathematics and placed 7th out of the 26 nations participating. In
science, fourth graders performed above average and were outscored only by
Korea. In contrast, students in eighth grade scored below the TIMSS average in
mathematics with 20 of the 27 nations posting higher average scores. Eighth
grade students scored slightly above the TIMSS average in science with seven
countries posting higher scores. Students in grade twelve performed well below
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
28
the TIMSS average in all administered tests: math, science, general
knowledge, advanced math, and physics.
A more detailed analysis of the top TIMSS scores showed in math that
American fourth graders scored in the top ten percent only nine percent of the
time, American eighth graders five percent, and twelfth graders near the bottom of
the cohort in nearly all of the subtests (Center for Education Reform, 1998).
Overall, the 1995 TIMSS report demonstrates that as students go through the
educational system, their ability to keep pace with their foreign peers seems to
fade, particularly in math.
In 1999 data from the TIMMS-R was released and provided additional
international comparative data for eighth grade students in 23 countries who
participated in both the 1995 and the 1999 assessment (NCES, 2001). This
provided an opportunity to compare scores for the same group of fourth graders in
1995, which had now progressed to 8th grade. Unfortunately, there was no change
in U.S. students’ achievement overall in either mathematics or science. Breaking
the scores down by ethnic group also revealed no change for Caucasian or
Hispanic students in either math or science. African-American students showed
no growth in science, but did show an increase in math achievement between
1995 and 1999. Finally, the mathematics and science performance of the United
States compared to other nations was lower for eighth graders in 1999 than it was
for fourth graders four years earlier (NCES, 2001).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
29
Since 1969 The National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) has been the source for the national administration and collection of
student performance data. Also known as “the Nation’s Report Card,” NAEP
examinations are conducted in participating states across the country in reading,
mathematics, science, writing, American history, civics, geography, and the arts
(NCES, 2004). While all states are eligible to participate, those schools that
receive federal Title I funding are of special interest because students receive
supplemental support so that they can conceivably perform better on standardized
measures.
The Commissioner of Educational Statistics is in charge of the National
Center of Educational Statistics, part of the United States Department of
Education, and is responsible by federal mandate for NAEP. Independent of the
Department of Education but appointed by the Secretary of Education is the
National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), who sets policy for and oversees
the framework and test specifications for NAEP (NCES, 2004). NAGB also
determines proficiency levels for students and uses a scale of basic, proficient and
advanced when reporting scores. In general, students who score at the proficient
level are considered to have demonstrated competency in the subject matter area.
Assessment results are collected every two years regarding content area
knowledge, instructional experiences, and school environments and are then
reported based on a sample of the populations of interest. NAEP is designed to
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
30
provide state leaders with comparative data and therefore does not
provide individual student or school data. Long-term trend assessments in
reading, writing, mathematics and science are designed to give information on
changes in basic achievement. To increase the validity of the results, the long
term trend instruments have largely maintained the same objectives, and in most
cases the same test booklets were used to administer the test (Grissmer, Flanagan,
Kawata, & Williamson, 2000).
Patterns o f Student Sub-groups
In 2000 NAEP published Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of
Student Performance acknowledging that the educational pendulum had been at
work from the 1980s “back to basics” movement to the 1990s call for “high
expectations for all students” (NCES, 2000). Scores were generalized for
students aged nine, thirteen and seventeen. Their broad findings were that
students in mathematics and science displayed their lowest scores in the 1970s,
followed by steady gains in the 1980s, and have remained somewhat stable since
the 1990s. The trends in reading, however, have delivered only modest gains over
the past thirty years (NCES, 2001).
Further analysis showed that the 1999 reading scores for students in all
reading groups had improved since 1971. However, the increase was realized for
nine- and thirteen-year-olds mainly in the 1970s. Since that time scores have
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
remained stagnant. Seventeen-year-olds realized gains between 1984
and 1992, but these gains were not considered statistically significant.
In mathematics, scores for all three groups showed steady improvement
over time with the most dramatic changes occurring in the 1980s. Thirteen-year-
olds showed growth in the 1980s and 1990s, while the nine- and seventeen-year-
olds showed the most growth in the 1980s and made only modest gains in the
1990s.
Science scores for students showed more fluctuation than in reading and
mathematics. All three age groups demonstrated a drop in performance in the
period of the 1970s. While all groups showed some growth over the next two
decades, only the nine-year-olds showed achievement gains over the thirty-year
period.
The NAEP report also analyzes student achievement trends by ethnic
background: Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic. Caucasian students age
nine and thirteen showed the greatest gains in reading, while African-American
and Hispanic students showed growth over all three age groups. The
performance gap between Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic students in
reading gives cause for concern. Between Caucasian and African-American
students, the gap narrowed between 1971 and 1999 until 1988 when the gap
began to widen again for thirteen- and seventeen-year-olds. Changes in the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
32
performance gap for Caucasian and Hispanic youth narrowed at age
seventeen only (NCES, 2000, 2001).
Mathematics scores for all three ethnic groups showed achievement gains
across all three grade ranges. Comparatively, Caucasian students showed higher
average mathematics scores, while the gap between Caucasian-African-American
and Caucasian-Hispanic sub-groups narrowed between 1971 and 1999, except in
1982 where the gap between Caucasian and Hispanic nine-year-olds increased.
While the overall picture presented by NAEP is one of improving student
achievement, some critics have challenged the results. RAND, a non-profit
organization that seeks to improve policy and decision-making through research
and analysis, questions the usefulness of NAEP data to state education agencies
trying to improve student achievement. Their 2000 study analyzed NAEP tests
administered to over 44 states between 1990 and 1996. RAND admits that
reforms of the 1990s in some states seem to be working, and the inconsistency of
state performance scores could be a reflection of the reform methods that those
states have implemented, but RAND expressed concern that too few tests were
administered to too few students for the findings to be considered significant
(Grissmer, et. al, 2000; USDE, 2002).
Published reports on the condition of education among students in the
United States based on TIMSS, TIMSS-R, and NAEP indicate a need to focus on
what students are learning, the way in which they are being taught and the climate
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
33
of the school (USDE, 2002). Some argue that comparative assessments
are inherently unfair in a society that believes in providing education to all
students such as in the United States and indicates that our top students do well
when compared with their international peers (NCES, 2000). However, the
achievement gaps between subgroups appear to be growing, and further
examination of the factors that affect student performance is necessary so that all
students may learn and achieve at high levels.
Factors that Affect Student Performance
Researchers have suggested that a link exists between home environment
and student performance (Whitmire, 1997; Maylone, 2002; Grissmer, et.al, 2000).
In addition to home environment, socioeconomic levels, and a lack of resources,
performance of students from low-income areas, particularly African-American
and Hispanic sub-groups, are often considered responsible for the lackluster
achievement scores reported by NAEP, TIMSS and others (Center for Education
Reform, 1998).
Maylone (2002) found that a student living in poverty and from a single
parent home places a child at greater risk of not succeeding in school. Students
from minority homes who live in urban cities often lack the exposure to events
that may enhance their ability to be successful in school. Further, the likelihood
increases when students from urban areas also come from a single-parent home.
Frequently this situation does not allow for parent and child to spend time reading
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
34
together, nor does it lead to the modeling and learning generally
associated with students from two-parent families. Many of today’s students in
low socioeconomic areas are simply expected to perform poorly in school.
Another predictor of academic success is whether or not a child attends
preschool. Academically focused preschools are on the rise in the United States.
Students who attend preschool consistently outperform those who do not attend
(Whitmire, 1997). However, accessibility by children from low-income, poverty
areas remains a critical problem. Affordability and accessibility of preschool
programs for all Americans continues to be a social issue.
Schools often decry that they should not be expected to teach when
students come to them with all of the excess baggage that is attributed to these
external factors. Additionally, the external factors that educators face today are
not addressed or provided for in education policy (Ferguson, 1998). While this is
true, raising student achievement remains a national concern and local schools
and districts are the ones held ultimately responsible for students’ success or
failure. Darling-Hammond (1999), Hirsch, Koppich, and Knapp (2001) and
others suggest that the key to improved student performance is quality instruction.
Instruction as a Key to Improving Learning
Linda Darling-Hammond (1999) calls for a shift in perspective from a
deficit model, which places the problem of poor achievement solely with the
child, to one that acknowledges that classroom and school practices may be a
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
35
contributing factor to a student’s lack of achievement. Factors such as
teacher quality, professional development, scheduling, and class size all have a
significant impact on a child’s education and are within the scope of the district
plan to improve student achievement (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003; NCES,
2000). Efforts to improve student achievement, however, still need to be focused
within the classroom in such areas as teacher quality and practices (Stigler &
Hiebert, 1999).
Data that included a video of classroom practices in Japan, Germany and
the United States were analyzed as part of the TIMSS report to determine if
significant differences with respect to the delivery of instruction exist between the
countries (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999; NCES, 2001, 2003). It was established that
the curriculum content was largely the same between the countries, but indeed the
methods for teaching were very different. Teachers in Japan and Germany
covered fewer concepts in a typical lesson, and developed those concepts for
students with real-life application of problems and ample time for students to
think and construct meaning about the lesson. In contrast, in the United States,
teachers covered multiple topics and provided minimal time for students to
understand any one concept. Instructional strategies differed as well, with Japan
placing an emphasis on developing student thinking and understanding concepts
over learning skills. American teachers stressed student skill development and
deemphasized the conceptual understanding of individual problems. German
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
36
students received an equal balance of skill development and conceptual
understanding.
The results of TIMSS, NAEP, and other assessments stressed teacher
quality and effectiveness as a key to instructional improvement. The inherent
differences in teaching strategies as revealed in the TIMSS video study caused
educational leaders to reflect on traditional practices and consider that it might be
time for a change.
Shifting the View o f Instructional Improvement
The more we know and understand about teachers, schools, and students,
the more we come to realize that good information about teacher quality can be
leveraged to improve almost every important aspect of our education system
(Carey, Hall & Weiner, 2003; Carey, 2004). The context for change, influenced
by attempts to improve instruction, came about slowly and although mistakes
were undoubtedly made along the way, successful elements have provided the
basis for change today.
Chapter I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965 was the federal government’s pledge to children from economically
disadvantaged homes to provide them with a quality education. Qualifying
schools received federal dollars to provide supplementary resources to schools
with students from low-income homes (Wong & Meyer 1998; Hill, 1993).
Criticism of Chapter I programs (now known as Title I) has been focused on the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
37
inability of programs to challenge students to higher levels of
achievement. Initial support to students was provided through classroom pull-out
programs, or through the use of instructional aides (USDE, 1999).
Reauthorization of Title I every four years helps to focus educators on creating
appropriate programs for students while maintaining high expectations for all
students. In addition, Title I created a platform for instructional improvement
focused on the students who seemingly needed it most (Hill, 1993; USDE, 1999).
Training for teachers has been widely supported through Title I funding as a
means of creating an equitable instructional environment for all students.
Early attempts to improve teaching have not been sustained because they
were designed on a deficit model which assumes that the district, school and/or
teacher was either not doing something that should be done for effective teaching
and successful learning to occur, or that what was being done was simply wrong.
This thought was confirmed by the 1950s and 1960s research of the National
Science Foundation. Teacher professional development was not successfully
connected to improving student performance, and educators were seen as
consumers of reform who needed retraining, rather than as partners in the
curriculum reform effort (CPRE, 1993).
Another focus explored in California was the issue of teacher quality. The
Stull Act of 1971 mandated that school districts create a system of evaluation for
teachers based on student achievement. The Stull Act provided one of the first
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
38
accountability measures for teachers. Evaluation efforts helped to
legitimize teaching with the idea that student achievement would improve with
the increased attention on effective instructional strategies.
Additional accountability measures grew rapidly after A Nation at Risk,
which found four critical aspects of the educational process that needed to be
addressed: content, expectations, time and teaching (NCEE, 1983). Federal
legislative leaders began to campaign vigorously for the reform of the nation’s
schools so that students in the U.S. are better prepared. In the years that followed,
a flurry of educational reform measures were bom. Most recently the greatest
impact has been the advent of the standards reform era. The National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) responded in 1989 with the publication of
mathematics standards which marked the beginning of the establishment of
standards for all content areas (Binggeli, 2001; CPRE, 1993; Kraft, 2001).
The standards-based reform movement, coupled with high-stakes
accountability measures, provides the control that the government sought to level
the playing field for all students, regardless of race or socioeconomic background.
In response to federal legislative mandates, states developed minimum
competence standards for each content area. To support instruction, textbook
adoption procedures were put in place ensuring that materials used in classrooms
are in alignment with state expectations. Testing procedures were also aligned
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
39
with the standards, providing measurable gauges of student progress
towards meeting the standards.
In 1989, President George H.W. Bush proposed an Education Summit to
unite the country around the need to improve education through the development
of high standards. This summit was successful in garnering bipartisan support
and established a new focus for the nation, leading to the formation of future
federal education initiatives such as the National Education Goals and Goals
2000, the latter of which was enacted in 1994 (Austin, 1996; Elmore & Fuhrman,
2001; Kraft, 2001; Reigluth, 2004). But in 1994, the National Commission on
*
Teaching and America’s Future challenged the singular notion that creating
educational standards was the panacea to all of the problems in education. Instead
they provided an action agenda for meeting the academic challenges facing the
nation and made the connection between student achievement and the need for
teachers who were knowledgeable, skillful and committed to meeting the needs of
all students (Kraft, 2001). The underlying basis was that regardless of the
national standards, goals, and testing, without good teachers and a focus on what
happens inside the classroom, education reform was bound to fail (Biddle &
Berliner, 2002; Black & William, 1998)
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
40
The Need for Good Instruction
A Shift in Philosophy
Historically, instructional improvement was grounded in behaviorist
learning theory and had been the prevalent force in classroom management,
teaching strategies, and the professional development of the past century.
Behaviorists in education believed that learning is absolute and a measure of the
natural-born intelligence that a student brings to the learning environment. Past
professional development attempts consisted of teachers attending workshops and
seminars that largely focused on the teaching of basic teaching skills (Sykes,
1999). Generic methods of classroom organization and instruction such as, the
Madeline Hunter format for lesson planning and Fred Jones classroom
management plans, were taught in isolation and were not presented as integrated
concepts with the content (Sykes, 1999). Behaviorist classrooms encouraged the
learning of rote skills and embraced a system for reinforcing behavior (Mayer
1998; Rehyner, 2003). As the TIMSS video study demonstrated, American
lessons were less comprehensive and lacked coherence, while the Japanese
lessons appeared purposefully planned to build on concepts (Stigler & Hiebert,
1999). Good instruction up to this point was viewed as the ability of the teacher
to manage the classroom and provide students with the skills to be successful.
Further, Mazzeo (2001) points out that behaviorist classrooms focused educators
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
41
on student deficits rather than strengths and led to the minimum
competency exams that are scrutinized today.
As a result of international and national comparison studies (i. e. TIMMS,
NAEP), educators began to develop a new view of teaching and learning whose
origins were traced to a new theory of learning — constructivism. Vygotsky (in
Woolfook, 2001), one of the leading social psychologists, believed that everyone
has the capacity to gain knowledge with the help of a teacher as a guide to help
scaffold learning. In other words, intelligence can be taught (Resnick, 1999). In
contrast with behaviorism, constructivists assert that as the student becomes
involved with learning, they begin to construct meaning and are able to make
connections with previously learned knowledge (Reyhner, 2003).
Changes in American education have been influenced by constructivism,
and a prerequisite of good instruction is creating an environment where the
teacher believes that all students can learn. Learning, therefore, comes from
shifting our collective attention to the “educational core” - the classroom
(Elmore, Peterson, & McCarthy, 1996). Fullan (1996) discusses the importance
of “reculturing” schools toward a new image of teaching. Grounded in the
constructivist theory, teachers and schools seek to create an environment where
the predominant feeling is that education is possible for everyone. With this idea
in place, teachers accept the challenge and ensure that all students learn.
Constructivist teachers are responsive to individual needs and build on the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
42
strengths of students to reduce any deficits they may have (Garcia,
1999). Classrooms and instruction are flexible in this design and allow for
adjustments based on individual and group needs (Bunting 1999; Reilly, 2000).
Standards-Based Reform
Standards-based reform (SBR) efforts differ from previous attempts to
improve instruction but reflect the theoretical underpinnings of constructivism.
Three interrelated concepts guide SBR: high expectations for students, a focus on
results, and teaching as a collaborative effort.
Resnick and Hall (1998, 2000) developed the effort-based learning model
that suggests that all students can meet high standards when instruction is focused
on student goals and has a structure that promotes ongoing learning. Good
instruction under this model is scaffolded for the learner in a manner that allows
students to make the connection between prior learning and new concepts.
Metacognition, defined as one’s ability to know the factors that influence one’s
thinking, is a key to developing the strategies that make students successful.
Whereas old models of instruction provided skill development, SBR seeks to
extend students’ thinking ability so they may conceptualize for themselves ideas
that they are learning (Cordes, 2001; Resnick, 1999).
Successful SBR efforts are directly linked to student results. Reformers
have learned that quick-fix solutions that focus on only one aspect of learning
provide only temporary solutions at best and have little impact on student
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
43
achievement (DuFour, 1997; Elmore, et.al., 1996; Resnick, 1999, Tyack
and Cuban, 1995). Even with mathematics standards in place as of 1989, students
have been unable to make the significant gains expected as reported in the 1999
TIMSS-R study. This data stressed the importance of developing not only
standards for learning but also researching strategies that would be best used to
teach the content.
Frameworks for learning are offered to support schools and districts in
classroom-based reform by organizations such as the Institute of Learning, Action
Learning, and the Coalition of Essential Schools among others (CPRE, 1997;
Resnick, 1999). Common themes emerge in these frameworks, with links to
constructivist theory and organizational change. A focus on standards-based
instruction, alignment of curriculum, high expectations, and creating opportunities
for all students serves as a guideline for the development of personalized district
and school reform goals.
Collaborative models of learning for teachers are another critical
component of SBR (DuFour, 1997; Elmore, et.al. 1996; Fullan, 1993; Schmoker
& Wilson, 1993). Creating an environment where teachers work in concert with
one another, dialoguing and problem-solving issues of curriculum and instruction,
is also grounded in constructivism. Teachers need to be committed to the idea of
life-long learning, not only to serve as models for students, but also to stay abreast
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
44
of new instructional strategies (DuFour, 1997; Joyce & Showers, 2002;
Richardson, 1998; Sparks, 1998).
The Wisconsin Center for Educational Research in 1996 investigated the
use of Cognitive-Guided Instruction (CGI) as one model of collaboration for
teaching mathematics to primary grade students. Combined with high standards
and expectations for students, CGI has a professional development component for
teachers that helps them learn how to teach math concepts by observing how
students approach learning. Teachers attend the training in teams and are taught
how to provide feedback to one another about instructional methodology
(Brendefur & Foster, 2000). CGI accomplishes all three goals of SBR: instruction
based on student results, multiple opportunities for students to participate in
metacognitive activity, and teachers working collaboratively to plan and design
instruction that supports student achievement.
SBR has shifted the view of instructional improvement by providing
school districts and classroom teachers with a blueprint for consistency of
curriculum, instruction and assessment. Having the standards in place,
purchasing the books that have lessons aligned with the standards and then testing
to determine student growth based on these standards provides a basis for teacher
buy-in. Another challenge of this new context for instructional improvement is
the timing or pacing of implementation, i.e. initiating all components at once
versus a more staggered approach.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
45
Role of School Districts in Instructional Improvement
The Need fo r Systemic Change
Standards-based reform efforts do not start and end in the classroom.
Support structures at the district and school level need to be in place as well. In
typical American school districts, instruction and learning are not the common
focus of district activity outside of the classroom (Resnick & Hall, 1998; Elmore,
2003). The district role in administering reform has been somewhat compromised
by tighter state control that seems to bypass district level administration and focus
directly on schools. Further, Elmore (2003) cited one research study that found
on a typical day, the district office focused less than 9% of the time on the schools
and less than 3% on curriculum. This statistic provides a compelling argument
for exploring the relationship between district policy and school practices.
There is a clear call for district leaders to sharpen their focus on
instructional practice so that the day-to-day operations of the district center on
teaching and learning (Resnick, et.al., 1998). Fullan (1998) agrees, but cautions
that there is no silver bullet for changing organizational structures. Instead, he
suggests that district leaders become involved with reform by becoming learners
themselves. To “penetrate the educational core” as Resnick (1998) states, district
leaders are needed to provide structure and organization to the process.
SBR has provided an opportunity for more district involvement at the site
level. Schlechty (2002), CEO of the Center for Leadership in School Reform,
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
46
states that while change can occur at the classroom level, it cannot be
sustained without support from the community-at-large. District leaders are in a
unique position to help schools and teachers manage the multiple mandates sent
from the state level, particularly in an age of standards, assessment and
accountability. Additionally, they can help provide the structure and resources to
manage standards-based reform efforts.
A final argument for encouraging the district’s role in SBR is presented by
Stigler & Hiebert, (1999):
It is clear that the district is the unit that can restructure most successfully.
Districts are generally small enough so that it should be possible to
achieve consensus on students’ learning goals and to implement a
common curriculum. At the same time, the district level is large enough to
allow substantial restructuring in terms of funding and staffing allocation.
The district also is the level in which superintendents and school boards
can exert strong leadership. Finally, restructuring should be done at the
district level because a district-wide program provides teachers with a
critical but often overlooked opportunity to enlarge their horizons beyond
their own classrooms and their own schools.
Increased attention by media organizations has placed education and
schools on the forefront of various political agendas. The Consortium for Policy
Research in Education (1993) acknowledges that reform efforts are operating in a
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
47
more politically charged environment. District leaders can help
mitigate the potential negative effects of such attention by creating a design that is
focused on a common vision for student achievement.
District Design Elements
The district design for instructional improvement involves making
decisions about curriculum, instruction and the allocation of resources to support
the plan. An added feature of standards-based instructional design has been a
reliance on research-proven methods for instructional improvement. Since the
beginning of the standards-based reform movement, districts have grappled with a
number of different strategies to improve instruction: district driven, site-based,
and collaborative.
The centralized top-down approach to improving instruction is typified by
the hiring of outside consultants to support district-wide initiatives. Common
themes focus on developing the capacity of personnel, the allocation of financial
resources, aligning curriculum and assessment measures to content standards, data
analysis, and improving community relations (Corcoran, 2003; Regional
Educational Laboratory Network, 2000). While centralized structures tend to
carry negative connotations in some educational circles, they can be useful in the
design of instructional improvement, particularly on the front-end of the design so
that support structures can be put in place to support systemic change.
Maintaining support and generating ideas from classroom teachers can assist with
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
48
the successful implementation of the centralized approach because it
creates a bridge to the operational level of the organization (Marsh, 2004).
Site-based efforts to improve instruction have been tailored to the
particular schools implementing them. Typically, school leadership teams have
focused on a program that will benefit a specific site goal. When these programs
are successful, they often receive a lot of attention and are then attempted by other
sites seeking to better their own school (Datnow, 2000). While on the surface this
makes sense, i.e., addressing issues that are pertinent to a specific population, for
large school districts, it can become problematic with sites operating
independently. To avoid conflicts, districts that elect to support site decision
making usually provide structure considered politically safe so that schools can
proceed with their individual reforms under certain guidelines (Hannaway, 1993).
Spillane (1996) conducted case studies on the effects of decentralization in the
Chicago Public Schools reported an initial failure to produce significant gains
when control had shifted to a school-community council. It was not until the
district had reasserted its role in capacity building, accountability and support that
improvements in learning began to emerge on a large scale (Anderson, 2003).
Collaborative approaches, on the other hand, tend to focus on a
convergence model where a blend of district-driven and site-based efforts prevail.
Teachers, site administrators, and district personnel come together to determine a
district vision and create a model for continuous improvement. The development
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
49
of Professional Learning Communities is one strategy which encourages
the development of a focused approach to instructional improvement (DuFour &
Eaker 1998). Under this model, an organizational structure is designed that
supports and focuses on holding all students to high standards, with a
simultaneous requirement for district and school site staff accountability. Under
the direction of Superintendent Carl Cohn, Long Beach schools focuses on three
central pillars of support to help principals and teachers improve: create
benchmark standards, build capacity through targeted professional development,
and focus on results (Datnow & Cohn, 2004). The Long Beach design was
formulated using the convergence model. While the district held the big picture
of where it needed to go, the teachers played a pivotal role in determining
appropriate benchmark measures and a recognition system for individual school
sites that were having success. Cohn (2004), states that working with teachers
helped provide legitimacy to the district-wide effort.
Factors that Influence District Design Development
Challenges for the district in the collaborative approach are measured by
the extent to which financing, policy, management, content and conduct are
aligned. Each of these elements must be kept in balance to prevent an over
reliance on any one area to fix the difficulties that might arise (Anderson, Brown,
& Lopez-Ferrao, 2003). The impact of district efforts on instructional
improvement might be studied at the school and classroom level by examining the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
50
support given to the classroom teacher. The purchase of materials and
offering staff development that helps them analyze their practices and meet the
new challenges of SBR is an example of district support.
While it is clear that reform strategies are as individual as the districts that
implement them, there must be a way to measure design effectiveness so that
continual improvement can take place. Hightower, Knapp, Marsh, & McLaughlin
(2002) present five design principles that have been found effective in the
identification of high performing urban school districts. They include:
1. A commitment to an effort-based concept o f intelligence and
education. Utilizing the Resnick and Hall (1998) model there is a
pervasive belief among district staff that all children can learn to
high levels.
2. A focus on classroom instruction throughout the district. High
performing districts are focused on instruction at all levels of the
organization for the majority of the day.
3. A culture emphasizing continuous learning and two-way
accountability - the core elements o f nested learning communities
— throughout the system. Schools should become places for
learning for all teachers, students, and educational leaders.
4. Continuing professional development fo r all staff based in schools
and linked to the instructional program for students. Particularly
in urban environments, educating the full range of students
requires that staff be exposed to new ways of teaching.
5. Coherence in standards, curriculum, assessment, and professional
development. Systems and processes should exist throughout the
district that support and encourage both vertical and horizontal
alignment based on state standards.
Current District Methods for Instructional Improvement
Districts that have implemented a plan that provides for instructional
improvement serve as exemplars nationwide. A common theme for reforming
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
51
districts is a systems focus on instruction (McLaughlin & Talbert,
2003). Datnow (2004) concurs and indicates that effective school districts have a
synergy about them. Characterized by a the development and adoption of district-
wide curricula, approaches to instruction, and the alignment of curriculum,
successful school districts embrace a culture committed to continuous
improvement and focus on the quality of instruction that promotes student
achievement (Datnow & Cohn, 2004).
Two districts that have received public attention for their reform efforts
include San Diego City Schools, which implemented the Blueprint for Student
Success in a Standards-Based System, an intensive district-driven plan for the
improvement of classroom instruction focused on teacher practice and student
learning; and Philadelphia’s Children Achieving design, which focused on
downsizing centralized bureaucracy and allowing schools more autonomy to
make decisions.
San Diego City Schools
With an estimated student population of 140,000, San Diego City Schools
(SDCS) is the second largest school district in California and closely reflects its
ethnic diversity. Approximately one-third of the students are Latino, one-quarter
Caucasian, and one-fifth African-American, the remainder a blend of Asian and
other ethnicities. Nearly 60% of the students qualify for the federal free or
reduced-lunch program, and 31 of the 185 schools have such a high percentage of
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
52
eligible students that they qualified for school-wide Title I funding. An
additional 126 schools qualify under Title I targeted assistance regulations. Thirty
percent of students are English Language Learners, while more than 64% report a
language other than English is the primary language in student homes (Darling-
Hammond, Hightower, Husband, LaFors, Young, 2002; USDE, 2004). SDCS
includes 185 schools and employs over 7,000 teachers, most of whom are fully
credentialed.
San Diego has been working to close the achievement gap with an
instructional improvement design aimed at improving academic performance.
District-wide results have been encouraging with academic gains evident across
the district and all subgroups (USDE, 2004). The most celebrated growth rates,
however, have been in the Hispanic, African American, and socioeconomically
disadvantaged student subgroups, which have made greater gains district-wide
than any other group. The success of the SDCS has been attributed to the
Blueprint fo r Success in a Standards-based System, a comprehensive reform
implemented in the summer of 1998.
The San Diego reform provides a case of district leadership that prioritized
high-quality instruction and professional learning through a forceful district-led
agenda that has turned upside-down many traditional notions of the relationship
between bureaucracy and innovation (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002).
According to district leaders, the vision for the design was to create an
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
53
institutional focus on instruction that would put into place the
leadership, staff development, assessment, and curricular supports necessary to
increase student achievement (Alvarado in Darling-Hammond, et.al., 2002).
Two principles grounded in educational and institutional research were identified
to drive both design and implementation. These included a theory of instruction
and a theory of change.
By developing a theory of instruction, district leaders were able to set
goals and performance standards aimed at challenging students to higher levels of
achievement. Once goals and standards were in place, it forced district leaders to
look at instruction and develop a plan to increase professional knowledge and
skill not only for teachers, but for principals and other staff members as well.
Statistics from an NCES 2002 report showed that teachers in San Diego attended
more professional development activities than teachers nationwide.
Recognizing that an important link in the process is the school principal,
an emphasis on instruction had important new meaning for school principals.
Training in instructional leadership was conducted to assist site leaders with the
implementation of new district mandates. Observations and surveys following
implementation of the design indicate that as a result of the training, principals
were spending less time dealing with administrative tasks and more time in
instructional leadership activities.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
54
In an effort to institutionalize the changes occurring in San
Diego, district leaders elected to follow a process that was highly directive,
forcing implementation to occur in an expedited fashion and to ensure fidelity of
the instructional theory over opportunities for soliciting input (Darling-Hammond,
et. al., 2002). District leadership expected some measure of dissension regarding
the manner with which the Blueprint was implemented, but stood firm in their
belief that the system was in need of a “jolt” to abolish preexisting structures,
cultures, and norms that would detract from new reform supports taking hold.
In order to make this instructional design plan effective, the district
defined their role as one of creating the structures that would allow for the
changes to take place. For example, because the district was going to
systematically prioritize instruction, a new model for the acquisition and
distribution of funds was aligned with the district’s strategies for improving
teaching and learning. The goal was to focus on improving the core technology
of the schools, the quality of teaching and to invest in high-functioning
classrooms rather than peripheral programs. School site budgets were
substantially decreased and the district took charge of the fund allocation to
ensure that monies were only spent on those district-identified instructional
priorities.
Under the direction of the American Institutes for Research, a study was
conducted evaluating the Blueprint for Student Success in San Diego City
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
55
Schools. The study included collecting student achievement data
consisting of state and local assessments, and implementation data including
surveys, observations and interviews with teachers and principals. Student
achievement on state assessment data was collected over a four-year period and
then a comparison was made with state-wide school performance. At the
elementary level, data indicate that student reading scores grew at or above the
rates seen in other schools. Math scores at the elementary level also grew, but did
not match the growth rate of other schools. At the middle school level, student
data revealed a pattern of keeping pace with students across the state in both
reading and math. Finally, in high schools the data was less consistent over the
five-year period, with some growth in math and little growth in reading as
compared to other schools across the state.
Philadelphia School District
The Philadelphia School District is an urban district with the responsibility
of providing an education to over 200,000 students, most of whom live in
poverty-stricken neighborhoods. Approximately two-thirds of the students are of
African American descent, 15% of students are Caucasian and 15% Hispanic,
with the remaining being a blend of Asian, Native American and other. There are
276 schools within the district, which are divided into nine local regional offices.
Over 11,000 classroom teachers work in the district, and up until 2001 were
required to live in the city as well. In 1994 Philadelphia was singled out in a
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
56
published report entitled “District in Distress” that outlined the
inadequacies of the school system: less than half of the students entering high
school graduated in four years, students in only 15 of the 171 elementary schools
scored at or above average on national assessments, test scores were highly
correlated with poverty levels, and Philadelphia had the lowest per-pupil funding
in that area (Christman & Corcoran, 2002).
A new district superintendent was hired shortly after the report to
implement a new theory of action designed to improve student performance.
Additionally, Philadelphia was the recipient of a $50 million dollar grant from the
Annenberg Challenge which was matched by local foundations and corporations
with an additional $100 million to speed the movement of educational reform.
Children Achieving was the name given to the Philadelphia reform initiative.
The superintendent developed a 10-point plan outlining the steps the
district would take to get all students to achieve at or above the standards in
twelve years:
Philadelphia 10-point plan
1. Set high expectations for all students.
2. Set standards to measure the results.
3. Shrink the centralized bureaucracy.
4. Provide intensive and sustained training to staff.
5. Make sure all students are healthy.
6. Provide students with community support.
7. Provide up-to-date technology.
8. Engage the public
9. Ensure adequate financial and other resources.
10. Be prepared to address all of these priorities together.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
57
i
Similar to the San Diego approach, Philadelphia district leaders met to
review and make changes to current policies to facilitate the implementation of a
this plan. Eventually this led to the eight strategies that shaped the Children
Achieving initiative:
• seek a fair state funding model to Philadelphia’s schools,
• set high standards for students,
• create an accountability system to assess/reward school
performance,
• move decision-making back to school sites,
• prepare teachers and administrators to understand, support and
implement the reforms,
• coordinate resources with social services,
• build parent and civic support, and
• address all of the elements at once.
The tenets of standards, accountability, decentralization, and staff
development were key features of the plan to improve teaching and learning in
Philadelphia schools.
District leaders initially provided school sites with some guidelines
regarding student expectations in terms of content standards developed by a team
of district and site leaders, teachers, parents and community members. True to the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
58
vision, district office leaders did not mandate particular methods or
materials, which had been past practice, but made some recommendations that
schools could choose. School sites, clustered in teams with the feeder high
schools, were then free to develop curriculum to meet those performance
standards.
Simultaneous to the development of performance standards was the
development of accountability measures that would be used to gauge success.
The Performance Responsibility Index (PRI) was created by Children Achieving
leaders to provide an indicator of performance. PRI included math, reading, and
science scores of students on the SAT-9, promotion rates of students from
elementary to middle school, proportion of ninth graders graduating in four-years,
and attendance rates for students and teachers. Operating every two years, the
PRI provided each school with a biennial performance target. Schools that met or
surpassed the PRI target and decreased the number of students at the lowest levels
in reading, math, or science received a reward (Foley, 2001).
It was the superintendent’s belief that the people closest to the action were
in the best position to make decisions regarding the resources they would need to
improve student achievement. Children Achieving created regional offices
surrounding one comprehensive high school and the feeder elementary and
middle schools. These offices were designed to improve responsiveness, build
community ties, and provide professional development to the schools.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
59
With the adoption of standards-based curriculum, instruction,
and assessment measures, it was important to provide teachers with the
professional development training to support the new measures. While early
offerings were considered superficial, summer content academies provided
teachers with more ongoing, in-depth opportunities to implement new teaching
strategies.
The Philadelphia model for improving student achievement was never
fully realized due to political and financial troubles that forced the resignation of
Superintendent Hombeck. Nevertheless, the model was extensively studied
because of its complete departure from centralization (Foley, 2001). Christman
and Corcoran (2002) found that strong school leaders who were focused on
instruction and provided for the elements of a professional learning community
helped create instructional improvements. Moreover, curriculum-based
professional development and a focus on student performance data, including a
review of student work, led to sustained gains in student achievement (p. 16).
Lessons Learned from San Diego and Philadelphia
The difference in approaches employed in San Diego and Philadelphia
have provided the educational community with information regarding best
practice for the implementation of change. It should be noted that the impact of
Children Achieving was not reported due to a change in leadership reportedly as a
result of political and financial difficulty.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
60
• While San Diego relied on a more top-down centralized
approach, Philadelphia chose to give autonomy to its schools. Both
approaches reportedly caused problems for teachers. Where San Diego
teachers felt left out of the process, Philadelphia staff members felt a lack
of direction. In response, district leaders once again began to assume
some control and provide some structure to help local schools adjust to the
implementation of a standards-based plan.
• The strength of the San Diego plan was that it provided a clear plan with
district support to assist with implementation. The Philadelphia plan
appeared to have more superficial support for the implementation. This
may be a result of the “do it all at once” theory proposed by the
superintendent.
• Staff development was a key component in both reform plans. Where San
Diego prepared a comprehensive plan for teachers, principals and staff,
Philadelphia focused primarily on teachers. School principals in San
Diego also received instructional leadership training, which likely would
have provided Philadelphia principals with some much needed support to
manage reforms.
• Both districts created a system for the allocation of funds to support the
implementation of the instructional design. This was an important step in
focusing everyone on the importance of creating a standards-based system.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
61
It was evident that while both plans were aggressive with respect
to creating an instructional system focused on student achievement, the San Diego
model provided a more stable structure required for implementation.
Philadelphia’s multi-faceted approach focused on improving student learning, but
was ineffective in implementation because it lacked the depth needed to help
everyone stay focused.
Conclusion
While student performance on achievement tests has not yielded the
change sought after A Nation at Risk, improvements have been made within the
last ten years that provide a measure of hope. Standards-based reform is proving
to be an effective tool in improving student performance through the
implementation of various research-proven strategies. Exemplary districts serve
as trailblazers for the nation’s schools, confirming the link between good
instruction and student achievement. Additionally, these districts demonstrate the
important role that districts can and should play in instructional improvement.
Summary
This chapter provided insight into the trends and history of educational
reform that have helped shape today’s district design for improved student
achievement. The importance of the district’s role in improving student
achievement through designing and implementing a plan for instructional
improvement was the basis of this chapter. The path that districts take with
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
62
respect to selecting and implementing a instructional design has some
common features that were represented in this literature review; however,
additional study is needed to confirm that today’s current reform measures are
adequately meeting the needs of all students across the country. This literature
review demonstrates the need to further investigate best practices with regard to
instructional improvement models in an effort to consistently and equitably
improve student achievement.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
63
CHAPTER THREE
Research Methodology
Introduction
This chapter outlines the design, sample, instrumentation, data collection
and data analysis for the study. The purpose of the study was to assess the
effectiveness of an instructional improvement strategy in a K-12 school district.
The elements of the design for improving teaching and learning in the classroom
and the extent of implementation were evaluated as viewed from the district office
perspective. One Southern California school district was selected to identify
design elements and then analyze the extent and effectiveness of implementation.
Five research questions provided the framework for the study:
1. What were the elements of the district’s design for improving
teaching/learning?
2. What were the factors that shaped the district design?
3. How did the district carry out the change strategy to implement the
design?
4. What was the extent of implementation of district design?
5. How effective was the district in implementing the reform effort?
Based on the purpose of the study, qualitative, descriptive-analytic case
study design research methods were used. These methods provide the researcher
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
64
with the opportunity to do an in-depth, objective study of one entity at
one point in time (Patton, 2002). Further he describes the case study as an
approach to collecting, organizing and analyzing data. A case study is not only
viewed as a process, but also as the product that appears after the process is
complete.
The strategy for the creation and selection of the data collection
instruments was influenced by conceptual frameworks created to identify the
design, effectiveness, and implementation of the instructional improvement
strategy. Following a case study guide, data from the school district was collected
over a six-week period of time. Three additional data collection instruments were
used: district profile, document reviews, and a researcher rating rubric. Evidence
collected from documents and artifacts was cross-analyzed against interview data.
Instruments were based upon current educational research and designed to elicit
answers to the five research questions.
Information detailing the district, schools, and study participants was
factual; however, each was assigned a pseudonym to ensure anonymity. While
documents and other artifacts reviewed were obtained from the district, statistical
data were obtained from the California Department of Education website.
Sample and Population
Purposeful sampling was utilized to select the district for this study as a
means of developing a deeper understanding of the standards-based reform/design
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
65
process that school districts use to impact instructional improvement in
the classroom. This study is limited to one school district. There were no
sampling issues encountered during this study.
This district was selected for study by a group of four doctoral students
from the University of Southern California because it has received recognition by
the Eli Broad Foundation for three consecutive years for their excellence in urban
education. Moreover, the district had an instructional improvement plan that is
focused on improving classroom instruction through a systematic program of staff
development for both teachers and administrators.
Additionally the district met the following criteria: 1). The population of
the district was between 10,000 and 60,000; 2). The diverse population of the
district reflects the diversity of the state in both economic and ethnic terms; and
3). The district had implemented an intentional plan for instructional
improvement within the past five years.
Selected School District
The Orchard Field Unified School District (OFUSD) is the second largest
among 28 public school districts in Orange County, California serving over
50,000 students. It ranks 10th in size among 1,000 school districts in California
and is the 87th largest school district of 14,800 in the U.S. The district employs
more than 5,000 certificated and classified staff and operates 70 schools — 47
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6 6
elementary, 10 intermediate, 7 high schools, 2 continuation schools, 2
adult education centers, and 2 special education schools.
» OFUSD has a majority minority population that mirrors the growing
diversity in the state. As of the 2002-2003 school census: Latino/Hispanic
students comprise over fifty percent; Asian community contributes an additional
twenty-seven percent; and Caucasian students twenty percent. Orchard Field also
happens to have the largest concentration of Vietnamese people outside of
Vietnam itself.
The district is recognized for its efficiency and conservative fiscal
policies, operating on a very lean management structure in which only a small
percentage of the budget is directed to overhead and administration. The OFUSD,
in fact, devotes a greater share of its budget to direct classroom services than any
district in the state. School site administration accounts for 5.8 percent of total
expenditures, and only 3.8 percent of the budget is spent on central office
administration.
The participants in this study included an elementary school principal as
well as a variety of district level administrators. The initial interview with the
district superintendent led to the identification of district level personnel who
were instrumental in the implementation and monitoring of the instructional
improvement reform. The Director of K-6 Instruction was excluded because she
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
67
is currently a doctoral candidate and it was felt that her role was too
close to the study.
District participants
Superintendent - The Superintendent has been employed by the school district
since 1973. She served as an elementary and high school teacher and moved to
administration in 1979. In May 1999, after serving as the associate
superintendent for business/personnel, she assumed the top position in the school
district.
Assistant Superintendent o f Elementary Education - Recently promoted from the
Director of K-6 Instruction, the Assistant Superintendent has worked for the
school district for over twenty years. She has been an integral part of the
instructional design phase from its inception.
Assistant Superintendent o f Personnel - The Assistant Superintendent of
Personnel has worked for the school district for thirty years. He supports the
instructional improvement design through the hiring of appropriate staff and
serves as the Uniform Complaint Officer of the District.
Director, K-12 o f Educational Services - The Director of Educational Services is
in charge of categorical programs, the State preschool program, and oversees the
School Support Services Department. Employed by the district for over thirty
years, she has served as a teacher, principal, and Director of 7-12 Instruction. She
has been involved with the instructional improvement design from the beginning.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6 8
Elementary Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) - The TOSA is one
of twelve classroom teachers selected through an interview process that provides
support to schools, teachers and paraprofessionals in the implementation of
curriculum and instruction. Currently, the program facilitator is serving as a lead
teacher in the area of elementary instruction, new instruction, staff development,
and English Language Learner Instruction. Employed by the district for over
thirty years, she has served as a lead teacher since the start of the instructional
improvement design.
Elementary School Principal - The principal selected for this study has been with
the district for six years. She serves as a lead principal for a group of eight
elementary schools providing a communication link from the school sites to
district level administration. Over the past two years this principal has led her
school out of Program Improvement, a designation provided to schools that are
not meeting state and/or federal achievement targets, and is highly regarded as an
instructional leader.
Instrumentation
A team of sixteen researchers from the University of Southern California
*
Rossier School of Education collectively determined appropriate conceptual
frameworks and data collection instruments for the study. During the summer of
2004 the research team met under the direction of Dr. David Marsh, Ph.D.,
Associate Dean. Current literature was reviewed and helped to guide the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6 9
development of the purpose of the study, research questions and the
data collection instruments. The team worked together to determine the purpose
of the study and the research questions that needed to be addressed. Smaller
research sub-groups were formed to examine the research questions from the
perspectives of both the district and school site level. In these sub-groups
appropriate data collection instruments were developed utilizing various
conceptual frameworks to guide data collection. Over the course of the summer
the data collection instruments were refined to ensure their alignment with the
purpose of the study and the research questions. Table 1 demonstrates the matrix
of data collection instruments selected to the five research questions. Under each
research question are the instruments designed to address that question.
Table 1 - Relationship of Data Collection Instruments to Research Questions
RQ1:
Design
RQ2:
Factors
RQ3:
Change Process
RQ4:
Extent
RQ5:
Impact
Case Study Guide X X X X X
District Profile X X
Document Review Guide X X X X X
Researcher Rating Rubric X X
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
70
Frameworks fo r Instrument Design
A Case Study Guide (Appendix A) and two conceptual frameworks
provided the framework for determining the appropriate instruments for data
collection. Utilizing current research, Conceptual Framework A (CFA),
Conceptual Framework B (CFB), and the Case Study Guide were developed.
Conceptual Framework A (Appendix B)
The Center for Teaching and Policy conducted research spanning four years
in eight California districts, resulting in the development of a grounded analytical
framework for examination of districts’ influence on system-wide instructional
improvement (Gilbert et. al., 2002). This model facilitated examination of district
efforts through the identification of seven domains districts utilized to leverage
system-wide change: defining teaching and learning; developing the profession;
communicating externally and internally; responding to and contending with
exogenous policy; acquiring and allocating human, fiscal, and physical resources;
creating local systems of accountability; and partnering with non-system actors.
This framework, depicted graphically in Figure 1 below, was utilized for
the development of the data collection instruments and analysis of data in this
study. Within each of these domains of action, three cross-cutting levers emerged
that influenced outcomes:
1. Leadership focused on enhancing quality and equity of student outcomes
2. Equity standards utilized to inform action
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
71
3. Data used to inform action, signal capacity issues, and build
coherence throughout the system during reform.
Figure 1 - Conceptual Framework A - Domains of District Action
Acquiring &
allocating
hum an, fiscal,
physical
resources
Defining
teaching and
learning
D ata
Equity
L e a d e rsh ip
R esponding to
& contending
with
exogenous
policy
D ata
E quity
L e a d e rsh ip
Creating local
sy stem s of
accountability
D ata
E quity
L e a d e rsh ip
Developing th e
profession
D ata
Equity
Partnering with
non-system
actors
Com m unicating
externally &
internally
Quality:
Coherence, Professionalism & Learning Community,
System-wide Equity, Sustainability
Quality outcomes for CFA were defined as districts that demonstrate:
coherent policy and action across domains; professionalism and learning
communities at all system levels; equitable student learning outcomes across and
within district schools, and; strategic district action resulted in a sustainable
product.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
72
Conceptual Framework B (Appendix C)
Bolman and Deal (1997) describe four distinctive frames from which
people can view organizations: structural, human resource, political, and
symbolic. Leadership, identified as a key cross-cutting lever in the domains of
district action found within Conceptual Framework A, can be analyzed using the
Bolman and Deal model. As a change agent, district leaders utilized the frame
that offered the best opportunity for focusing staff on a workable solution.
Overlaying Conceptual Framework B on Conceptual Framework A increased the
depth of analysis and understanding conveyed by the data, particularly with
respect to leadership. A chart summarizing how each frame was utilized in this
study can be found in the appendix.
Framework fo r the first research question
The first research question asked, “What were the elements of the
district’s design for improving teaching/learning?” Conceptual Framework “A”
Domains of District Action (CFA) provided the basis for data collection regarding
the elements of the instructional improvement design to improve teaching and
learning in the Orchard Field Unified School District.
Developed to analyze the decision making process of the school district,
CFA provides an indepth structure from which to view the choices the district
made with respect to development of the plan. Utilizing the Case Study Guide the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
73
primary research question were broken into several secondary questions
designed to further probe the process that the district followed during the design
phase.
Framework fo r the second research question
The second research question asked, “What were the factors that shaped
the district design?” Conceptual Framework “A” provided the basis for data
collection regarding the factors that shaped the district design. The Case Study
Guide was utilized to probe further into how the internal and external factors
influenced leadership decisions as the design was being shaped. The District
Profile offered an objective view of the school district in terms of internal and
external factors that influenced district design.
Framework fo r the third research question
The third research question asked, “How did the district carry out the
change strategy to implement the design?” Conceptual Framework “A” provided
the basis for data collection regarding the change strategy used to implement the
design. All seven domains captured in CFA can become points of action
influenced by systemic change. Additionally, utilizing Conceptual Framework
“B” (CFB), those changes were viewed in terms of the leadership qualities that
facilitated the change process. The Case Study Guide includes an opportunity to
probe through the interview process the factors that helped or hindered the
changes and any modifications to the design that occurred as a result.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
74
Framework for the fourth research question
The fourth research question asked, “What was the extent of
implementation of district design?” The extent of implementation and degree of
institutional change that has occurred as a result is revealed utilizing the Case
Study Guide and the Researcher Rating Rubric. Conceptual Framework “A”
provided the framework for identifying the change process, including the use of
data, equity measure, and perceptions of staff related to the extent of
implementation.
Framework fo r the fifth research question
The fifth research question asked, “How effective was the district in
implementing the reform effort?” Conceptual Framework “A” provided the basis
for data collection with respect to determining the effectiveness of the district
with respect to implementing the reform. Through the Case Study Guide and the
Researcher Rating Rubric, coherence of policy and action, organizational culture,
and greater equity among schools and staff members were identified as quality
outcomes that would indicate that the district is effective.
Data Collection Instruments
Once the conceptual frameworks were in place to address the research
questions regarding the elements of the design, factors shaping the design,
implementation of the design, and impact of the design, the data collection
instruments for the study were developed. Instruments include a Case Study
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
75
Guide which provides the basis for interview questions and the analysis
of how the design was communicated from the district to the site and classroom
level, a District Profile, a Document Review Guide, and a Researcher Rating
Rubric.
Case Study Guide
This instrument addresses the components of each research question and is
the basis for the collection of data via individual interview. The Case Study Guide
references the domains found in Conceptual Framework A by superscript coding.
The Case Study Guide was developed from a synthesis of current educational
research on organizational improvement of instruction (Ball, Cohen &
Raudenbush, 2000; Birman et. al., 2002; Christopher et. al., 2003; D’Amico &
Stein, 2002; Cohen & Lowenberg-Ball, 2000; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin,
1995; Duke, 2004; Elmore, 1993, 2000; Fullan, 1996, 2001; Gilbert et. al., 2003;
Glennan & Resnick, 2002; Goertz & Massell, 1999,2002; Hightower, 2001,
2002; Marsh, 2000; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2002; Schmoker, 1999, 2004;
Spillane, 2002; Togneri, 2003). The case study contained the following elements:
An initial interview with the superintendent or assistant superintendent to help
establish the parameters for the collection of data in subsequent rounds. A second
round of interviews including four district level administrators, one site principal,
and one program facilitator. In addition, the case study outlines the procedures
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
76
for using the document review guide, the district profile, and the
researcher rating rubric.
For the interview process, the case study guide provided a series of open-
ended questions aligned with Conceptual Framework A and Conceptual
Framework B, were used to guide each interview. Questions were arranged in the
following manner: a) elements of the design, b) factors influencing the design, c)
strategy for implementation, d) extent of implementation, and e) design impact.
As needed, the district provided access to documents that helped clarify decision
making and policy, and support participant answers.
The focus of each interview was varied, depending on the role the
individual played with respect to the instructional design. The focus of the
interviews with the Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction and the Director
of Educational Support Services was on the elements, factors, implementation,
and impact of the design. The focus of the design for the personnel and business
administrators was on the elements and factors influencing the design. The focus
of the interview with the site principal was on the elements, strategy and extent of
implementation, and the impact of the design. The focus of the interview with the
program facilitator was on the elements, factors, implementation, and impact of
the design.
The district and site administrator interviews were held in the respective
adminstrator’s office, while the program facilitator’s interview was held in a
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
77
district conference room. Each individual interviewed was ensured
confidentiality and anonymity.
District Profile
The district profile (Appendix D) is a simple checklist of pertinent
information that helps establish a clear picture of the district demographics. This
instrument summarizes data on the school district’s enrollment, teachers, schools,
and funding sources and was compiled using the most recent data from the
California Department of Education website and district documentation.
Document Review Guide
The document review guide (Appendix E) was designed to provide an
organizing format for the analysis of district documents. Comments on each
document are written and then cross-referenced with the elements of the five
research questions framed by the Case Study Guide, the seven domains identified
in Conceptual Framework A, and the four frames outlined in Conceptual
Framework B.
Researcher Rating Rubric
The Research Rating Rubric (Appendix F) was designed as a way to
determine how the data gathered by the individual researcher is related to the
purpose of the study. Change strategies, extent of implementation, and
effectiveness of the innovation were organized into the seven domains identified
in Conceptual Framework A. The components of the district’s effort were rated
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
78
in two categories: (a) as intended, and (b) as implemented. The
Researcher Rating Rubric was completed on three different occasions: (1) after
the first round of data collection, (2) after all data were collected and, (3) after
analyzing the data. Changes in the researcher’s perception throughout the process
helped to identify gaps in the research that needed further investigation.
Data Collection
The selection criteria for the participating districts were established in the
summer of 2004. A list of eligible districts was compiled and a Study
Information Sheet was distributed to elicit interest. Orchard Field Unified School
District accepted the invitation and welcomed four doctoral students to research
their practices. After completion of the application packet and IRB clearance, the
research team began collecting data. The research team for Orchard Field was
comprised of four Ed.D. candidates, two assigned to collect data from the
individual school sites and two focused on the district perspective. Round One of
data collection began with an informal interview of the assistant superintendent.
This interview was designed to obtain a broad overview of the instructional
innovation and identify key district leaders involved with design implementation.
At the district level one researcher examined the structural components that
increased the district’s capacity for instructional improvement taken from
Conceptual Framework A, i.e., acquiring and allocating resources, creating an
internal system of accountability, and partnering with non-system actors. The
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
79
other researcher, focused data collection on the instructional core, i.e.,
defining teaching and learning, developing the profession, and communicating
internally and externally. The identification and response to exogenous policies
were examined by both researchers.
Data for the study were collected primarily in two rounds over a six-week
period ranging from November, 2004 through December, 2004. The multiple-
round method of data collection reduced bias in interpreting results through
opportunities for member checking and triangulation of data (Guba & Lincoln,
1986). After each round of data collection, participants reviewed drafts of the
data with the participants to ensure that their words and actions were correctly
captured. Multiple data sources that emerged from the different methods were
compared between two researchers increasing the credibility of results through
triangulation.
In addition to the superintendent, the Assistant Superintendent of K-6
Instruction was interviewed during Round One. As the responsible party for the
initial implementation of the innovation and related professional development,
this interview was more specific to the specific design, strategies, and goals of the
innovation. Recommendations for key personnel were solicited and then
compared to the list developed from the interview with the superintendent so as to
guide the interviews in Round Two. The Document Review Guide evidence in the
form of documents and artifacts were gathered during both interviews. The
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
8 0
District Profile was verified with key personnel, and data was collected
to support and compare with data available on the CDE website. The data was
then synthesized and presented to participants to ensure their accuracy. After
collection of data in Round One, the two team members individually, then
collectively, completed the Researcher Rating Rubric.
Round Two of data collection included interviews with five additional
district leaders including: the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, the Director
of K-12 Educational Support Services, the Chief Business Official, a lead teacher,
and a lead principal. Additionally, an informal interview was held with one of the
consultants hired to work with district leaders in the development and
implementation of the instructional improvement design. A follow-up interview
with the Assistant Superintendent was held to clarify findings, share preliminary
observations and further identify documents and artifacts not located in Round
One. Data collected from Round Two was synthesized and presented for review.
The two researchers again completed the Researcher Rating Rubric. Following all
of the data collection, an exit interview was scheduled with the District
Leadership Team.
The structure of the interviews followed the protocol outlined by Creswell
(1998) for semi-structured interviews. Following a prescribed phone call protocol
each participant was contacted for participation. During the phone call the
researchers provided a brief overview of the study and then determined an
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
81
appropriate time and place for the interview to take place. The
interview locations were selected to minimize distractions and enable participant
access to supporting documents. The purpose of the study and the interview were
reviewed with the participant before asking a variety of open-ended questions
relating to the study and a copy of the Information Sheet for Non-Medical
Research was made available to each participant. In order to guide the interview,
probing questions were utilized, as needed, based on the Case Study Guide. At
the conclusion of each interview, participants were invited to share any other
information related to the district effort to improve instruction they considered
relevant. The researcher maintained an anecdotal record of the participant’s
responses during the interview. All participants were assured confidentiality of
the information and their anonymity in the study and were granted access to
transcripts of their interview to ensure accuracy.
Data Analysis
The purpose of the study was to assess the effectiveness of an instructional
improvement strategy in a K-12 school district. The factors that shaped the
design, elements of the design, extent of implementation, and impact on teaching
and learning in the classroom were analyzed from the district office perspective.
Data collection conducted by this researcher focused primarily on the structural
components that increased the district’s capacity for instructional improvement as
revealed in Conceptual Framework A, i.e., acquiring and allocating resources,
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
82
creating an internal system of accountability, and partnering with non
system actors. Data was evaluated using the five research questions as a guide for
the study. Once data was collected and codified, it was entered into a database
for comparison and ease of retrieval.
Interviews were transcribed by the researchers and coded according to the
research question. Data collected from the Document Review Guide was sorted
by research question, and then cross-referenced to CFA and CFB. The use of a
spreadsheet allowed for the comparison of data between the two conceptual
frameworks within each research question and helped to highlight any significant
trend in district efforts. Qualitative data was also collected, coded and sorted
according to research question and entered into the database.
The Researcher Rating Rubric was completed at the end of each round of
data collection. The two district researchers compared results and noted any
discrepancies that required further research and/or clarification. Quantitative data
collected from the District Profile, documents, and other artifacts were reviewed
and sorted by research question and entered into a database for comparison with
other data.
Summary
This chapter contained a discussion of the research methodology used in
this study. The discussion included details about the design, sample,
instrumentation, data collection and data analysis for the study. Procedures for
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
this study included obtaining permission from the district
superintendent to conduct the study in the district, interviews, verifying
transcriptions, gathering documents and artifacts, and a collaborative rating of the
implementation and impact of the instructional design with another researcher.
Results of data analysis and findings are provided in the next chapter.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
8 4
CHAPTER FOUR
Data Findings, Analysis, and Discussion
Introduction
For more than a decade, school districts have implemented a variety of
standards-based, instructional improvement plans designed to improve student
achievement at the classroom level. These strategies have caused districts to
reevaluate past efforts of decentralization, shifting decision-making to the school
site, which has resulted in a disjointed and largely unsuccessful attempt to
enhance classroom performance.
Because of increased accountability measures being implemented at the
state and district level in the past several years, school districts have taken more
of a direct leadership role in the design and implementation of instructional
strategies that best meet the needs of a diverse student population. Refining
classroom instruction through the use of research-based reform strategies that are
aligned with state standards has been explored as one method for improving
student performance. A review of the current literature supports this method of
improving student achievement.
The purpose of this study was to explore and identify the elements of, and
the factors influencing a school district’s learning design, and further, to
document how the design works to connect the district, school, and classroom
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
85
ultimately leading to improved teaching and learning. Additionally, the
extent and effectiveness of the district’s implementation plan provided the means
for evaluating the success of the learning design.
This chapter provides an analysis and discussion of the findings for each
research question. The data collection instruments for this case study analysis
included a review of key documents supporting the learning design, a district
demographic profile, and interviews conducted with four key district personnel, a
school site principal, a teacher on special assignment, and one of the outside
consultants engaged to help with the design implementation. A researcher rating
rubric was utilized by the researcher to ensure that data collected via interview,
document review, and informal means provided a consistent, objective analysis of
the school district’s instructional design.
As presented in Chapter Three, data gathered throughout the study was
analyzed using Conceptual Framework A and Conceptual Framework B with a
focus on the structural components that increased the district’s capacity for
instructional improvement taken from Conceptual Framework A, i.e., acquiring
and allocating resources, creating an internal system of accountability, and
partnering with non-system actors. The five research questions addressed by the
study focused on: 1) the elements of the district’s instructional design; 2) the
factors that influenced the district’s design; 3) strategies used by the district to
facilitate the change process; 4) the extent to which the district’s design was
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
8 6
implemented; and, 5) the effectiveness of the district in implementing
the design. The data is organized and presented according to the five research
questions.
The five research questions addressed in this study were:
1. What were the elements of the district’s design for improving
teaching/learning?
2. What were the factors that shaped the district design?
3. How did the district carry out the change strategy to implement the
design?
4. What was the extent of implementation of district design?
5. How effective was the district in implementing the reform effort?
Elements of the District’s Instructional Improvement Design
The first research question asked, “What were the elements of the
district’s design for improving teaching/learning?” For this question, Conceptual
Framework A guided the data collection and data analysis of the elements of the
district’s design for improving teaching and learning. The document review guide
provided the primary data for identifying the elements of the district’s design for
instructional improvement. Interviews with the Assistant Superintendent of K-6
Instruction, the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, the Director of K-12
Educational Support Services, the Chief Business Official, and an outside
consultant were conducted under the case study guidelines and also provided data
for analysis, background information, and confirmed the review of district
documents regarding the elements of the district’s design.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
87
Five years ago the Orchard Field Unified School District took a
deliberate step toward improving student achievement through the initiation of
standards-based reform at the elementary school level. While the impetus for this
step was related to changes in state and federal legislation, the Director of K-12
Educational Support Services shared that the district favored programs that had
built-in accountability measures.
In the 1970’s, OFUSD, like many school districts in the state, was faced
with a growing immigrant population and needed to make changes in instruction
to accommodate this new population. The state Board of Education was
pressuring districts to offer bilingual programs, but with sixty-seven active
languages in Orchard Field, it seemed to be an insurmountable task. The district
opted for a program that allowed districts the flexibility to create their own
bilingual programs as long as English Learners who had been declared fluent in
the language were continued to show year-to-year growth through standardized
test data.
Focused Leadership
The district superintendent, described as a visionary on more than one
occasion during interviews with OFUSD personnel, played an important role in
the development of the district’s design for teaching and learning. Having
participated in the development of a program to meet the needs of the growing
English Learner population, the superintendent used the experience to help focus
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
88
the administrative team as they tried to develop a plan to meet state and
federal requirements related to standards-based reform. One of the challenges,
according to the Director of Educational Support Services, was the lack of
guidance with respect to meeting those requirements. She explained, “It was a
hard transition because it happened without any clarity or guidance from the
state.. .there really was nobody to help us with the transition. So we had to
muddle around with it to get it all together.”
One of the first steps taken by Orchard Field was to create a standards-
based report card, using the district’s current multiple measures, for students in
grades K-6. It was during the development of this report card that the
superintendent realized the need to take a step back and determine long term
goals. The Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction recalled, “We realized
that in order to maintain a sharp focus we needed to have a clear understanding of
what we wanted our students to accomplish.”
The process for developing those goals was conducted carefully to ensure
that there was agreement from all constituent groups. Beginning with a review of
student achievement data, the district administrative team consulted with a
research and evaluation consultant and began a very systematic approach to
developing goals for the district. Performance scores showed a growing
achievement gap between students classified as English Learners and the Anglo
population, particularly in the areas of language arts and reading. As the goals
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
89
began to take shape, district level leadership acknowledged the need to
include other stakeholders in the determination of the goals, in particular the
teaching force, that was ultimately responsible for helping the district narrow and
close the achievement gap. The Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction
recalled:
We held focus group meetings to discuss the benefits and challenges of the
proposed goals and from that it was clear that we had not considered all of
the what-ifs. So we refined the goals and worked on them until we had
consensus that the goals posed were realistic and representative of
everyone’s interests.
The goals ultimately approved were 1) Students in the district five years or
longer will meet grade level proficiency in core academic subjects as measured by
the California Standards Test, 2) All English Learners will advance one level per
year in English language proficiency until English proficient as measured by the
California English Learner Development Test.
Once the goals were in place, the next step was to begin to align district
decisions with business and educational practices. According to the Assistant
Superintendent of K-6 Instruction, this sequence made the decision-making
?
process more educationally sound:
Is it extraneous, is it going to muddle our thinking or will this distract us
from where we want to go - or does it add to what we are trying to do?
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
90
These types of questions help us keep a laser-like focus on what
we are doing.
When asked about the move to standards-based reform, the Director
affirmed that it was a difficult transition, largely due to the lack of guidance from
the state. But in hindsight, she stated that the move towards a standards-based
environment was made easier because the district was already accustomed to the
use of multiple measures, and approved of including accountability. The
Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction concurred with this assessment and
added that it was also necessary to look at the system as a whole, “...the tools, the
resources, the structure and delivery. It [success] is not contingent on any one of
those - everything must fit together to be aligned and focused.”
The district did not make the journey alone. A series of outside
consultants helped shape the district’s design for instructional improvement. The
Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction was quick to point out, however, that
when an outside contractor was hired, the district was heavily involved in all
aspects of planning:
Time after time, every external consultant says that they have never
worked with a district where so much energy and joint planning takes
place. But we would never hire someone and say “go do your thing.” We
are looking for and expect a partnership to develop.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
91
A result of one of these key partnerships was the development of
a comprehensive instructional design named The Six Components of High
Performing Schools.
Based on a meta-analyses of effective school research, district staff
identified instructional design characteristics that were research-proven to bring
schoolwide success or improvement. These components were standards-based
curriculum and instruction, research-based instructional strategies, targeted
professional development, data-driven decision making, achievement-driven
stmcture and support, and academic-centered family and community engagement.
The site principal interviewed for this study recalled district staff
researching successful schools in an attempt to determine how those schools were
being effective, despite the fact that they had a high percentage of English
Language Learners and students from a low socio-economic background, “We
knew we had a lot of the right pieces in place, but we needed a more systematic
approach to improving instruction.” Regarding the development of the
improvement strategy the lead teacher stated, “I think the district was looking for
a true focus, a focus that could help guide curriculum directors, which in turn
would guide principals and teachers.”
The schematic provided in Figure 2 below highlights the six components
that OFUSD used and identifies sub-points within each element that further define
the district’s instructional design. Evidence of the integration of the design was
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
92
visible during a review of the Single School Plan for Student
Achievement. Detailed information gathered about each component was
contained in the district’s supporting research, which also revealed the intended
outcomes of each component helping to delineate the elements of the district’s
instructional design.
Figure 2. - Six Components o f High Performing Schools
Standards-Based Curriculum and Assessment
• Focus Standards
• Curriculum Mapping
• Standards-Based Lesson
Design and Multi-Task
Performances
• Standards-Based Grading and Reporting
• Standards-Based Portfolios
• Standards-Based Assessments Aligned to State Tests
Research-Based Strategy Instruction
• Skills Instruction - Direct
Instruction
• Performance Instruction -
Complex Instruction
• Strategy Instruction - Cooperative Learning, Expository Test Handling,
Problem-solving, Process Writing, Reciprocal Teaching, Specifically
Designed Academic Instruction in English, Test Preparation Strategies
Data-Driven Decision-Making
• Data Analysis
• Data Team Training
• Action Walks
• Implementation Review
• Single Plan for Student Achievement
Targeted Professional Development
• Roles and Responsibilities
• Expert Training
• Administrative Coaching
• On-Site Coaching - Demonstrations, Co-teaching, Feedback
• Collegial Support
Achievement-Driven Structure and Support
• Horizontal Teaming
• Vertical Teaming
• Flexible Scheduling
• Support Services
• Extended Learning Opportunities
Academic-Centered Family and Community Engagement
• Parent Workshops • Student-led Conferences
According to the outside consultants hired to work with the district,
narrowing the achievement gap is a function of having standards-based
curriculum and assessment, and research-based strategy instruction working
together. In the area of standards-based curriculum and instruction, the expected
outcome statement indicated that the evidence would show an increase in student
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
93
achievement as measured by benchmark assessments given every six
weeks, norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. Focus standards,
curriculum pacing guides, and standards-based lesson design served as a way to
determine content and instructional strategies for the delivery of a tightly focused
message with increased academic learning time. Also documented was a
standards-based grading and reporting method that guided student assessment.
Together students and teachers are responsible for sharing clear expectations with
respect to performance aligned with the focus standards and measured through
student portfolios. The Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction stated, “This
area of the six components allows us to maintain a focus about what our
instructional program is about.”
The site principal recalled that the move to a standards-based system was
done incrementally, beginning with the creation of focus standards in writing.
“Once teachers saw how the standards worked, they began to look at their
curriculum and identify how the standards fit in to largely what they were already
doing.”
A second element of the district’s design was a focus on research-based
strategy instruction. The expected outcome statement specified that teachers
would differentiate their instruction to meet the varying needs of their classroom.
Direct instruction is the method utilized for skill development, while a variety of
strategy-based instructional methods, such as cooperative learning, reciprocal
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
94
teaching, problem-solving, process writing, and SDAIE, are utilized to
work on higher level thinking skills. Complex instructional strategies refer to the
ability of the teacher to use a variety of methods to help improve student
performance. By maintaining a focus on research-proven strategies for
instruction, it is the expectation that student achievement on both district and state
assessment measures will improve. The delivery of instruction through these
research-based strategies provides a way to ensure the alignment of the
curriculum, but also gives the district a way to embed the strategies with the
content standards.
At the heart of the Six Components of a High Performing School is the
concept of data-driven decision-making. The expected outcome statement in this
area focused on the use of data to make instructional decisions in the classroom,
across site/grade level teams and district-wide. The professional development
calendar and site administrator meeting minutes showed that both principals and
school site staff were provided with data analysis and data team training on an
ongoing basis.
Orchard Field firmly believes that having a focus on standards and tight
alignment of curriculum strategies will help narrow the achievement gap.
However, additional considerations are included in the six components aimed at
closing the gap. They include targeted professional development, achievement-
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
95
driven structure and support, and academic-centered family and
community engagement.
The expected outcome for the fourth component, targeted professional
development, was the consistent demonstration of targeted classroom instruction
as determined by observations of coaches, administrators and teacher self-
reporting. In order to ensure that people were faithfully replicating the adopted
curriculum, an aggressive professional development calendar was created to help
define the roles and responsibilities of teachers and administrators, call upon and
utilize expert training when appropriate, provide onsite coaching for teachers and
principals, and encourage collegial support.
Achievement-driven structure and support is the fifth component and
builds in multiple structures for staff to communicate with one another. The
expected outcome for this component is the establishment of consistent in-school
programs and practices to increase student achievement. Key features of this
component include horizontal and vertical team meetings so that teachers above,
below and within grade levels are aware of what is being taught and the
difficulties that might arise, and to help target instruction to create a seamless
educational program for the student.
The final component of the instructional design requires schools to have
an academic-centered family and community engagement component. The
expected outcome of this element is to see an increase in the active participation
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
9 6
of parents and community at the school site. Elements of this
component included offering parent workshops designed around specific content
areas, and having students take responsibility for their learning through a
structured student-led conference.
District-wide alignment o f resources
Department leaders are expected to ensure that all of the policies and
procedures as well as the allocation of resources are in alignment with the
direction set by the district goals. The superintendent played an important role in
determining how all of the district’s departments supported the implementation of
the goals and ultimately the Six Components of High Performing Schools.
District management meeting agendas continue to be developed according to the
design.
This was especially evident in the selection and promotion of district staff.
The Assistant Superintendent of Instruction explained:
In order to accomplish our goals, we need people who are willing to be
part of a collaborative team - we have done away with the independent
contractor here. We look for people who are bright team players who are
willing to learn and have an affinity to use data to drive decision-making
in the classroom.
The Assistant Superintendent of Personnel affirmed those statements and
explained that over the past five years that the Personnel department had become
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
97
more intertwined with the Department of Instruction. “Historically,
district level departments had been working independently, but in hindsight, it just
makes so much sense to have our departments work together to ensure that the
right people are in those right positions to help kids.”
There is no shortfall of qualified applicants for the various positions that
open each year. For the 2003-2004 school year, OFUSD had over 10,000
applications for approximately one hundred positions. A centralized system for
hiring provides the district with the control necessary to ensure that only the top
candidates are accepted for the few open positions. The Assistant Superintendent
of Personnel explains:
It was hard for principals to understand because they would find someone
out in the field that they wanted to hire. But that person may have only
been the best out of five candidates. We have interviewed over 500
candidates and that same person may only rank number one hundred.
When you interview that many people you begin to understand what
makes people tick, and you get better at it.
Centralizing the hiring is just one example of the magnitude of control that
the district maintains. Principals are required to justify site expenditures by
aligning purchases with the six components. Additionally, they are required to
attach supporting research to each requisition. The Director of Educational
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
98
Support Services explains the importance of aligning fiscal resources to
the instructional design:
It [Six Components] has really changed our thinking. Before we would
write our school plan and put money into the budget to help support what
schools were trying to do. But now we take the time to analyze the data,
create an action plan, and then determine what needs to be purchased to
support the plan.
When questioned about purchasing decisions, the Chief Business Official
smiled and said:
Instruction people don’t always like to say this, but this [Six Components]
is their business plan. I am glad to see this because it brings focus to our
spending habits. So, when instruction has a plan, we have a plan to
translate the Six Components of High Performing Schools into a budget.
Copies of the district’s guidelines for expenditures detailed the process for
evaluating school site requisitions. Site requests for purchases with attached
research documenting the alignment of the item with the instructional design, and
including the research supporting the acquisition, were also reviewed.
Focused leadership, the development and implementation of a
comprehensive plan for reform, and an effort to align all of the district’s resources
to the Six Components of High Performing Schools detail the elements of the
district’s designed for improved teaching and learning.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
99
Factors Tmnacting the District’s Instructional Improvement Design
The second research question asked, “What factors shaped the district’s
design?” For this question, Conceptual Frameworks A and B guided the data
collection and data analysis of the factors that shaped the district’s instructional
improvement design. Interviews with the Assistant Superintendent of K-6
Instruction, the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, the Director of K-12
Educational Support Services, and the Chief Business Official were conducted
under the case study guidelines and provided the primary data for pinpointing the
internal and external factors that impacted the district’s instructional improvement
design. Demographic and historical data collected using the district profile
provided a secondary source of information. The document review guide also
provided data for analysis, and confirmed participant interview responses.
Demographic shifts that began back in the 1970s created a need for the
district to address their instructional practices, particularly with respect to the
growing immigrant population. Early attempts at instructional improvement
consisted of staff development workshops designed to provide optional CLAD
and LDS certification to interested teachers of English Learners. While the
district felt this was the right decision at the time, they realized now that it was
just putting a band-aid on a growing problem. The Director of Educational
Support Services recalled:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
100
We thought we were doing the right thing at the time. We were
definitely results-based, and we were making staff development plans for
the right reason. But now we realize that we should have required
certification training for all teachers because the population of English
Learners has certainly not diminished, and we have so many teachers not
trained to work effectively with them.
External factors
A number of external factors were identified and helped district leadership
shape the instructional design to meet the diverse needs of the school district.
Pressure from the federal government through strict accountability measures
under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, particularly around schools who
were not making annual yearly progress, created an opportunity for the district to
take action. The Director of Educational Support Services stated, “We had been
moving in the direction of a results-based program. With NCLB and state
mandates we needed to evaluate what we were already doing and then align with
the state content standards.”
The principal interviewed for this study indicated that she recalled the
process for integrating the Six Components of High Performing Schools was
accelerated with NCLB. “Some of our schools were not meeting or close to not
meeting their AYP. So we were looking for a way to better organize our schools
or our instruction.”
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
101
The district teaching staff, however, did not wholly embrace
the changes mandated under NCLB. When questioned about reaction to the
legislation, the lead teacher interviewed for this study stated:
Certain issues, such as having highly qualified teachers, have made some
teachers mad. But I do think that it will benefit education in the long run.
While it has made some teachers uncomfortable, they are figuring out how
to get their CLAD or other certification.
State requirements that called for standards-based reform accelerated
efforts for districts to focus on data analysis to reveal school shortcomings. This
is one reason why data-driven decision-making was a key element of the district’s
instructional improvement strategy. In the case of Orchard Field, performance
gaps for both English Learners and minority students were identified. While the
state content standards guided curriculum development, the need for instructional
strategies that would help all kids leam became a major focus of district officials.
Staff development calendar comparisons over the last five years demonstrate a
shift away from one-shot workshops with a clear move toward continuous staff
development. Additionally, attention was given to building the capacity of school
principals and site leadership teams. Management techniques gave way to the
development of instructional leaders. The Assistant Superintendent of K-6
Instruction recalled:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
102
For generations our expectations were to have them follow the
rules and we were/are a very centralized organization. The important
thing was the process. You turn in the paperwork, you follow all of the
board policies and that was where we were. But with the advent of
accountability and standards, it has changed. We still expect people to
work within the parameters of our guidelines and regulations, but there is
more focus on making sure that the job is getting done. So the focus has
changed from “I followed the rules, but kids didn’t leam, but that doesn’t
matter because I followed the mles - to - Now I am responsible for
making sure that students are learning.
It was evident through Leadership Academy agendas and the Staff Development
Calendar for teachers and principals that there was a range of topics for principals
and leadership teams covered over the past five years, all based on the Six
Components of High Performing Schools.
Internal Factors
In 1999 when the superintendent assumed her new position, OFUSD was
widely known around the state for its sound fiscal policies and decision-making,
particularly related to fiscal issues. Statewide comparative data showed that the
salaries for all district staff consistently outranked those districts of similar size.
The superintendent, however, desired to have a district that was as well known for
its instructional practices as it was for its fiscal policies. State and federal
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
103
pressures initiating standards-based reform and the ongoing need to
address the learning needs of a stable English Learner population provided a
platform for the district to examine current procedures and work towards meeting
local goals as well as state and federal legislation.
While the district goal development process was one element that
influenced the instructional improvement strategy, it also revealed a number of
factors that helped to shape the district’s design. Staff determined that action
needed to be taken to help everyone realize that continuing with the instructional
plan from ten or even twenty years earlier, in light of changing demographics,
was not going to yield continuous improvement. The site principal stated, “I
think it really was about improving our instruction to meet the needs identified
through our data analysis, but we needed to act quickly and create a plan for
implementation.”
Student performance data showed that subgroups of students from low
socioeconomic environments, as well as those who qualified for the Federal
Free/Reduced Lunch program, were not making gains on standardized test
measures. Similarly, there was a widening gap between ethnic subgroups. While
Hispanic student scores continued to drop, Asian and white subgroups seemed to
maintain or increase performance scores.
Other factors that helped shape the district’s instructional design were the
results from a series of outside consultants hired to work with district and school
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
104
staff to begin aligning curriculum materials and instructional practices
with the state content standards. The site principal recalled:
Volunteer school sites started out by working with a data analyst looking
at 90-90-90 schools - those with 90% low socioeconomic, 90% minority,
with 90% of the students considered high-performing. This showed us
that schools could be effective, despite the fact that they had poverty and a
high percentage of English Learners. And we began to systematically
identify those district features that we knew we could emulate.
As some Orchard Field schools were selected to pilot a program to build
collaboration and consistency through vertical and horizontal teaming, district-
wide K-6 schools were gearing for the adoption of a standards-based curriculum.
Additional internal factors that helped shape the design were identified
through interviews with the lead teacher, who revealed the feelings that some staff
members had with respect to changes in demographics and the creation of a
standards-based program. “People were making assumptions about student
performance without data to support it, particularly with respect to our English
Learners. Generally, I think people operated on a gut level feeling that kids
needed a big unit on whatever.”
The need to build a systematic plan of action for instructional
improvement was clear: the district had to comply with state and federal demands
and desired to meet the needs of all students.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
105
Allocation o f resources
The shaping of the instructional improvement design also relied on
factoring in the practices of the non-instructional departments to assure smooth
implementation. Allocation of funds to support the execution of the instructional
improvement would seem to require that employees of the business office
understand the direction that the district is moving towards. None of the data
collected for this study revealed that there was an understanding of the Six
Components of High Performing Schools, other than the Chief Business Official
indicating that it looked like a business plan. When asked how fiscal resources
were allocated to promote the plan, she stated, “If Instruction says they want to do
something then it is my job to protect the funds.” She also acknowledged that
there was an effort to not necessarily equalize spending but to creatively ensure
equity:
We do try to even the playing field, particularly between Title I and non-
Title I schools. But with grants and funds for low-performing schools it
becomes difficult. But sometimes we try to recycle equipment from
underprivileged schools - because it is usually in good condition and the
grants don’t typically specify what to do with old equipment.
The practices of the Personnel Department do add to the number of factors
that shape the district’s design. This is particularly evident in the changes to the
hiring and evaluation practices employed by the district. According to the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
106
Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, it may be the instructional
design that has shaped the protocol for hiring teachers and principals:
We look for the person who can meet the need. What is truly most
important is to determine if they portray a good attitude and if they are
willing to work hard. We can teach them the rest - we have an incredible
training program for both teachers and principals. I think generally the
teachers coming into the profession today are very well trained and better
prepared for a standards-based classroom.
The importance of finding the right person, particularly for the principal
position, has also been elevated by the implementation of the district’s
instructional improvement design. The Assistant Superintendent of Personnel:
By joining forces with instruction it has clearly helped our department
better determine what traits are needed to fill the position. We are asking
principals to do a lot more. The bar has been raised and I think that the
younger principals are adapting better. Most principals were in their 40’s
before. I don’t think chronological age is the factor, though; it is the
maturity level. Can they handle the job? Certainly the preparation is
difficult, the job is tough and challenging, but we have a great group.
In Personnel, the Assistant Superintendent repeatedly stated that the district
simply wanted to make decisions in the best interests of kids and were willing to
remove people quickly if they couldn’t meet the challenge before them.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
107
District’s Implementation Strategy for Instructional Improvement
Design
The third research question asked, “How did the district carry out the
change strategy to implement the design?” For this question, Conceptual
Framework “A” provided the basis for data collection regarding the change
strategy used to implement the design. Additionally, utilizing Conceptual
Framework “B” (CFB), those changes were viewed in terms of the leadership
traits that facilitated the change process. Interviews with the Assistant
Superintendent of K-6 Instruction, the Director of K-12 Educational Support
Services, the Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, the Chief Business Official,
an elementary school principal, and a lead teacher followed the protocol
established by the Case Study Guide to determine the change strategy utilized by
the school district to implement the instructional improvement design and served
as the primary source of data collection. Data from the district profile and the
document review provided confirmatory information.
Leveraging Change
The superintendent, dissatisfied with the notion that the district was
successful only at fiscal management, was determined to lead the district so that
local, state, and national attention would focus on the achievement of the 50,000
students who attend school in Orchard Field. The ability of the district to rely on
the relationships formed with bargaining unit members made for an easier
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
108
transition. District leaders maintained an open door for association
members so that concerns were heard, questions were answered or clarified, and
adjustments to the plan could be made in a timely and judicious fashion. The
Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction shared, “Communication with
members of both bargaining units were made easier because of the formation of
strong relationships with the management team.”
The Assistant Superintendent of Personnel wholeheartedly agreed and pointed out
that the longevity of the management team has aided various changes throughout
the years:
I grew up with a lot of these folks.. .we have a long history. Those
trusting relationships help both management and teachers know that when
people are told something that they can believe it. This district is built on
a foundation of trust.
From the beginning, district leadership encouraged key stakeholders to
participate in the development of the design. The creation of district-wide goals
served as the first step in focusing everyone on creating a plan that would lead to
greater achievement for all of the students in the district, regardless of ethnicity or
socioeconomic status. District officials pointed to a number of meeting agendas
that demonstrated full representation by a variety of staff members seen as vital to
the development of the district goals and subsequent instructional improvement
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
109
plan. The goals were also incorporated carefully, according to the
Assistant Superintendent:
We didn’t have a big unveiling of the district goals; we just kept going
back and talking about them and broadening the group each time we met.
Now I think the goals are well known to everyone - teachers, parents, and
students. Students are also important because if they don’t know what is
expected of them, they just remain passive.
Once approved, the district goals served as the litmus test for every
instructional, personnel, maintenance and purchasing decision. The Assistant
Superintendent reflected on those early days and noted that a lot of time was spent
carefully determining how the goals would be met.
Just saying what we wanted was not sufficient. We enlisted the help of a
data analyst to help guide us through looking at all of the data. We didn’t
necessarily form any conclusions but continued to ask questions that
brought us to the conclusions of where we were in establishing constant
progress towards our goals.
The district was also able to leverage state and national initiatives to move
the implementation strategy forward. Statewide expectations required the
implementation of the content standards and created the opportunity to move the
district towards improved teaching and learning. Helping students achieve
district-wide goals required them to focus attention on the creation of standards-
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
110
based curriculum and assessments to gauge student progress. Data
records demonstrated a commitment by the district to meet these expectations
through rigorous training for both teachers and principals. The Director of
Educational Services remarked:
That part of the Six Components of High Performing Schools was really
non-negotiable. The problem was that even though we had the content
standards in hand, the materials and assessments to support them didn’t
exist. But that was the case with everyone around the state.
In response to reform efforts at the federal level, most notably, the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2002, district leaders worked toward developing procedures for
hiring and training staff, created purchasing guidelines, and ensured the maximum
use of school facilities for both before- and after-school intervention programs.
Copies of the district’s five year plan outlined changes in policy to enable these
procedures to be implemented.
District leaders also leveraged existing reform efforts to help create the
seamless implementation of the instructional improvement strategy. These efforts
included the development of a K-6 standards-based report card, and having a K-6
wide focus on writing. All of the participants interviewed referred back to these
early attempts at district reform. The site principal recalled:
We looked at writing as our first reform area in terms of creating a model
for the alignment of curriculum, instruction and assessment. That not only
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
I ll
helped us with identifying the writing standards but also helped
us begin to select materials that aligned with the content standards.
By leveraging relationships with staff, state and national initiatives, and ongoing
reform efforts the district was able to naturally move forward with the
implementation of the six components. When questioned about the process of
initiating the reform, the site principal summed it up this way, “I think it all came
about in kind of a natural way. The entire process of looking at how we could do
a better job of teaching, reviewing the research, and analyzing the data created
kind of an evolution.”
Implementation Strategy
Taking into consideration the district goals, the analysis of the data, and
statewide requirements for the integration of the content standards into both
curriculum and assessment, the district strategy was to begin with the schools who
needed it most: schools who were either not meeting or were struggling to meet
state and national performance standards. All of the participants recalled the
early stages of implementation. According to the Assistant Superintendent of
Instruction, “It has been a slow roll-out, beginning as a requirement for those
schools not meeting accountability measures. Year two, it became optional for
any school, and by year three, all schools were required to follow the Six
Components.”
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
112
The district chose to embed the Six Components of High
Performing Schools into the development of the Single School Plan for Student
Achievement, a state-required document that contains a three-year plan for
continuous improvement. A review of the document from one of the schools
provided evidence of the integration of the Six Components of High Performing
Schools. School data was presented longitudinally and combined state
standardized test scores and local benchmark assessments. Goals and action steps
contained language that indicated a thorough analysis of the data had been
conducted. School teams were asked to identify potential obstacles that might
occur and to create additional action steps to help the school determine the
human, fiscal, and physical resources needed.
Although the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources and the Chief
Business Officer were unfamiliar with the details of the Six Components, they
were able to identify how their departments supported the implementation of the
Single School Plan. Bi-monthly Superintendent Cabinet meetings held for district
department heads help ensure that staff is aware of site needs.
The Chief Business Official noted:
When Instruction has a plan, I have a plan. We get most of our
information from putting our ear to the ground and listening to all of the
key words used in Cabinet meetings. I can’t define what is going on in
Instruction: my job is to translate the learning plan into a budget.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
113
The allocation of resources within Orchard Field are
maintained using tight internal control mechanisms. Hiring practices handled at
the district level are designed to ensure that the right people are hired for the right
positions. Purchase requisitions are now required to pass through the Director of
Instruction and the Director of Student Support Services to ensure the alignment
of the request with the district goals and instructional improvement strategy.
School principals are required to provide a copy of the research supporting each
purpose as well.
The district has always invested in a comprehensive staff development
program for principals, teachers and para-professionals. Both the principal and
the lead teacher interviewed in this study identified the principal as the key to
successful implementation of the Single School Plan, and ultimately the Six
Components of High Performing Schools. The district also recognized the need
to focus on developing instructional leaders both at the district and the site levels
and established Leadership Academies for school site teams and Principal
Advisory Groups, and Teachers on Special Assignment were assigned to support
school implementation.
The Leadership Academies were developed in the first year of
implementation as a way to focus those schools struggling to meet state and
federal accountability measures. Funds were allocated to hire an outside
consultant to help schools learn to analyze data and transform it into useable,
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
114
useful information. The development of Action Walks a non-
evaluative process where district leaders, teachers and outside consultants, visit
classrooms to confirm the consistent alignment of standards-based curriculum,
instruction, and assessment. Additional funds were used to release teachers from
their teaching responsibilities so that they could attend training and the Action
Walks. Site teams participated in school site Action Walks designed to help them
identify successful school practices, such as the integration of the state content
standards into classroom instruction and the use of research-based strategy
instruction. School teams utilized the information gathered during Action Walks
to self-assess and then incorporated what they had learned into the action plans of
the School Site Plan.
The district recognized the need to support principals as they moved away
from traditional management structures and toward the role of instructional
leader. According to participant interviews, the school site principal is
responsible for implementation of the Six Components at the school site. This
transition has posed its share of challenges:
The old guard principal is adapting but it is a real struggle and rightfully
so. We are asking them to do a lot more because the bar has been raised.
It really requires a certain maturity, because they need to be willing to
assert themselves and maintain a level of expectation for staff.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
115
The site principal put it this way:
It [implementation] is kind of on us. We are not pressured from the
district to share everything regarding the Six Components with staff, but if
you want it to work, then you as the principal have to do a good job of
selling it to your staff.
The Assistant Superintendent went further and said:
It all has to do with the passion of the principal. If the principal doesn’t
clearly communicate the expectations of both the behavior and practice of
the teacher, then nothing happens. Additionally, if the principal just
passes on information without providing support, you end up with a
similar result.
In an effort to assist principals with the support they need to deliver the
message and support teachers through the reform, the Director of K-6 Instruction
created Principal Advisory Groups. The purpose of the group is to help principals
stay current in various educational methodology and pedagogy. Study Groups
meet four to five times per year and focus on current research that will develop
the capacity of principals to meet the demands of supporting teachers in the
implementation of the Six Components. Past topics revealed in a review of
meeting agendas include student engagement, vocabulary development,
intervention programs, and parent participation. Principal Study Groups work in
concert with Small Group Meetings, where 6-8 principals come together to
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
116
informally discuss operational procedures. The goal of both of these
groups is not only to help principals stay current, but to give them an opportunity
to voice concerns about implementation and strategize solutions.
A final piece of implementation was to reevaluate and make
improvements to the district staff development strategy. Staff development
changes enhanced the districts design for improved teaching and learning through
the creation of a four-part continuous learning series. In this model, teachers
receive training, an on-site demonstration, ongoing coaching, and more training.
The ongoing support is provided through teachers on special assignment, who
visit school sites and classrooms on a weekly basis. All of the professional
development was designed based on school identified needs using the Six
Components of High Performing Schools as a guide. This enabled teachers to
attend those workshops that were identified in the individual School Site Plans.
Six-day initial training sessions support school site goals and are followed up with
a one-day in-classroom demonstration by the district teachers on special
assignment, usually about two weeks after the training. In-classroom coaching is
then provided to assist teachers with any difficulty they experience with
implementation, followed by a second level of training for teachers. Release time
is provided for by site and district funds according to resource allocation
identified in the school plan. District calendars show “Super Week” one week
prior to the opening of school where teachers can sign up for the staff
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
117
development workshop of their choice - and get paid for it. According
to the lead teacher interviewed for this study, most teachers opt to attend
professional development that supports the school goals. The Assistant
Superintendent of K-6 Instruction pointed out that while the district offers more
staff development now, they are much more focused and only offer a few
selections and provide better follow-through to ensure implementation.
OFUSD’s aggressive approach to implement the Six Components of
Effective Schools was made easier because of the ability to leverage change
through existing relationships, responding to exogenous policy demands, and by
building on existing reform efforts. The Assistant Superintendent of K-6
Instruction summed it up this way:
Although the roll-out of the plan was done slowly, the plan is a package.
We had to put everything in place at the same time in order to move.
Otherwise you get disconnected and protests arise. Not to say that
everything was equally good at first, but we had to have all of the pieces in
place and then build from there.
Extent of Implementation for the District’s Instructional Improvement Design
The fourth research question asked, “What was the extent of
implementation of the district design?” For this question, Conceptual Framework
“A” provided the framework for identifying the change process, including the use
of data, equity measures, and perceptions of staff related to the extent of
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
118
implementation. The extent of implementation and degree of
institutional change that has occurred as a result is revealed utilizing information
acquired through participant interviews and document reviews according to Case
Study Guide protocol. For purposes of this individual case study, the extent of
implementation was measured through researcher use of the Researcher Rating
Rubric. The rubric measures the extent of implementation on a three-point scale
ranging from “Just Getting Started” to “Partially Implemented to “Fully
Implemented.
Orchard Field Unified School District is currently in its third year of
implementing the Six Components of High Performing Schools. All staff
members within the district are now required to utilize the Six Components to
guide classroom and district decisions with respect to curriculum, instruction,
professional development, and should be reflected in the allocation of resources
from hiring practices to budget development, and facility usage as mentioned
previously. Data confirming that school and district decisions have been made
according to the instructional improvement design is available for review in the
Single School Plan, purchase requisition orders, staff development calendars, and
agendas from Cabinet meetings, Principal Academy, and the Principal Advisory.
Superintendent Cabinet meetings held bi-monthly enable district leaders to use the
information provided by each department to gauge progress with respect to design
implementation. At monthly Principal Advisory meetings, district leadership
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
119
provides specific feedback to principals regarding progress made with
respect to the implementation of the Six Components. In turn, principals share
with one another and district leadership the progress that individual sites have
made with respect to meeting the goals outlined in the Single School Plan.
Preliminary data collected from these meetings enable the district to determine
any changes that need to be made to the implementation design, and help to guide
the development of the professional development calendar. According to district
leadership, initiating the instructional design as part of the School Site Plan
ensured, at least in theory, that the Six Components was being implemented
districtwide. The Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction, responding to a
question on the extent of implementation shared:
For the most part I would say the reform is reflected at every school and
classroom. Our principals have been given a great deal of guidance to
help monitor its implementation ... .we have literally opened up classroom
doors and examined what’s on the inside. It stands out if it’s not
consistently managed. In my opinion, overall our elementary sites rate a
seven on a ten-point scale.
While all schools are now held accountable for the implementation of the
Six Components of High Performing Schools, the struggling schools have been
using the instructional design for three years. Additionally, prior to this learning
design, teachers and principals had participated in the development of the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
120
standards-based report card and the alignment of student writing
curriculum to the state content standards. What was new was the complete
implementation of all six components based on data-driven decisionmaking.
According to the lead teacher:
At first it was just a piece of information but its value became clear right
away. It gave the schools something to hang onto. To truly have a school
that is operating well and where students are learning, you need these six
things in place.
The degree to which teaching and learning has actually been affected by
the Six Components of High Performing Schools was ascertained by use of the
Researcher Rating Rubric. Table 2 below provides a synopsis of the extent of
implementation of the Six Components of High Performing Schools within the
context of Conceptual Framework A (CFA.) The first column contains each CFA
element and the components from the Six Components of High Performing
Schools fits within, the second column delineates the extent of implementation via
the Researcher Rating Rubric and the third column identifies elements of the
district design that justified the researcher rating.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
121
Table 2 - Extent of Implementation of Six Components within
_________ Conceptual Framework A____________________
C om ponent Level of
Im plem entation
E vidence
Defining Teaching and Learning
Component 1,2
Partially Implemented Curriculum, Instruction, Student Support
Services can define teaching and learning.
Acquiring and Allocating
Resources
Component 1, 3,4, 5, 6.
Fully Implemented Centralized decision-making for all
personnel and budget matters.
Developing the Profession
Component 3, 4, 5
Fully Implemented Expansive staff development at all levels.
Responding to/Contending with
Exogenous Policy
Component 1, 3
Fully Implemented District policy and procedures are in
alignment with state and federal regulations.
Creating Local Systems of
Accountability
Component - 3, 4, 6
Partially Implemented A consistent method of accountability for
principals was not identified.
Communicating
externally/internally
Component 1-6
Partially Implemented A consistent method of communication does
not exist.
Partnering with non-System
Actors
Component 3, 4, 5, 6
Fully Implemented District is able to identify needs and utilizes
outside resources for support.
Defining Teaching and Learning - The district’s vision for quality
teaching and learning is based on the integration of standards-based curriculum
and assessment, and research-based strategy instruction for all students. District
leaders felt that the best way to reach district goals was by conducting a thorough
analysis of data and research. The Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction
discussed the cyclical nature of their process: analyze the data, draw conclusions
and modify the program as needed. Prior to the implementation of the design, the
district had spent considerable time ensuring that the materials provided to
teachers were standards-based. The decision to utilize only research-based
strategies helped focus everyone on presenting information in ways that would
meet the needs of all students. The Director of Student Support Services recalled
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
122
that in the initial implementation the district focused on only a couple
of strategies to help everyone stay focused. Multiple reciprocal teaching training,
as identified in the staff development calendar, were offered in as one approach,
particularly because it had been proven successful for a wide variety of learners
and learning styles.
The extent of implementation in this area relies on the ability of all
stakeholders to articulate the vision for quality teaching and learning, and in this
case understand the interconnectedness of each component of the instructional
improvement strategy. While some district leaders, specifically the Assistant
Superintendent of K-6 Instruction, the Director of Student Support Services, the
site principal and the lead teacher had no difficulty expressing the details of the
plan and its implementation, the personnel and business departments, while very
clear in their supporting role, were unable to provide any insight into the specific
parts of the plan. Interview responses such as, “we get our information from the
putting our ear to the ground,” and the lack of documentation outlining hiring
practices/procedures called into question whether these departments have a real
appreciation or even the knowledge of the magnitude of what their departments
provide to make the instructional strategy work. Thus the researcher assigned a
score of “partially implemented” in this area.
Acquiring and Allocating Resources - The district’s plan for the
allocation of fiscal, human, and physical resources is made easier because of its
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
123
centralized business structure. School purchases are monitored for
alignment with the School Site Plan goals, and thereby are in alignment with the
district’s plan for instructional improvement. The Chief Business Official
expressed her delight with the Six Components of High Performing Schools
because it clearly illustrates how the schools should be spending their money.
Internal control structures, such as the two-step process for approval of
expenditures, helps safeguard the business department from approving any
extraneous requests and may release funds so that they may be spent in other
places.
Hiring of staff is another centralized process utilized in Orchard Field.
Great care is given to screen candidates so that all school sites have only the most
highly qualified persons for their open positions. Identification of the best
candidate has become easier for the personnel department because of an effort to
integrate decisions with the needs expressed by the Instruction Department. The
Assistant Superintendent of Personnel also pointed to the vast array of support
features for both new principals and new teachers as a benefit from working
together with the other departments.
Acquiring the best people and allocating resources has not been much of a
problem for OFUSD. Historically the district has placed a priority on providing
teachers with great salaries, good benefits and a strong training program. The
Assistant Superintendent of Personnel said:
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
124
We all believe that the most important thing is the kids. By
focusing our resources on taking care of those directly responsible for
their care, we are taking a strong step forward in assuring that their needs
will be taken care of. Why wouldn’t you want to work in a place like this?
Though not a completely centralized district, the manner in which the
district conducts business has successfully enabled the implementation of the
entire design. Without the financial resources or the right people in the right
positions, the design would risk not meeting its goals. The researcher gave a
score of “fully implemented to this area of the design.”
Developing the Profession - One of the strongest elements of the district’s
instructional design is in the area of professional development. Attention has
been given to providing training for both principals and teachers. The Assistant
Superintendent noted that while there has always been strong staff development in
Orchard Field, the adoption of district goals and subsequent focus on the Six
Components has led to a very tightly focused program of support. Budget
documents reveal that the percentage of funds allocated to support the
professional development program are only superceded by district personnel
costs. District leaders feel that in order to effectively close the achievement gap,
attention must be given to reviewing and analyzing data to determine next steps
for each individual school. This was one of the primary reasons that the district
decided to utilize the School Site Plan as the delivery mechanism for the Six
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
125
Components. Additionally, funding must be provided to ensure that a
targeted professional development is offered and that organization at the school
site reflects an achievement driven-structure and support system.
Data analysis was initially not included as part of the original plan,
according to the site principal. District leaders recalled that data analysis had just
always been a part of their operating procedures. Statewide achievement data,
however, provided an additional layer of data for school leaders to consider.
More importantly, it was connected to implementation of a standards-based
curriculum and it soon became evident that adding a data analysis implementation
requirement would force schools to really review student achievement data and
would serve as a decision point for schools in the writing of their school goals.
According to one of the consultants hired to work with the district on
design implementation, providing a targeted professional development program
helps assure the faithful replication of instructional strategies in a standards-based
curriculum program. Through the development of the School Site Plan, school
teams determine the type of support required for implementation. District lead
teachers serve to support implementation by providing on-site coaching,
demonstrations, and collegial support to school site teacher. Twelve certificated
teachers serve as TOSA’s and are responsible for three to four schools each and
concentrate their effort based on grade level and/or special program. According
to the Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction, a great deal of attention has
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
126
been paid to ensuring that site principals have all of the tools they need
to be successful. Ongoing staff development is provided both through Leadership
Academies, Advisories, and regular principal meetings. Emphasis on issues
related to the successful implementation of the Six Components is always a major
element of each meeting. Mini-quizzes are a part of every staff development
program to help teachers and principals maintain focus on the plan.
Part of the School Site Plan was the development of structures within the
school to help with implementation and to gauge achievement. Horizontal
teaming, commonly used for grade level consistency and planning, is combined
with vertical teaming to ensure student performance. Support services through
the use of TOSA’s are another method of sustaining student achievement. A
review of action steps within the School Site Plan revealed a number of formal
structures that led to a culture of collaboration. The researcher assigned a score of
“Fully Implemented” as a result of a review of documents and participant
interviews.
Responding to and Contending with Exogenous Policy - The development
of the instructional improvement design was an attempt by the district to satisfy
state and federal mandates with respect to student achievement. Specific attention
was paid by the district to developing an aggressive plan for meeting the state
content standards in terms of curriculum and assessment. The district plan also
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
127
addressed the need to include state assessment data as part of the
multiple measures they used to assess student performance.
When questioned about how the district responds to exogenous policy, the
Director of Student Support Services shared, “We see ourselves as a very law-
abiding district and not bucking policy or the law at all. However, we do expect
to be treated fairly and with professionalism.”
The district is comfortable questioning state and federal authorities when
they feel that the policy is in conflict with their mission. Further, the Director of
Student Support Services recalled some specific situations where accepting state
funds meant compromising district goals, “We weigh the cost of those decisions
against the benefit to the larger community. When it doesn’t equal out, we simply
say, ‘no thanks’,”
Orchard Field appeared to adopt and align state and federal mandates as
required. Participant interviews revealed on at least one occasion that the district
had determined that a state policy was detrimental to the instructional program
and worked with the state to arrive at an amicable conclusion. The researcher
gave the district a score of “Fully Implemented” in this area.
Creating Local Systems of Accountability - Through the implementation
of the district’s plan for improved teaching and learning, mechanisms exist within
the design to hold principals, schools, and teachers accountable. District leaders
indicate that while teachers are accountable for implementation of the core
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
128
program and the integration of the Six Components, the principals are
ultimately responsible for ensuring that the reform is being implemented in its
entirety. The components of data-driven decision-making, targeted professional
development and having an academic-centered plan for family and community
engagement all serve as ways to measure extent of implementation and student
achievement.
The Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction pointed to the Action
Walks as one of the culture-changing events that illustrated increased
accountability for teachers and principals. District leaders shared that when
classroom doors are open, the extent of implementation is easy to ascertain. Data
gathered during each Action Walk is shared with the individual school sites so
that they may evaluate progress toward goals in the School Site Plan. During a
recent Leadership Academy the Assistant Superintendent shared an example of
how implementation of the Six Components has changed school conversations:
We had a Leadership Academy centered around the practice of extracting
and analyzing data and making instructional conclusions based on that.
And to listen to the level of conversation around the room - the intensity,
the intellectual level of the conversations around the use of data - this
never would have happened five years ago.
OFUSD took another step towards creating local accountability by
redesigning its staff development program to include expert training, on-site
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
129
coaching and demonstrations, cognitive guided instruction, and
collegial support. In addition, the district included extensive training for
administrators in both content implementation, and instructional leadership.
According to the outside consultants, targeted professional development provides
the district with the opportunity to maintain high standards for all of its programs.
Staff development calendars, as well as TOSA meeting notes, indicate that the
Department of Instruction is actively providing support to all of its elementary
schools.
Another feature of the Six Components that provides accountability is the
creation of an academic-centered culture for school communities. Student-led
conferences are used to hold students accountable for their learning. Teachers are
trained through the staff development program to serve as facilitators during
parent conferences. Student feedback about what they have learned helps
teachers gauge the effectiveness of their instruction. Evidence of the use of the
student-led conferencing model was seen in the School Site Plan as well as
through the Staff Development Calendar. While there are a variety of local
accountability systems, it was unclear if the district had spent enough time
articulating expectations with respect to implementation of the new learning
model. The researcher assigned a score of “partially implemented” in this area.
Communicating: externally/internally - The district’s plan for improved
teaching and learning requires a rigorous system for the sharing of information
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
130
both externally and internally. Communication channels must allow
for the delivery of information from district leaders to site principals to lead
teachers, to site teachers, school staff, parents and community. Orchard Field
employs an Information Officer to handle many of the external communications
to the media and community at-large. Structures also exist within the district to
ensure that elements of the Six Components are communicated throughout the
district and its stakeholders. The Superintendent works with the Board of
Education to ensure that they are aware of the design and how it is working to
support student achievement. District leaders meet with site principals through
monthly principal meetings, and the smaller Principal Advisory Groups.
Leadership Academies serve to train and communicate with principals and lead
teachers from each school. District-led teacher consultations were held
periodically with teachers to gain feedback about the instructional direction of the
district as well as to review new program materials. Elements from each area of
the Six Components of High Performing Schools were embedded within the
agenda of each meeting.
Principal leadership was identified by many of the participants as a key
element to the successful implementation of the district’s design. While monthly
principal meetings deal largely with operational issues, Advisory Groups and the
Leadership Academies are designed to help support principals with the
implementation of the Six Components. District leaders felt that their
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
131
expectations were clearly delivered through these various meetings
and training sessions. The site principal, however, felt differently with respect to
this issue
Staff that had been involved in the reform was made available to help staff
who may have been reticent. But then it was really up to the principal to
make it happen, and I would say that is true with about 95% of the things
that happen in our district. There was not a direct “take this back to your
staff and share.” It really was kind of left up to the principal to decide,
which is probably why some sites are having an easier time with
implementation.
When the researcher probed further on this point, the principal acknowledged that
a little more coaching from the district with respect to how to deliver the message
would have been helpful.
At the school site level, communication channels were clearly developed
through the writing of the School Site Plan. Vertical and Horizontal teaming are
the norm at most elementary schools, according to the site principal and lead
teacher. District TOSA’s also provide a communication bridge to the site level.
Each TOSA visits each school multiple times per week and works with classroom
teacher to help with implementation of instructional strategies and alignment of
curriculum. TOSA’s also informally let the district know how implementation of
the model is being successful at each school site. However the communication
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
132
channels appeared to be weakened when implementation instructions
were not specifically directed by the district. Because of this, the researcher
assigned a score of “partially implemented” to this area.
Partnering with Non-Svstem Actors - The district maintains a variety of
relationships with not only educational consultants, but also with city agencies
and community organizations. With respect to the Six Components, these groups
serve to support the effective delivery and ongoing implementation of the
instructional improvement design.
Educational consultants are utilized to help the district meet their goals.
The Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction explained that it often outgrows
these consultants:
There is a painful realization that you get to a point that while the
consultant has been useful in helping us to build capacity we exceed what
they can provide, so then we move forward on our own, or find someone
else that can move us to that next leg.
Consultants that are selected to work with Orchard Field also must recognize that
the district expects to be part of the planning process, which serves to help
accelerate the learning process.
One of the roles of the Assistant Superintendent of K-6 Instruction is to
provide the community with access to information and resources regarding the
district. Community engagement is important to the district, particularly with
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
133
youth-serving organizations like the Boys and Girls Club who operate
pre-school and after-school programs to students in district schools. Maintaining
a relationship with these organizations helps the district provide its students with
supplemental services and ensures that outside programming is in alignment with
district goals. Orchard Field also provides staff development for these community
groups as well. The Assistant Superintendent stated that she serves on the board
for a few community organizations. The researcher assigned a score of “Fully
Implemented” in this area.
Effectiveness of District’s Instructional Improvement Design
The fifth research question asked, “How effective was the district in
implementing the reform effort?” For this question, Conceptual Framework “A”
provided the basis for data collection with respect to determining the effectiveness
of the district’s design for improving teaching and learning. Data collected
through individual interviews and document analysis and cross-referenced with
observations from the Researcher Rating Rubric provided a global view of the
implementation of the design and served as the primary data source. Indicators of
district effectiveness, based on the perceptions of district leaders, were
predetermined as coherence of policy and action, organizational culture,
sustainability, and equity of the implementation among schools and staff
members.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
The intended district outcome of supporting the Six
Components of High Performing Schools is that the district will successfully meet
their goals. Goal 1 stated that students in the district five years or longer will
meet grade level proficiency in core academic subjects as measured by the
California Standards Test. The second goals stated that all English Learners will
advance one level per year in English language proficiency until English
proficient as measured by the California English Learner Development Test.
Toward this end, all teachers in the district are expected to implement a standards-
based curriculum and assessment program, and utilize research-based strategies to
help students gain access to the state content standards. The District, through its
analysis of data, works with school sites to develop a School Site Plan that
outlines action steps incorporating professional development needs,
external/internal supports, and a plan to engage family and community.
In the area of coherence of policy and action, the researcher gave the
district individual scores across all seven domains of Conceptual Framework A.
The focus of this researcher was specifically on the effectiveness of district with
respect to: acquiring and allocating resources, creating local systems of
accountability, partnering with non-system actors and responding to/contending
with exogenous policy as it related to those three domains.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
135
Table 3 - Level of Implementation of Six Components within
Conceptual Framework A ____________________
Domain of District
Action
Level of Implementation
Defining Teaching and
Learning
Partially Implemented
Acquiring and Allocating
Resources
Fully Implemented
Developing the Profession Fully Implemented
Responding to/Contending
with Exogenous Policy
Fully Implemented
Creating Local Systems of
Accountability
Partially Implemented
Communicating
externally/internally
Partially Implemented
Partnering with non-
System Actors
Fully Implemented
A score of “fully implemented” in the area of acquiring and allocating
resources was assigned to the district. Despite the lack of knowledge about the
plan to improve teaching and learning revealed through interviews with the Chief
Business Official and Assistant Superintendent of Personnel, resources were
allocated to support its implementation. A review of documents and participant
interviews demonstrated that the district put both money and personnel behind
each of the six components to ensure successful implementation.
District implementation with respect to creating local systems of
accountability received a score of “partially implemented,” based on the
inconsistent communication of information from the district to the classroom
teacher. A review of both documents and participant interviews demonstrated
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
136
that accountability for the implementation of the district’s design was
not accomplished consistently at all levels of the organization.
District leaders recognize the important of partnering with agencies,
consultants, and community groups outside of the organization. Document
reviews and participant interviews provided clear examples of how the district
works with these non-system partners to further support implementation of the
district’s design. A score of “Fully implemented” was assigned to the district
with respect to implementation.
The perceived impact of the district’s implementation strategy is a direct
reflection of the level of support provided to principals and schools to help them
improve student achievement. District leaders have worked within a centralized
structure to provide schools and principals with the human and fiscal resources to
help them be successful. The site principal discussed that centralization of policy
and procedures, which may seem excessive, actually helps cut down on extra
paperwork and enables the site leader to focus on instruction.
Overall the district received scores of “fully implemented” in four of the
seven areas on Conceptual Framework A. Based on the information provided,
this researcher felt that the district did have enough of the key elements and was
effectively implementing the Six Components of High Performing Schools.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
137
Discussion
The Orchard Field Unified School District has a comprehensive
instructional improvement design that is based on the Six Components of High
Performing Schools: standards-based assessment and curriculum, research-based
instructional strategies, data-driven decision making, targeted professional
development, achievement-driven support, and academic-centered family, and
community engagement. Past research points to a number of common initiatives
that districts have implemented to improve instruction at the classroom level:
capacity-building, resource allocation, curriculum alignment, data analysis, and
improving community relations. (Corcoran, 2003; Regional Educational
Laboratory Network, 2000). Orchard Field’s approach similarly began with just
pieces of a plan. Once district-wide goals were established however, there was a
need to integrate those pieces into a comprehensive measure of school reform.
Full implementation of the Six Components of High Performing Schools,
Orchard Field believed, would narrow the achievement gap by focusing everyone
on a standards-based curriculum and assessment program design that was in
alignment with research-based strategy instruction. “Coherence of Policy and
Action” is one quality indicator in effective high-performing urban school
districts presented by Hightower, Knapp, Marsh, & McLaughlin (2002). A focus
on standards, curriculum, assessment and professional development in OFUSD
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
138
meant that the district would work to close the achievement gap. By
implementing a core instructional program where standards-based curriculum,
instruction and improvement serve as the foundation, targeted professional
development, achievement-driven structures, and academic-centered community
engagement act together to support district efforts for faithful replication of the
core instructional program.
District-wide implementation of instructional improvement strategies that
focus on classroom and school practices to improve student achievement were
also highlighted in current literature (Darling-Hammond, 1999; McLaughlin &
Talbert, 2003; NCES, 2000). Sadly, American school districts have not placed a
focus on instruction and student learning (Resnick & Hall, 1998; Elmore, 2003).
Orchard Field, however, set out to create a plan to improve teaching and learning
that was coherent, equitable, and would be able to sustain itself over time.
Implementation of such a plan requires school districts to find ways to focus
district leadership, principals, and teachers on the goals of the district and then
move forward with systemic change.
As McLaughlin and Talbert (2003) suggest, the approach for
implementing change at the school and classroom level should be focused on how
progress toward the goals can be supported from the district level. With added
state and federal accountability measures, such as the enactment of No Child Left
Behind Act and state mandates for the implementation of the content standards,
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
139
school districts around the nation realize that it is time to change their
approach to instructional improvement. Conceptual Framework A, based on the
work of Gilbert, et. al (2002) lists “responding to exogenous policy,” the ability to
align state and federal mandates, as one of the domains that districts leverage
when implementing reform. In Orchard Field, the process was made easier
because the district had a long history of good relationships with many members
of the school community. Inclusion of the community in the development of a
plan from the outset can assist district leaders with system-wide improvement by
creating a way to leverage the process and focus everyone on the achievement of
the district goals.
The process for setting goals, however, would prove meaningless unless
everyone understands why they were written in the first place. The use of data to
guide instructional decision-making and improve student performance was seen
as imperative to district reform (McLauglin & Talbert, 2003; Schmoker, 1999).
Orchard Field had used data to gauge success of its programs before, but its
usefulness was magnified by implementation of the Six Components to gauge
individual student achievement. District leaders contracted with an independent
research agency to assist them with data gathering and interpretation. Further, the
district made a point to train not only site principals, but also lead teachers and
district administrators, in data analysis. Fullan (1998) suggested that successful
reform involved district leaders becoming learners themselves. Resnick (1999)
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
140
added that inclusion of district leaders was important because through
the process of learning together, the organization and structure that will move the
district to the next level will be determined. Creating a culture that emphasizes
continuous learning and two-way accountability throughout the system is another
principle found in high-performing urban school districts (Hightower, et. al.
(2002).
Schlechty (2002) states that while change occurs at the classroom level it
cannot be sustained without support. Built into the Six Components of High
Performing Schools are three areas designed to help teachers focus and align their
instruction. They include targeted professional development, achievement-driven
structure and support, and academic-centered family and community engagement.
While teachers are accountable for implementation of all components, it is the
responsibility of the school district to provide the resources that would assist in
managing change at the classroom level.
OFUSD determined that the development of the Single School Plan for
Student Achievement would assist schools by creating a common vision for
school improvement. Datnow (2004) points out that in case studies of high
performing schools, there is a district-wide sense of efficacy and focus on student
achievement. During the first year of implementation, the district selected
schools that were struggling to meet state and federal performance targets as a
point of focus, and the Six Components of High Performing Schools were used a
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
141
platform to improve teaching and learning. Outside consultants were
brought in to help school teams analyze local and state data, identify achievement
gaps, and create action steps to help improve student performance. Du Four
(1997), Elmore, Peterson and McCarthey (1996), Fullan (1993), and others point
to the importance of collaborative models of learning for both teachers and
administrators in systemic reform. Positive feedback from principals and teachers
created a buzz around the district and led to a number of schools volunteering to
participate during Year Two. By the third year of implementation, district
officials were confident in their approach and enough success had generated
support among teachers to require full participation by all schools. The use of a
“pilot study” approach can assist school districts by giving them the time to
ensure that the improvement design is supporting the goals for which they were
created.
Orchard Field’s district-wide focus on classroom instruction is well
supported in educational research. Teacher quality, acquisition of resources,
professional development, and ongoing support should be within a district’s plan
to improve teaching and learning (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003; NCES, 2000;
Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). From a district perspective, the allocation of resources,
both human and fiscal, play a critical role in the successful implementation of a
plan to improve teaching and learning. Hiring the appropriate staff, training and
providing support needs to be in alignment with the focus and direction of the
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
142
district plan. McLaughlin and Talbert (2003) proffer that districts
demonstrate their commitment to improving teaching and learning through the
allocation of resources to support the instructional improvement plan.
Further, Conceptual Framework A identifies the acquisition and allocation
of district resources as one of the domains of district action. Carey, Hall, and
Weiner (2003) succinctly state that teacher quality can be leveraged to improve
almost every aspect of our educational system. Finding the right staff and placing
them in the right position and supporting them with materials and training should
be a goal of any district. Collaboration between departments, instruction,
personnel, and business can help districts be better prepared to select teachers
who are not only knowledgeable, but more importantly, those who fit into the
stmctures that exist in the district. The Assistant Superintendent of Personnel in
OFUSD looked for teachers with “a good attitude and a willingness to work
hard,” and knew that the districts comprehensive teacher training program would
provide them with the support to be successful.
Creating a budget that allows the district and school sites to do what they
need to do should be a focus for district business personnel. Although unfamiliar
with the details of the plan, the Chief Business Official in Orchard Field did seem
to understand that her role was to ensure that district could implement the Six
Components of High Performing Schools as designed. Hightower, et al. (2002)
points out that equity does not always mean equal treatment. During the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
143
interview with the business department, examples provided showed
that an effort was made by the district to creatively use its funding to ensure the
equitable distribution of resources between school sites. Each school within a
district has its own unique needs as determined by demographics, student
achievement data, and the current school site plan. By understanding the district’s
plan for improved teaching and learning, and ultimately greater student
achievement, the business office will be in a better position to support school site
expenditures.
Ample budget resources were allocated in Orchard Field to ensure a
comprehensive staff development program that focuses on the alignment of
curriculum, instruction and assessment. OFUSD has used the Six Components of
High Performing Schools to define the district’s role in supporting teachers, as
well as to create a local system of accountability. The Domains o f District Action
identified by Gilbert, et. al (2002) includes the creation of local systems of
accountability to support instructional improvement reform. Building the capacity
of both district and site personnel is an effective element of school reform design
(Chrispeels, 1997; Hightower, et. al (2002); Ball and Cohen, 1999; Perry and
McDermott, 2003).
As part of targeted professional development, financial resources, tapped
to support the continuous teacher training model, would support district efforts
through use of outside consultants and district lead teachers. Expert teachers on
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
144
special assignment (TOS A) are taken out of the classroom to provide
specific support to classroom teachers. TOSA’s provide on-site coaching,
demonstrations, and provide valuable feedback to schools regarding the
implementation of the School Site Plan. Funds are also designated to build the
leadership capacity of principals through Action Walks, Principal Advisory
Groups, and the Leadership Academy. The goal for principals is to help them
focus on classroom instruction so that they can serve to support teaching and
learning in the classroom. Biddle and Berliner (2002) point out that without a
focus on what happens inside the classroom, education reform is bound to fail.
Centralized structures had been in the Orchard Field Unified School
District for many years. In order to successfully implement reform, it was
necessary to use those centralized structures that traditionally operated in a
vacuum and integrate them into the district vision for improved teaching and
learning. Within the Six Components, achievement-driven structure and support
provided the mechanism, a vertical and horizontal communication structure that
would 1) create a focus for improved teaching and learning throughout the
district, and 2) sustain the effort over time. The instructional improvement design
principles shared in Hightower et. al (2002) include a focus on classroom
instruction throughout the district. While Orchard Field is moving in the direction
of vertical alignment, data collected from interviews would indicate that there is
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
145
still a knowledge gap between the district’s design for improved
teaching and learning, and the method for all departments to work together to
support the plan.
Connecting districts and schools to improve student learning can also be
analyzed using Bolman and Deal’s book (1997) Reframing Organizations. They
suggest that any system can be viewed individually and collectively through four
different organizational lens: structural, political, human resource, and symbolic.
Orchard Field Unified School District is a centralized organization where
most decisions are made at the district level. Centralized structures are useful for
implementing new reforms, particularly because they help to create systems to fill
a particular need. Designing and implementing a plan for instructional
improvement is no easy task because of the number of variables associated with
differing levels of student achievement, teacher quality, and principal leadership.
Orchard Field realized that they were good at designing plans to solve different
problems, but the bigger solution relied on their ability to integrate several ideas
into one systemic reform package.
The inclusion of academic-centered family and community engagement
was a politically important element of the district’s design for improved teaching
and
learning. Undergoing system change does not happen without consideration for
how the change is going to affect all of the stakeholders. Including the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
146
community in the development of the plan helped engage an important
segment of the population while maintaining the district’s focus on the
achievement of their goals.
Developing and building the capacity of teachers and leaders around the
district is an element of the human resource frame. In Orchard Field, district
administrators seek to make decisions in the best interest of the students they
serve. Personnel wanted to hire staff that would embrace the district’s goals and
work hard to achieve them. An impressive staff development calendar
demonstrated that teachers had the ability and opportunity to engage in
continuous learning, and the requisite attendance sheets indicated that they were
willing participants. Principal leadership is recognized as a critical component as
well. Efforts are made to ensure that site leaders are knowledgeable about
curriculum and skilled at identifying and supporting classroom instruction.
Orchard Field uses data analysis to help them evaluate the effectiveness of
their reform efforts. This researcher believes that while there is an educational
benefit to doing this, symbolically the district is continually interested in
affirming that their efforts are in the best interests of the children. An analysis of
budget expenditures shows that more than 85% of the district’s budget is spent on
improving classroom instruction, a fact that has not changed for decades.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
147
Summary
This chapter is a review of the findings, analysis and interpretation of data
for this study. Data provided answers to each of the five research questions. The
discussion included a description of the instructional improvement design utilized
by the school district. From the district’s perspective, this description focused on
the elements of the design, factors influencing the design, change process
undertaken by the district, extent of implementation, and effectiveness of the
design. A summary, conclusions, and implications of this study are presented in
the next chapter.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
148
CHAPTER FIVE
Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
Background of the Study
While gaps in student performance may always exist, creating a cohesive,
district-wide plan that focuses on improving instruction may hold the key to
increased student achievement. Efforts to improve teaching and learning have led
school districts to focus more on classroom instruction as a way to improve
teaching and learning, and ultimately, student performance on state and local
assessments. Increased accountability measures at the state and district levels
have required that school districts take more of a direct leadership role in the
design and implementation of instructional strategies to meet the needs of diverse
student populations. The use of research-based reform strategies that are aligned
to state standards has been explored as one method for refining classroom
instruction. Understanding how school districts implement instructional
improvement plans could be as important as the strategy itself. Resnick, et. al
(1998) emphasizes that there has been a clear call for district leaders to sharpen
their focus on instructional practice so that all of the day-to-day operations of the
district center on teaching and learning.
The research on district reform is replete with models of the best practices
for school districts who are designing and implementing reform. According to the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
149
National Center for Educational Accountability, there are five
organizing themes that provide the primary structure for analyzing the practices of
high-performing school systems (NCEA, 2004). These themes include
Curriculum and Academic Goals; Staff Selection, Leadership, and Capacity
Building; Instructional Programs, Practices, and Arrangements; Monitoring:
Compilation, Analysis, and Use of Data; Recognition, Intervention, and
Adjustment. McLaughlin & Talbert (2003) point out that a systematic focus on
instruction has been a common theme for reforming districts.
While it is clear is that reform strategies are as individual as the districts
that implement them, there must be a universally accepted way to measure design
effectiveness so that continual improvement can take place. Hightower, Knapp,
Marsh, & McLaughlin (2002) present five design principles that have been found
effective in the identification of high performing urban school districts. They
include:
1. A commitment to an effort-based concept of intelligence and
education.
2. A focus on classroom instruction throughout the district.
3. A culture emphasizing continuous learning and two-way
accountability - the core elements of nested learning communities
— throughout the system.
4. Continuing professional development for all staff based in schools
and linked to the instructional program for students.
5. Coherence in standards, curriculum, assessment, and professional
development.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
150
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore and identify the elements of and
the factors influencing a school district’s learning design, and further, to
document how the design works to connect a district, school, and classroom,
ultimately leading to improved teaching and learning. Orchard Field Unified
School District was selected to provide the means for evaluating the extent and
effectiveness of a district’s implementation plan.
Five research questions defined the district’s instructional improvement
strategy and guided the research for this study. These research questions were:
1. What were the elements of the district’s design for improving
teaching/learning?
2. What were the factors that shaped the district design?
3. How did the district carry out the change strategy to implement the
design?
4. What was the extent of implementation of the district design?
5. How effective was the district in implementing the reform effort?
Summary of Findings
Findings based on each of the five research questions were revealed
through analysis of data collected through individual interviews, a document
review, district profile, and the researcher rating rubric. These findings, by
research question, are presented below.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
151
Research Question One
The first research question analyzed the elements of the district’s design
for improving teaching and learning. The data showed that the district built on
existing successful reforms, and with the help of an outside consultant, identified
six components commonly found in high performing school systems. While
implementation of the entire design began incrementally three years ago, the
district utilized the standards-based report card and the district goals to help create
a platform from which to create and implement the entire design.
One of the key events that eventually led to the development of the
instructional improvement plan was the development of the district goals designed
to improve student achievement. While this may have been initiated in response
to state and federal mandates for increased accountability and standards-based
reform, this event, sparked by the superintendent’s desire to focus the entire
system on raising student achievement of the district goals, was a turning point for
the district.
The district took an important step in meeting state expectations through
the analysis of student performance data, which ultimately led to the creation of
the district goals and the standards-based report card. The district realized,
however, that they had implemented a standards-based reporting system prior to
the adoption of curriculum and materials to help students meet the state’s rigorous
content standards. Once the district took a step back and really analyzed the data
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
152
and determined the district goals, the stage was set for designing a
comprehensive plan to help students achieve the goals. The specific elements of
the district’s plan were identified as the Six Components of High Performing
Schools.
Research Question Two
The second research question analyzed the external and internal factors
that influenced the shaping of the district’s instructional improvement design.
The data showed that the district leveraged both external and internal factors and
focused on the allocation of resources, both human and financial, to help with the
shaping of the design and eventual implementation.
Externally the district was faced with pressures from state and federal
mandates to improve student achievement. Data analysis helped the district
identify performance gaps for both English Learners and minority students. Some
district schools were in danger of not meeting performance targets and the district,
already highly centralized, desired a systematic approach to improving classroom
instruction. Orchard Field recognized that a change in focus would also require
principals to take more of a direct role in the monitoring and support of
instruction.
Internally the district had hired a new superintendent who had been
employed by the district for over thirty years. Her experience would help buffer
some of the upcoming changes, but would not allow for sustainable change unless
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
153
she was successful in bringing everyone on staff on board with her
vision to improve student performance. Thus began the process of developing
goals to meet the needs of all students, facilitating groups of teachers and district
leaders in the analysis of data, and determining the best approach for piloting
some new ideas at those schools that were in need of the most support.
The shaping of the district plan was influenced by both external and
internal factors, but the allocation of resources was a third factor critical to the
design. Orchard Field is highly centralized, particularly in the areas of personnel
and business. While centralization is often characterized by endless bureaucracy,
Orchard Field seemed to be focused on making decisions that will best help
students meet the district goals. Business processes are tightly controlled to
ensure that materials purchased are in alignment with not only district goals, but
with the Six Components of High Performing Schools.
Similarly, the recruiting, selection and hiring of district staff is a
centralized process. However, by working with the Department of Instruction, the
Assistant Superintendent of Personnel indicated they were able to appropriately
select the right candidates for the open positions.
Research Question Three
The third research question examined the change strategies employed by
the district to help them implement the instructional improvement strategy. Data
gathered from interviews and a review of documents showed that the district
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1 54
change strategy had many facets: actual implementation of the design,
and measures to leverage policy mandates, existing reform measures, and
relationships between district and school site staff.
The data showed that the actual implementation of the plan was
accomplished in an incremental fashion, beginning with the schools that needed
the most support. Federal and state accountability legislation identified schools
that were failing to meet student needs. Orchard Field determined that those
schools that had received low marks on the state Academic Performance Index
and failed to meet federal Annual Yearly Progress goals were in need of direct
assistance to help them avoid sanctions in the future.
The district utilized the writing of the state-required Single School Plan
for Student Achievement as a way to tie in the Six Components of High
Performing Schools and focus schools on the district goals. School principals and
lead teachers came together and formed the Leadership Academy, whose sole
purpose was to help school site personnel, develop a plan to improve student
achievement and then provide support to help them implement the plan. Intensive
professional development for teachers and principals supported these schools in
the implementation of the Six Components of High Performing Schools.
Implementation was effective because the district utilized existing reforms
that had previously been successful. For example, teachers had been involved in
training to align district writing curriculum with the state content standards.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
155
Consequently, the alignment of math, science, and other content areas
was accepted more easily because the teachers had all participated in district and
site training. Action Walks conducted at the pilot school sites allowed for
collaboration between teachers and schools and provided the district with a way to
measure implementation. Once the district was confident in the implementation
at the pilot sites, the remaining schools were given the option to participate and
eventually the few schools left were directed to begin implementation.
Implementation of the design at sites for the second and third year were assisted
by the ongoing execution of the pilot sites who served as models.
Data also showed that the district focused their financial resources on
extensive professional development for teachers and principals. Staff
development changes enhanced the district’s design for improved teaching and
learning through the creation of a four-part continuous learning series. In this
model, teachers received training, an on-site demonstration, ongoing coaching,
and more training. The ongoing support was provided through teachers on special
assignment, who visit school sites and classrooms on a weekly basis.
Instructional leadership was an ongoing concern for district leaders.
School principals accustomed to managing school site issues needed to also
provide support to teachers in the delivery of instruction in the classroom.
Ongoing training was provided for principals through monthly Principal Study
Groups where there was a focus on topics related to instructional issues. Principal
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
156
Advisory Groups enabled principals from similar schools to share and
support one another as well as learn about effective implementation of the Six
Components of High Performing Schools.
Research Question Four
The fourth research question analyzed the district’s perception of the
extent of implementation of the instructional improvement design. The findings
presented in Chapter Four showed that, from the district’s perspective, the
instructional improvement plan was being fully implemented at the school sites.
The data also revealed, however, that there were elements of the design that
needed attention to ensure sustainability of the plan over time.
The strategy for implementation was to include the Six Components of
High Performing Schools into the development of the Single School Plan for
Student Achievement. This strategy allowed the district to both direct and
monitor implementation through a variety of centralized structures. Staff
development programs were designed according to identified needs through the
development of action plans within the Single School Plan. Further, district
purchases were regulated to ensure that site purchases were in alignment with
identified site needs. Hiring was accomplished also in a centralized fashion.
District leaders sought to identify those people who would work hard, have a
good attitude, and who could be successful in a highly structured environment.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
157
While the horizontal implementation of the instructional design
appears to be successful, vertical implementation is hindered by a lack of
understanding in the business and personnel departments. Neither leader in these
departments had much of an understanding of the Six Components of High
Performing Schools as revealed through individual interviews. While this has not
posed a major problem in the implementation of the design, future success may be
linked to building a fully integrated model where all district employees are
focused and understand the direction of the district in terms of improving teaching
and learning.
Research Question Five
The fifth research question analyzed the district’s perception of the
effectiveness of the implementation strategy. The data showed that the perception
of implementation of the Six Components of High Performing Schools by district
leaders was that implementation was effective. Data supporting this perception
was found through the allocation of resources, professional development,
response to exogenous policy, and the creation of partnerships with outside
agencies. District leaders monitor each school to ensure that they are making
progress with respect to implementation of the Single School Plan. Based on
Conceptual Framework “A” data was lacking to support the district’s claims in
the areas of defining teaching and learning, creating local systems of
accountability, and external and internal communication.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
158
The centralized nature of Orchard Field helped the district with I
implementation. District purchasing and hiring practices, which have always
been centralized, made the allocation and acquisition of resources to support
implementation a much more effective process. Both departments seemed
satisfied with the manner in which they supported the school sites and pointed to
changes in professional development and the use of the teachers on special
assignment, both measures designed to support classroom teachers.
As discussed in Chapter Four, professional development in Orchard Field
was a top priority in supporting teachers in implementation of the instructional
improvement design. Execution of the plan was supported through a district
training which included only research-proven instructional strategies designed to
increase student achievement. The comprehensive approach employed by the
district gave every teacher multiple opportunities to not only participate but to be
successful. According to district leaders, Action Walks have shown that teachers
were utilizing the strategies and that grade level teams were talking and sharing
ideas. District efforts helped the school sites build collaboration and sense of
purpose through the implementation of the Six Components of High Performing
Schools.
Orchard Field’s response to state and federal mandates was strategically
managed to support the district’s plan to improve teaching and learning. The
district acknowledged that they needed a way to help focus staff on improving
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
159
student achievement. Standards and accountability measures imposed
by the state were fashioned in such a way to help the district meet its goals.
Leveraging these state mandates enabled the district to showcase the many
reasons for change in a district that is steeped in history and symbolism.
The district was also effective in utilizing outside agencies to support the
district’s plan to improve teaching and learning. Consultants were utilized to
focus the district on student achievement and helped them identify an approach
that would strengthen their earlier successes into a comprehensive reform
strategy.
Conclusions
In analyzing the five research questions and findings of this study, several
conclusions surfaced that can be termed “promising practices,” based on the
literature reviewed. Several conclusions regarding the needs of the district to
ensure sustainability of the instructional improvement design also emerged. The
instructional improvement design, The Six Components of High Performing
Schools, mirrors what past research has identified with respect to successful
district initiatives to improve teaching and learning. Corcoran (2003), Darling
Hammond (1999), McLaughlin and Talbert (2003), and others support the
district-wide implementation of instructional improvement practices to increase
student achievement. Methods identified in the review of literature that support
the district’s model in this study include data analysis, capacity-building, resource
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
160
allocation, and curriculum alignment. Further, while a focus on
classroom instruction will provide the greatest impact on student achievement, it
cannot be sustained without support from the district level (Schlechty, 2002;
McLaughlin & Talbert, 2003). Conceptual Framework A, constructed by the
Center for Teaching and Policy Research, analyzes district design efforts through
seven domains of action that districts use to leverage system-wide change:
defining teaching and learning, developing the profession, communicating
externally and internally, responding to and contending with exogenous policy,
acquiring and allocating human, fiscal and physical resources, creating local
systems of accountability and partnering with non-system actors. These domains
were utilized continuously throughout the study to evaluate the extent of
implementation and the effectiveness of the district’s efforts.
Promising Practices
The promising practices that emerged in this study are:
1) Alignment of district resources to support implementation and ongoing
needs of the instructional improvement plan. One of the reasons that
Orchard Field was successful in implementation is because they were
able to centrally manage the allocation of resources to support the
plan. Measures were in place that required district approval of
personnel and purchasing requests to ensure their alignment with the
Six Components of High Performing Schools. School districts that are
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
161
trying to create a sustainable instructional improvement
model need to ensure that all procedures, from hiring and training staff
to purchasing materials, are in place to support the various elements of
the plan.
2) Extensive, on-going staff development practices to support the needs
of teachers and principals. Teacher professional development is
focused on the practical application of each of the six components,
while principal training is focused on instructional leadership for the
successful implementation of the plan at the school site. School
districts seeking an effective plan for instructional improvement
should consider implementing a continuous training model tied to the
goals and objectives of the design.
3) The district implemented the Six Components of High Performing
Schools by leveraging existing relationships with personnel, ongoing
district reform, and state and federal level mandates to improve
classroom instruction. The implemented change required a district-
wide focus for school improvement. The establishment of district
goals, created collaboratively with teachers, staff, and community
leaders, helped create a focal point for school improvement. This was
accomplished through the use of legislative mandates to help identify
district-wide needs so that in turn goals were developed to focus the
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
162
entire system. Additional efforts that helped
implementation included using existing reform initiatives to ease the
transition. Replication of this model requires school districts to seek
ways to leverage existing policies and/or relationships that would
enable change to take place.
4) The district is able to identify its needs and utilize outside resources
when needed for support. District staff utilized outside consultants to
help develop the capacity of its leadership team to implement the Six
Components. The key to this practice is for the district to assume
responsibility for the effective implementation of the plan by gradually
phasing out its reliance on the outside agency. The use of external
consultants is most effective when the school district has a clear vision
for school improvement, understands the internal and external factors
that influence district decision-making, and are committed to
developing the action plan collaboratively with the outside agency.
District Support
The conclusions regarding implementation strategies showed that district
efforts are more effective when:
1) There is a shared vision between all district level departments
2) Principals are held accountable for the implementation of the district’s
design.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
163
3) Internal and external communication systems provided all
employees with clear expectations for implementation.
4) Internal and external communication systems recognized schools and
individuals for their efforts to improve instruction.
Implications
The findings and conclusions of this study have led to the following
implications for districts implementing a plan to improve teaching and learning:
1) To be successful, district and school personnel must have a common
vision for student achievement. This plan should be developed
collaboratively to ensure that all members of the school district
community can assess whether classroom and district decisions
support the achievement of the goals.
2) Centralized governance structures may aid in the successful
implementation of the instructional improvement strategy.
3) A focus on the alignment of curriculum, assessment and instruction
alone will not lead to increased student achievement. Additional
measures include ways to assess effectiveness, ongoing professional
development, time for collaboration and ways to engage external
partners, i.e. family and community.
4) The allocation of resources, financial and human, needs to be aligned
with district goals. Districts and schools should be focusing their
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
164
spending on materials, training, and curriculum that
supports student achievement.
5) Focused and continuous professional development is required to
ensure faithful replication of the design. Training for principals in
instructional leadership is imperative to the successful implementation
of district reform at the school site. Teacher professional development
should reflect school and district goals.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are
made regarding future research in this area:
1. The district studied had been implementing the instructional
improvement strategy for three years. Because of the incremental roll
out of the plan, some schools had only been implementing the plan for
one full year. A duplicate study is recommended at a later date to see
if the design has continued to be effective in the pilot study as well as
schools who implemented the design in the second and third years.
2. The focus of this study was on the implementation of the entire district
design. Future studies might be warranted to determine the
effectiveness of the individual components of the plan. This would
provide a more comprehensive picture of the effectiveness of the total
design.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
165
3. Orchard Field served students in grades K-12; however,
this study focused only on implementation of the design at the
elementary level, despite the fact that the instructional improvement
plan was being implemented as a K-12 initiative. Because of these
two factors, it is suggested that this study be expanded at a later date to
see if the district’s plan for implementation is effective at both the
primary and secondary level.
The experience of Orchard Field provides a replicable model for
instructional improvement that other school districts can follow. Although the
centralized nature of the district enabled some of the processes to occur more
freely, other school districts could easily implement each element of the Six
Components of High Performing Schools. District processes for purchasing,
hiring and training staff should be adopted to support improved teaching and
learning in the classroom. All school districts should have a clear vision for
student achievement that is understood and supported by all district employees.
When this is in place reform may be possible.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
166
REFERENCES
Anderson, B., Brown, C., & Lopez-Ferrao, J. (2003, Winter). Systemic
Reform: Good Educational Practice with Positive Impacts and Unresolved
Problems and Issues. [Electronic Version]. Systemic Reform: Good Educational
Practice with Positive Impacts and Unresolved Problems and Issues. Retrieved
May 30, 2004, from http://www.blackwell-svnergy.com
Anderson, S. (2003, August). The school district role in educational
change: A review o f the literature [Electronic Version]. International Centre for
Educational Change Working Paper #2. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~icec/workpaper2.pdf
Austin, T. (1996). Goals 2000-the Clinton administration education
program. In D. Schugurensky (Ed.), History o f education: Selected moments o f
the 20th century [Electronic Version]. Retrieved June 21, 2004, from
http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/goals200.html
Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing
practitioners: Toward a Practice-based Theory of Professional Education. In L.
Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as a learning Profession (pp. 3-
31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Binggeli, B. (2001, April). An analysis o f issues that helped shape
Florida public school accountability legislation: 1989 - 2000 [Electronic
Version], Retrieved January 11, 2004, from Dissertation submitted to Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-04252001 -
172838/
Biddle, B. & Berliner, D. (2002). What research says about small classes
& their effects [Electronic Version], WestEd Policy Perspective. Retrieved
November 1, 2003, from www.wested.org/cs/wew/view/rs/670
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
167
Birman, B., Desimone, L., Garet, M., Porter, A., Yoon, K. (2002). Effects
of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year
longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81.
Abstract retrieved July 3, 2003, from
www.aera.net/pubs/eena/abs/eena24/eepa2421 .htm
Birman, B., Reeve, A., & Sattler, C. (1998). The Eisenhower
Professional Development Program: Emerging themes from Six Districts. U.S.
Department of Education - American Institute of Research. [Electronic Version].
Retrieved July 20, 2004, from
http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CF APPS/ERIC/resumes/records.cfm?ericnum=ED4
22276
Birman, B., J., Chaney, K., Gallagher, L., Hikawa, H., Quick, H., &
Wolman (2003, July). Evaluation o f the Blueprint fo r Student Success in a
standards-basedsystem: Year 2 interim report [Electronic Version], Retrieved
November 1, 2003, from www.air.org/publications/elemsec education.htm
Black, P. and William, D. (1998, October). Inside the black box: raising
standards through classroom assessment [Electronic Version]. Phi Delta
Kappan. Retrieved May 26,2004, from www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm
Bolman L. & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing Organizations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Brendefur, J., Foster, S. (2000, Fall). Dearborn, Michigan: A System of
Changes. [Electronic Version] Cognitively Guided Instruction & Systemic
Reform, Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ccvi/zz-
pubs/Newsletters/Fall2000 CGInSvstemicReform/cgi with insert.pdf
Bunting, C. (1999). School reform— does it really matter? The Clearing
House, 72(4), 213-216.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
168
Butler, J. & Druian, G. (2001). Effective schooling practices and at-risk
youth: What the research shows [Electronic Version]. NWREL School
Improvement Research Series: Topical Synthesis #1. Retrieved September 16,
2003, from www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/l/tonsvnl.html
Campbell, C., Tractemberg, P. & Whitty, G. (2004, April 13).
Improving School Districts: External intervention and internal capacity building
in the US and UK [Electronic Version]. Paper presented at American
Educational Research Association Conference, San Diego, CA. Retrieved April
26, 2004, from
http://convention.allacademic.com/aera20Q4/AERA papers/AERA 1132 12560
a.PDF
Carter, G. (2003, May). Scaling up quality teaching: The professional
development imperative [Electronic Version]. ASCD Education Update, 45(3).
Retrieved July 3, 2004, from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/ed update/200305/carter.html
Carey, K. (2004, Winter) The Real Value o f Teachers: Using new
Information about Teacher Effectiveness to close the Achievement Gap.
[Electronic Version]. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved July 26,
2004 from
http://www2.edtrust.org/EdTrust/Product+Catalog/Reports+and+Publications.ht
m#realvalue
Carey, K.; Hall, D. & Wiener, R. (2003). What new “ AYP” information
tells us about schools, states, and public education [Electronic Version].
Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved November 17, 2003, from
www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlvres/4B9BF8DE-987A-40630B75Q-
6D67607E7205/0/NewAYP.pdf
Center for Education Reform (1998). A nation still at risk: An education
manifesto. Washington D.C.: Author.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
169
Ceperich, J., Jepson, J. & Lewis, S. (2002, October). Critical trends in
urban education: Fifth biennial survey o f America's great city schools
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved November 6, 2002, from
www.ecs.org/html/IssueSection.asp?issueid=147&s=Selected+Research+%26+
Readings
Chrispeels, J. H. (1997). Educational policy implementation in a shifting
political climate: The California experience. American Educational Research
Journal, 34, 453-481.
Christman, J. & Corcoran, T. (2002, November). The limits and
contradictions o f systemic reform: The Philadelphia story [Electronic Version].
Retrieved November 1, 2003, from www.cpre.org/Publications/children08.pdf
Christopher, C., Darling-Hammond, Hightower, A., Husbands, J.,
LaFors, J. & Young, V. (2003, September). Building instructional quality:
“ Inside-out" and “ outside-in "perspectives on San Diego’ s school reform
[Electronic Version]. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy Research
Report R-03-3. Retrieved April 13, 2004, from
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/InstructionalOual-09-2003.pdf
Christopher, C., Darling-Hammond, Hightower, A., Husbands, J.,
LaFors, J. & Young, V. (2003, September). Building instructional quality and
coherence in San Diego City Schools: System struggle, professional change
[Electronic Version]. Teaching Quality Briefs, 9, 1-8. Retrieved April 13, 2004,
from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Brief five.pdf
Coalition of Essential Schools (2002, November). Students thrive in
schools that promote rigor and personalize learning: A report on the Coalition of
Essential schools’ work with Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
(CSDR) schools in Ohio, Maine, Massachusetts, and Michigan [Electronic
Version]. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from
www.essentialschools.org/lpt/ces docs/304
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
170
Coalition for Essential Schools. (2004). The history of CES and the
common principles [Electronic Version], Retrieved June 22, 2004 from
www.essentialschools.org/pub/ces docs/about/phil/history.html
Comer, M. (2000). Cultural congruence model: A framework for
examining organizational culture [Electronic Version]. Retrieved January 11,
2004, from www.thehayesgroupintl.com/culture.pdf
Consortium for Policy Research Education (Ed). (1993, October).
Developing content standards: Creating a process for change [Electronic
Version], CPRE Policy Briefs. Retrieved May 29, 2004, from
www.cpre.org/publications
Consortium for Policy Research Education (Ed). (1998). Executive
summary for Children Achieving: Philadelphia's education reform A second-
year evaluation [Electronic Version]. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from
www.cpre.org/Publications/execsumm.pdf
Corcoran, T. (2002). Summary o f Research on Children Achieving
Challenge case studies [Electronic Version]. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from
www.cpre.org/Research/children03 .pdf
Corcoran, T. (2003, November). The use of research evidence in
instructional improvement [Electronic Version]. CPRE Policy Briefs, RB-040.
Retrieved January 11, 2004, from www.cpre.org/Publications/rb40.pdf
Corcoran, T. (2004, April 13).Under construction: The challenges of
researching on-going large scale reform in middle and high schools [Electronic
Version]. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association
Conference, San Diego, CA. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from
http://convention.allacademic.com/aera20Q4/AERA papers/AERA sess 1013 1
1413a.PDF
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
171
Cordes, S. (2001, October 03). Meta-Cognitive Development Strategies.
Retrieved June 10, 2004, from http ://www. schoolrenewal.org
Cotton, K. (1992, December). School Improvement Research Series -
School-Based Management. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved July 10, 2004, from
http://www.nwrel.Org/scpd/sirs/7/topsvn6.html
CPSE. (1997). Learning-Centered Psychological Principles. Retrieved
June 12, 2004, from http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html
Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support
professional development in an era of reform [Electronic Version]. NCLS. Phi
Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604. Retrieved April 13, 2004, from
www.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/randd-engaged-darling.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. (1995, April). Policies that
support professional development in an era of reform [Electronic Version]. Phi
Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from
http://www.middleweb.com/PDPolicv.html.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Miles, K. (1997). Rethinking the allocation of
teaching resources: Some lessons from high performing schools [Electronic
Version]. CPRE Research Report Series, RR-38. Retrieved January 11, 2004,
from www.cpre.org/Publications/rr38.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996, September). What matters most: Teaching
for America’ s future [Electronic Version]. Report of the National Commission
on Teaching and America’s Future. Retrieved July 3, 2004, from
http://www.teachingqualitv.org/resources/pdfs/What Matters Most.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999, December). Teacher quality and student
achievement: A review o f state policy evidence [Electronic Version], Center for
the Study of Teaching and Policy R-99-1. Retrieved July 3, 2004, from
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/LDH 1999.pdf
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
172
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999, December). Teacher quality and student
achievement: A review o f state policy evidence [Electronic Version]. Center for
the Study of Teaching and Policy Working Paper #R-99-l. Retrieved May 9,
2004, from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/LDH 1999.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004, April 14). Performance-Based Teacher
Assessment for High Performance Teaching and Learning: The California
Experience [Electronic Version]. Paper presented at American Educational
Research Association Conference, San Diego, CA. Retrieved April 26, 2004,
from
http://convention.allacademic.com/aera2004/AERA papers/AERA sess 1129 1
1081a.PDF
Darling-Hammond, L., Hightower, A., Husbands. J., LaFors, J. & Young,
V. (2002, April 4). Building instructional quality: Inside-out, bottom-up, and
top-down perspectives on San Diego’ s school reform [Electronic Version].
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association in New Orleans, LA. Retrieved January 11, 2004, from
http:// depts. Washington, edu
Datnow, A. (2000). Power Politics in the Adoption of School Reform
Models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4). 357
Datnow, A., & Cohn, C. (2004). District Role in School Improvement. In
Dissertation Seminar. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Dissertation
Seminar Cohort, University of Southern California.
Diamond, J., Halverson, R. & Spillane, J. (2004, April). Distributed
leadership: Toward a theory o f school leadership practice [Electronic Version],
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association in San Diego, CA. Retrieved May 6, 2004, from
http://dls.sesp.northwestem.edu/papers/twdsldrpracticeSPIHALDIA%20.pdf
DuFour, R. (1997). The school as a learning organization:
Recommendations fo r school improvement (Vol. 81).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
173
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at
work: Best practices fo r enhancing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Education Trust (2003). Achievement in America [Electronic Version].
Retrieved July 3, 2004, from http ://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/14FB5D3 3 -
31EF-4A9C-B55F-33184998BDD8/0/masterach2003.ppt
Elmore, R. & Fuhrman, S. (2001, December). Research finds the false
assumption of accountability. The Education Digest, 67(4), 9-14.
Elmore, R. (1997, Fall). The politics of education reform. Issues in
Science and Technology, 14, 41-49.
Elmore, R., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in
the Classroom: Teaching, Learning & School Organization. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Elmore, R. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement
and performance-based accountability [Electronic Version], CPRE: NGA Center
for Best Practices. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from
www.nga.org/cda/files/0803KNQWING.PDF
Ferguson, R. (1998). Can schools narrow the Black-White test score gap?
In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds), The Black-White test score gap (pp.318-376).
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Foley, E. (2001, August). Contradictions and control in systemic efforts:
The ascendancy of the Central Office in Philadelphia schools. [Electronic
Version) CPRE Report. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from
http://www.cpre.org/Research/children03.pdf
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
174
Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths o f Educational
Reform. London: Fulmer Press.
Fullan, M.G. (1996). Turning systemic thinking on its head. Phi Delta
Kappan, 77, 420-423.
Fullan, M. (1998, April). Leadership for the 21st Century: Breaking the
Bonds of Dependency [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 55, 7.
Retrieved March 10,2002, from
www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9804/fullan.html
Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal o f
Educational Change, 1, 1-25.
Fullan, M. (2000, April). Three stories of educational reform: Inside;
inside/out; outside/in [Electronic Version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 57(8), 581-584.
Retrieved July 3, 2004, from http://www.cdl.org
Gallucci, C., Knall, M., Markholt, A. & Ort, S. (2003, July). Standards-
based reform and small schools o f choice: How reform theories converge in
three urban middle schools [Electronic Version]. Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy Working Paper #R-03-2. Retrieved May 9, 2004, from
depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/DistrictM-GKMO-07-20Q3.pdf
Garcia, E. (1999). Reforming education and its cultures. The American
Behavioral Scientist, 42(6), 10072-11091.
Gilbert, S., Hightower, A., Husbands, J., Marsh, J., McLaughlin, M.,
Talbert, J. & Young, V. (2002, April). Districts as change agents: levers for
system-wide instructional improvement [Electronic Version]. Presentation at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New
Orleans, LA. Retrieved April 13, 2004, from
http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/InProgress/AERA-
DistrictsAsChange.pdf
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
175
Goodlad, J. (1997, October 4). Beyond McSchool: A challenge to
educational leadership [Electronic Version], Paper presented for the Center for
Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education National Research Council’
symposium on “Reflecting on Sputnik: Linking the Past, Present, and Future of
Educational Reform” in Washington, D.C. Retrieved May 6, 2004, from
www.nas.edu/sputnik/goodlad.doc
Grissmer, D.W., Flanagan, A., Kawata, J., & Williamson, S. (2000)
Improving Student Achievement: What State NAEP Scores Tell Us [Electronic
Version], RAND Corporation. Retrieved July 16, 2004 from
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR924/
Guskey, T. (1995). Results-orientedprofessional development: In search
o f an optimal mix o f effective practices [Electronic Version], Retrieved July 3,
2004, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl esvs/pdlitrev.htm#lhis
Hale, Sylvie van Heuseden. (2000) Comprehensive School Reform:
Research Based Strategies to Achieve High Standards. [Electronic Version].
WestEd. Retrieved July 20, 2004 from:
http ://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/rs/414
Hannaway, J. (1993). Political pressure and decentralization in
institutional organizations: The case of school districts [Electronic Version].
Sociology o f Education, 66(3), 147-163. Retrieved May 30, 2004, from
www. i stor. or g/c gi-bin
Hightower, A., Knapp, M., Marsh, J. & McLaughlin, M. (2002). School
districts and instructional renewal. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hill, M. (1993, September). Chapter 1 revisited: Technology's second
chance. (U.S. government-funded educational program for at-risk students)
[Electronic Version], Electronic Learning, 13(1), 26. Retrieved May 17, 2003,
from http://web5.infotrac-
college.com/wadsworth/session/711/573/61772987/181xm 1 0 A14418061
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
176
Hirsch, E., Knapp, M. & Koppich, J. (2001, February). Revisiting what
states are doing to improve the quality o f teaching: an update on patterns and
trends [Electronic Version], CTP Working Paper #W-01-1. Retrieved April 13,
2004, from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/States-HKK-02-2001.pdf
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Designing training and peer coaching:
Our needs fo r learning. VA: ASCD. [NCSL Review Retrieved April 13, 2004,
from www.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/randd-engaged-iovce.pdf
Kankstroom, M. (2001, Fall). Balancing act: Redefining the district’s role
under standards-based reform [Electronic Version]. Education Next 2001(3).
Retrieved May 6, 2004, from www.educationnext.org/20013/6kanstoroom.pdf
Kraft, N. (2001). Standards in teacher education: A critical analysis of
NCATE, INTASC, and NBPTS [Electronic Version]. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Retrieved May 26, 2004, from
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zEpTTEMSmTkJ:nekesc.org/JWNKTchr
Standard
Leithwood, K. & Riehl, C. (2003, Autumn). What we know about
successful school leadership [Electronic Version], A report of Division A of
AERA: NCSL. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from
http://www.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/randd-leithwood-successful-
leadership.pdf
Marsh, J. (chair) (2004, April 13). Strategic Differences in Theories of
School System Reform: Early Implementation and Effects of District-
Intermediary Partnerships to Improve Teaching and Learning [Electronic
Version], Paper presented at American Educational Research Association
Conference, San Diego, CA. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from
http://convention.allacademic.com/aera2004/AERA papers/AERA sess 1012 1
0539a.PDF
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
177
Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive Theory for Education: What Teachers
Need to Know. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn:
Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Maylone, N. (2002). The relationship o f socioeconomic factors and
district scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program tests: An
analysis [Electronic Version]. Doctoral dissertation submitted to Eastern
Michigan University. Retrieved May 6, 2004, from
www.ecs.org/html/offsite.asp?document=www.greatlakescenter.org/research
Marzano, R.; Pickering, D. & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom instruction
that works Chapter 1.
Mazzeo, C. (2001, June). Frameworks of State: Assessment policy in
historical perspective [Electronic Version], Teachers College Record, 103(3),
367. Retrieved October 29, 2002, from http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/
McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2003, September). Reforming districts:
How districts support school reform [Electronic Version]. Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy Research Report. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from
www.etpweb.org/
McLaughlin, M. (2001, April). Community counts. Educational
Leadership, 58(7), 14-15.
National Center for Educational Accountability. (2004). Best Practice
Framework. In Best Practices o f High-Performing School Systems (chap.).
Retrieved November 16, 2004, from
http://www.just4kids.org/bestpractice/framework.cfrn?sub=framework
National Center for Education Statistics (2000, December). Monitoring
quality: An indicators report [Electronic Version], Retrieved July 3, 2004, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/200103Q.pdf
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
178
National Commission on Educational Excellence (1983). A nation at risk:
The imperative fo r educational reform [Electronic Version]. United States
Department of Education. Retrieved June 21, 2004, from
www.ed. gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/
National Commission on NAEP 12th Grade Assessment and Reporting
(2004, March 15). 12th grade student achievement in America: A new vision for
NAEP: A report to the National Assessment Governing Board [Electronic
Version]. Retrieved May 9, 2004, from
www.nagb.org/release/12 gr commission rpt.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (1999). Highlights from TIMSS:
Overview and key findings across grade levels [Electronic Version]. Report
NCES 1999-081 from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 3, 2004, from
http://nces.ed.gOv/pubs99/l 999081 .pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Highlights from the
third International Mathematics and Science Study [Electronic Version]. U. S.
Department of Education NCES 2001-027. Retrieved July 3, 2004, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000Q94.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in
academic progress: Threes decades o f student performance [Electronic
Version]. U.S. Department of Education Report NCES 2000-469. Retrieved July
3, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/mainl 999/2000469.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2000, December). Highlights
from the TIMSS Videotape Classroom Study [Electronic Version]. U. S.
Department of Education NCES 2001-028. Retrieved July 3,2004, from
http ://nces.ed. gov/pubs2001/2001027.pdf
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
179
National Center for Education Statistics (2001). Pursuing excellence:
Comparisons o f international eighth-grade mathematics and science
achievement from a U.S. perspective, 1995 and 1999 [Electronic Version]. U. S.
Department of Education NCES 2001-027. Retrieved July 3, 2004, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001Q28.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2001). Highlights from the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study—Repeat [Electronic
Version]. U.S. Department of Education Report NCES 2001-027. Retrieved July
3, 2004, from http ://nces.ed. gov/pubs2001/2001027.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2002). The condition o f
education 2003, Indicator 40: International comparisons o f expenditures for
education [Electronic Version], Retrieved September 30, 2003, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/pdf/40 2003.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2003, March). Mathematics
teachers’ familiarity with standards and their instructional practices: 1995 and
1999 [Electronic Version]. NCES Issue Brief. U. S. Department of Education
NCES 2003-022. Retrieved July 3, 2004, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003Q22.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2004). The Nation’ s report
card: Parent’ s guide to NAEP [Electronic Version], Retrieved May 9, 2004,
from nces.ed. gov/pubs2000/2000050.pdf
Perry, G. & McDermott, J. (2003). Learning and leading: Rethinking
district-school relationships [Electronic Version] .Retrieved April 26,2004, from
http://www.newhorizons.org/trans/perrv.htm
Reigluth, C. (2004, April 13). Theoretical Foundations for Systemic
Transformation of K-12 Education [Electronic Version], Paper presented at
American Educational Research Association Conference, San Diego, CA.
Retrieved April 26, 2004, from
http://convention.allacademic.com/aera2004/AERA papers/AERA sess 3017 1
0715a.PDF
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
180
Reilly, E. (2000). Education and the constitution: Shaping each other &
the next century. Akron Law Review, 34(1), 1.
Regional Educational Laboratory Network. (2000, November).
Implementing education reform: Strategies used by states, districts, and schools.
Aurora, CO: Mid
Reyhner, J. (2003, January 29). The Reading Wars: Phonics versus
Whole Language. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from
http://ian.ucc.nau.edu/~iar/Reading Wars.html
Resnick, L. (1999, June 16). Making America smarter [Electronic
Version]. Education Week Century Series, 18(40), 38-40. Retrieved April 13,
2004, from
www.instituteforleaming.org/media/docs/MakingAmericaSmarter.pdf
Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (1998). Learning organizations for
sustainable education reform. Daedalus, 127, 89-118.
Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (2000, Febmary). Principles o f Learning
for Effort-based Education. Retrieved June 6, 2004, from
http://www.curriculum.dpskl2.org/pol prin leam.html
Richardson, J. (1998). California study links student learning to teacher
learning. RESULTS, National Staff Development Council (April).
San Diego City Schools District. (2004). Blueprint fo r Student Success
[Data file].San Diego City Schools. Available from http://www.sdcs.kl2.ca.us
Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan fo r teachers,
principals, and superintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
181
Schmoker, M., & Wilson, R. B. (1993). Transforming schools through
total quality education. Phi Delta Kappa, 74(5), 389-395.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school
improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Snipes, J.; Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002foundations fo r Success:
Case Studies o f How Great Urban School Systems Improve Student
Achievement. MDRC for the Council of Great City Schools. Retrieved July 20,
2004, from htto://www.cgcs.org/taskforce/achievegap3.html
Sparks, D. (1997, March). Is resistance to change really the problem
[Electronic Version]. The Developer. Retrieved April 13, 2004, from
www.nsdc.org/librarv/publications/developer/dev3-97sparks.cfim
Sparks, D. (1998). Teacher expertise linked to student learning.
RESULTS, National Staff Development Council (April).
Sparks, D (1999). Real-life VIEW: Here’s what a true learning
community looks like. Journal o f Staff Development, 20(4), 53-57.
Spillane, J. P. (1996, March). School districts matter: Local educational
authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1) 63-87.
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from
the World's Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: The
Free Press.
Sykes, G. (1999). Make subject matter count. Journal o f Staff
Development, 20(2).
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
182
The School District of Philadelphia. (2004). Philadelphia Demographic
Data [Data file] .Philadelphia School District. Available from
http://www.philsch.kl2.pa.us/src/
Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
U.S. Department of Education (1999, March). Promising results,
continuing challenges: Final report of the National assessment of Title I
[Electronic version]. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from
www. ed. go v/rschstat/eval/disadv/promisingresults/edlite-hli ghts .html
U.S. Department of Education. (1997, September). What really matters in
American education: Fundamental improvements are needed in public schools.
Retrieved May 25, 2004, from www.ed.gov/Speeches/09-1997/part3.html
U. S. Department of Educational Research and Improvement (2002).
Consortium for Policy Research in Education (1995). Building capacity for
reform. [Electronic version]. Retrieved March 10, 2002, from
www.ed. gov/pubs/CPRE/rb 18/ rbl 8c.html
U. S. Department of Education (2002). No Child Left Behind'. Closing
the achievement gap in America’ spublic schools [Electronic Version]. Retrieved
November 1, 2003, from http ://nochildleftbehind.org/next/closing/slide003 .html
Vinovskis, M. (1996). The changing role of the federal government in
educational research and statistics [Electronic Version]. History o f Education
Quarterly, 36(2), 111-128. Retrieved May 30, 2004, from
http://links.istor.org/sici
Whitmire, R. (1997). The education gap: Why minority test scores lag.
Gannett News Service, Inc. USA Today.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
183
Wong, K. & Meyer, S. (1998). Title I schoolwide programs: A synthesis
of findings from recent evaluation. LSS Publication Series No. 21 . Retrieved
November 1, 2003, from www.temple.edu/lss/pdf/publications/pubs98-21 .pdf
Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational Psychology (8th ed.). Needlam
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
APPENDIX
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
185
Appendix A: Case Study Guide
Overview o f Data Collection
The data collection will need to take place in two rounds over the course of
approximately six days. The data collection days for the two rounds will be
scheduled close together.
Round 1
District Office:
• Interview district leader(s), collect and review district documents and
publications
• Observation of district operations, including informal interviews of staff
• Identify three key leaders for interviews in Round 2
• Complete Researcher Rater Rubric
• Member Check to validate collected data
Round 2
School Site:
• Interview with principal at their school
District Office:
• Interviews with key leaders identified in Round 1 and Board Member
• Follow-up interviews with staff as needed
• Gather more district documents and publications, as needed
• Continue observations as needed
• Complete Researcher Rater Rubric
• Member Check to validate collected data
• Exit Interviews with key leader(s)
District Interviews:
The goal is to conduct one-hour interviews of approximately six district personnel
who were seen as instrumental in the design and implementation of the
innovation. Some personnel may be interviewed more than one time.
Additionally, during the observation, the researcher will speak with other
personnel about what is occurring in the district regarding teaching and learning.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
186
Documents Needed:
• The researcher will collect data from the California Department of
Education regarding the district’s 2002 and 2003 Academic Performance
Indexes; 2002-03 STAR assessments; district enrollment; and district
funding.
• The researcher will also collect reports/information regarding teacher
characteristics, including turnover rate, credential status, participation in
professional development opportunities
• Other documents needed include board policies and district guidelines
regarding instructional improvement and standard-based reform. Any other
documents or publications that include information about the instructional
innovation or the implementation process would be reviewed.
The case study guide served as the basis for formal interviewing and the gathering
of evidence. The collection of data included the following:
1. The first interview with at least two district leaders, preferably the
superintendent and an assistant superintendent. From the case study guide
a semi-structured series of questions were developed to provide probes for
each of the research questions. The questions were arranged in the
following manner: (a) program design, (b) factors that shaped the design,
(c) program impact (d) the change process, and (e) extent of
implementation. The district leaders were interviewed in their offices in
order to allow them to access documents and evidence relevant to the
interview. The interviews identified three other people who held key
positions that would be interviewed at a later date. If needed, follow-up
interviews with one of both of the district leaders to be conducted at a later
date to collect more in-depth data.
2. An interview with at last three district leaders who are involved with the
implementation of the innovation. These people were identified by the
Superintendent in Interview #1. From the case study guide, a semi
structured series of questions were developed to provide probes for each
of the research questions, (a) program design, (b) factors that shaped the
design, (c) program impact (d) the change process, and (e) extent of
implementation. The questions were similar in nature to the ones
developed for the district leader interview guide, but more specific in
relation to the position of the interviewee.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
187
3. An interview with a principal at their place of work. From the
case study guide, a semi-structured series of questions were developed to
provide probes for each of the research questions, (a) program design, (b)
factors that shaped the design, (c) program impact (d) the change process,
and (e) extent of implementation. The questions were similar in nature to
the ones developed for the district leader interview guide, but more
specific in relation to the position of the interviewee.
4. Researcher Rater Rubric to be completed after each session of collecting
data to provide an ongoing log of perceptions. After completion of forms,
a “member check” with one of the organization’s “insiders” in order to
validate the collected data.
5. Informal interviews, observations, and gathering of additional evidence
were required for the case study, including observations made at the
district level. Two governing board meetings were attended in order to
observe formal district leadership. One of the meetings attended included
a staff report on a proposed professional development opportunity for new
teachers. District and school documents were collected as well as the
following quantitative data: (a) Academic Performance Index Reports for
the years 2002 and 2003; (b) CAT-6 & STAR School Reports for the
years 2002 & 2003; (c) teacher participation rates in professional
development; and, (d) teacher credential statistics, turnover rates, years in
district and tenured status. Data were collected for every data set, or if it
was unavailable, it was indicated. Estimates were acceptable if clearly
indicated that the data were estimated and what information was used to
make the estimation.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
188
Overview of Instrumentation
Case Study Guide
This instrument addresses the components of each research question and guides
the researcher in the collection of data. The Case Study Guide references the
domains found in Conceptual Framework A by superscript coding. The Case
Study Guide was developed from a synthesis of current educational research on
organizational improvement of instruction (Ball, Cohen & Raudenbush, 2000;
Birman et al., 2002; Christopher et al., 2003; D ’Amico & Stein, 2002; Cohen &
Lowenberg-Ball, 2000; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Duke, 2004;
Elmore, 1993, 2000; Fullan, 1996, 2001; Gilbert et ah, 2003; Glennan & Resnick,
2002; Goertz & Massell, 1999, 2002; Hightower, 2001, 2002; Marsh, 2000;
McLaughlin & Talbert, 2002; Schmoker, 1999, 2004; Spillane, 2002; Togneri,
2003).
School District Profile
This instrument summarizes data on the school district’s enrollment, teachers,
schools, and funding sources compiled from the California Department of
Education website and district documents.
Document Review Guide
This instrument was designed to provide an organizing format for the analysis of
district documents. Comments on each document is written referenced the
elements of the five research questions framed in the Case Study Guide, the seven
domains identified in Conceptual Framework A, and the four frames outlined in
Conceptual Framework B.
Researcher Rater Rubric
This instrument was designed to provide an organizing format to the rate the data
gathered by other instruments relative to the purpose of the study from an etic
perspective of the researcher. The change strategies, extent of implementation,
and effectiveness of the innovation were organized into the seven domains
identified in Conceptual Frameworks A. The directional scale of the rubric was
based upon the case study guide. The components of the district’s effort will be
rated in two categories: (a) as intended, and (b) as implemented. The Researcher
Rater Rubric was completed on three different occasions: (1) after the first round
of data collection; (2) after all data were collected; and, (3) after analyzing the
data. Changes in the researcher’s perception throughout the process helped to
identify gaps in the research that needed further investigation.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
189
Description o f Instructional Innovation:
Design, Development, Elaboration, Enactment, & Effectiveness
Superscript coding following questions relates to the seven domains and three
cross-cutting levers of Conceptual Framework A as follows:
T Defining Teaching & Learning
D Developing the Profession
Responding & Contending with EXogenous Policy
R Acquiring & Allocating Human, Fiscal, Physical Resources
C
Communicating Externally & Internally
A Creating Local Systems of Accountability
P Partnering with Non-System Actors
L Leadership
U Use of data
E Equity
Overview o f the Design - Elements & Elaboration
• What are the intended outcomes of the instructional improvement?
• What is the district’s theory of instruction? T
• How do you define quality teaching and learning? T
• What is the district’s theory of change and how is it included in the
design?
• What is the vision for the implementation and use of the design?
• What elements are included in the design?
• What does a year (and more) look like (timeline of events and
deadlines)?
• What role did funding issues play in the design of policies and
strategies? R
• What are the roles and responsibilities of leadership in terms of the
reform?L " A
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
190
Factors Shaping the Design
• What is the historical perspective and trends in district over last 10
years?
o How did those trends influence the need and development of
design?
• How did the following factors shape the design:
o Consideration of legitimate educational needs E 'T
o Consideration of local conditions
o Consideration of equity and opportunity among all student
groups B
o Balancing effectiveness with efficiency A 'R
o Reflection of how students learn (district’s theory of
instruction)
o Research-based strategies & professional judgment L 'u
• What were the competing values that surfaced during the process of
designing the innovation?
• Why did the process to improve instruction begin?
• What was the identified need in the early stages of development? T
• What choices were made at the district level? L
• What parameters were set for the process? By whom? L
• How has federal and state policy shaped this reform? x
Change Efforts—Design and Strategy Implementation
• How were new design and strategies publicized to the staff, parents,
students, and public? c
• Who was tasked with implementation at district and site levels? A 'L
• What factors were considered important in the implementation? A
• Were strategies adapted during implementation at district or site level?
A
• Is this a challenge for teachers to start doing (or to do more)? Why?
• What kinds of information, support or professional development did
staff receive?
• Was the design fully implemented in year one or phased in over
time?D
• What roadblocks or unexpected supports were identified during
implementation?
• How does the district interpret & implement state/federal policies
coherently with reform? x ■
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
191
• Did your acquisition and allocation of funds change to address the
reform? R
Extent o f Implementation
• How are the design and strategies monitored for use and effectiveness?
U-A
• How do you obtain feedback from all levels of the system? C 'U 'A
• What data are generated, where is the data stored, and how it is used?
U-A
• How much of the change has permeated throughout the district? A
• What are some of the explanations for why some teachers may not be
fully implementing design?
• Have the strategies been modified? What process was/will be used?
• How did fiscal, human, and physical resources promote or inhibit the
extent of implementation? R
• How has the reform affected equity throughout the system between
schools & among student groups? E
Effectiveness o f Innovation (Impact)
• What has been the impact of the improvement effort?
o on instruction T
o on student beliefs and learning T
o on student achievement: increased student performance on
multiple measures A
o on organizational beliefs, practices, and priorities at the district and
school level
• How has the learning culture changed with implementation? T
• Did the impact rise to the intentions of the design?
• Are policy and action coherent throughout the district? X L
• How is the community made aware of the reform and its impact? c p
• How will the reform be sustained? A
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
192
Appendix B: Conceptual Framework A
Domains of District Action
Acquiring &
allocating
human, fiscal,
& physical
resources
Defining
teaching and
learning
Equity
L e a d e rsh ip
Responding
Creating local
system s of
accountability
Developing
the profession
contending
with
exogenous
Equity
L e a d e rsh ip
Equity
L e a d e rsh ip
D ata
Equity
L e a d e rsh ip
Communicating
externally &
internally
Partnering
with non
system actors
Quality:
Coherence, Professionalism & Learning Community,
Systemwide Equity, Sustainability
Source: Gilbert, S., Hightower, A., Husbands, J., Marsh, J., McLaughlin, M.,
Talbert, J. & Young, V. (2003) Districts as change agents: Levers for system-
wide instructional improvement. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
193
Elaboration of Conceptual Framework A:
Districts as Change Agents: Levers for System- Wide Instructional Improvement
Defining Teaching and Learning - Reforming districts:
< p Clearly articulate a vision of quality teaching and learning
c p Expect all students to learn to high standards
< p Develop common understanding of student work and performance that
exemplify high standards
Acquiring & Allocating Resources (Fiscal, Human, Physical) - Reforming
districts:
< p Allocate funds flexibly to focus on student learning needs
< p Build capacity to obtain additional resources for district goals/priorities
c p Deploy professional expertise to meet goals of instructional improvement
and equity
Developing the Profession - Reforming districts:
c p Attend to professional learning needs all levels of the system
c p Make explicit connections between professional development and the
vision of teaching and learning
c p Nurture a culture of continuous learning and collaborative professional
community at all system levels
Responding to/Contending with Exogenous Policies - Reforming districts:
c p Are strategic in their responses to externally imposed mandates
c p Work to align state and federal policies with their own articulated vision
of teaching and learning
c p May re-fashion or even waive out of policies that are not consistent with
local goals and initiatives
Creating Local Systems o f Accountability - Reforming districts:
c p Articulate clear expectations for schools, principals, teachers, and students
c p Collect and use multiple sources of relevant data to assess progress
c p Foster shared understanding of goals, and a culture of learning and
improvement
Communicating - Reforming districts:
c p Institutionalize channels for vertical and horizontal communication, within
the system and with external stakeholders
c p Attend to critical feedback from all levels of the system and from
stakeholders
c p Create opportunities for stakeholders to learn how district professional
practices improve student learning
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
194
Partnering with Actors External to Formal District Organization - Reforming
districts:
q > Seek external partners that provide expertise, resources, and knowledge to
further instructional improvement
c p Partner with citizens, businesses, city agencies, local education
foundations, community-based organizations, educational reform
organizations, IHEs, and unions
cp Pursue ongoing, meaningful work
Cross-cutting Levers for District Reform: Leadership, Equity, and Data
c p Leadership focuses all domains of district action on enhancing quality and
equity of student outcomes
c p Equity standards and data inform action in each domain
c p Data in each domain signal capacity issues and build coherence in system
reform
District Quality: Desired System Outcomes
cp Policy and action across domains is coherent
cp Professionalism and learning community are pervasive at all system levels
cp Equitable and enhanced student learning outcomes across and within
district schools
c p Strategic district action is sustainable
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
195
Appendix C: Conceptual Framework B
Characteristics of Bolman & Deal’s Four Frames
Compiled from Bolman, L. & Deal, T. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice,
and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
STRUCTURAL
Disciplinary
Roots
Frame
Emphasis
Metaphor for
Organization
Sociology
Rationality; formal
roles & relations
Factory or machine j Family
HUNAN
Social &
Organizational
Psychology
Fit between people
&org
POLITICAL
Political Science
Allocation of power
& scarce resources
Jungle
SYMBOLIC
Social & Cultural
Anthropology
Org as theater,
tribe, or carnival
Carnival, temple,
theater
Key Concepts i Rules, roles, Needs, skills, i Power, conflict, j Culture, ritual,
policies, goals, i relationships I competition, I ceremony, stories,
technology, | positive politics I heroes &
environment
............
i
i
( heroines, myths,
I symbols,
j metaphors.
! charisma
Key Frame Division of labor & ' Tailoring the org to ' Bargaining, ! Creating &
Processes coordination of j meet individual negotiation, | promoting a
individual activities 1 needs
1
coalition building 1 common vision;
attending to the
meaning of
events; devising
relevant rituals;
ceremonies &
symbols
Key Words Goals, task, f Needs, skills, Power, conflict, Symbols,
technology, I feelings, coalitions, scarcity, meaning, belief,
rationality, rules, motivation, enduring faith, culture,
roles, linkages, J satisfaction, differences, politics, ? ceremonies,
differentiation, j norms, bargaining, rituals, myths,
integration j interpersonal
j interactions, fit
(between person &
1 org)
negotiation stories, play
• -
Ethic Excellence Caring Justice Faith
Strategic Strategies to set Gatherings to Arenas to air Ritual to signal
Planning o b jectiv es & prom ote conflicts & realign responsibility,
coordinate participation power produce symbols,
;
resources negotiate
meanings
Goal Setting Keep org headed Keep people Provide opportunity Develop symbols
:
:
in right direction involved &
communication
for indi & group to
make interests
& shared values
open known
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
51
1 .....................
STRUCTURAL
HUNAN
RESOURCE
POLITICAL
Decision
Making
i
Rational sequence ;
to produce right
decision
Open processes to
produce
commitment
| Opportunity to gain
j or exercise power
Ritual to confirm
values & provide
opportunities for
bonding
| Motivation Economic
incentives
Growth & self-
actualization
Coercion,
manipulation, &
seduction
Symbols &
celebrations
' l Meetings Formal occasions
for making
decisions
Informal occasions
for involvement &
sharing feelings
rCompetitive
; occasions to win
points
Sacred occasions
to celebrate &
transform culture
| Evaluating Ways to distribute
rewards or
penalties & control :
performance
Process for helping
individuals grow &
improve
Opportunity to
exercise power
:
Occasion to play
roles in shared
ritual
i
| Communication
!
Transmit facts &
information
Exchange info,
needs, & feelings
Influence or
manipulate others
Tell stories i
i View of Conflict
'
Problem that
interferes with
accomplishment of
purposes;
Possibility lower
levels will ignore or
subvert mgmt,
directives
Something to be
dealt with through
building
relationships &
interpersonal
growth
Not a sign of
problem, but
natural & inevitable
Root of personal &
social change,
creativity, &
innovation; Can
experience too
much or too little
conflict; Can be
horizontal, vertical,
or cultural
Collective
bargaining: 2
sides meet to
reshape situations
Approaching
Conflict
1
Maintain org goals
by having
authorities resolve
conflict
Develop
relationships by
having individuals
confront conflict
Develop power by
bargaining, forcing,
or manipulating
others to win
Develop shared
values & use
conflict to
negotiate meaning
Reorganizing
.
Realign roles and
responsibilities to
fit tasks &
environment
Maintain balance
between human
needs & formal
roles
Redistribute power
& form new
coalitions
Maintain image of
accountab. &
responsiveness;
negotiate new
social order
Barriers to
Change
Loss of clarity &
stability;
Confusion & chaos
Anxiety,
uncertainty,
feelings of
incompetence,
neediness
Disempowerment;
conflict between
winners & losers
■ :
Loss of meaning &
purpose;
Clinging to past
Overcoming i
Barriers
i
1
Communicating,
realigning &
renegotiating :j
formal patterns &
policies
Training to develop
new skills,
participation &
involvement,
support
Creating arenas
where issues can
be renegotiated &
new coalitions
formed
Creating transition
rituals; mourning
the past;
celebrating the
future
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
D6C
197
1
STRUCTURAL
HUNAN
RESOURCE
POLITICAL SYMBOLIC
s Power Legitimate
authority - power is ?
implicit with
position;
Participation,
openness, &
collaboration make =
power a non-issue
f Power produces, it
i is not to be viewed
j as negative; “how
I does each group
mobilize power to
j get what it wants?”
I Depends on
constituents
leverage &
satisfaction
i Attributed ro
certain groups &
individuals, often
1 due to behavior:
talks a lot, on
committees, &
seem close to
action (may be
negative)
Wellsprings of
Power < 8 >
Position Power
(authority)1
Information &
expertise2
Control of
rewards3
Coercive power4
I Alliances &
1 networks5
Access & control of
agendas6
Framing/control of
meaning &
symbols7
Personal power
(charisma)8
i Image of
i Leadership
Social Architecture i Empowerment Advocacy Inspiration
i Basic
| Leadership
Challenge
Attune structure to :
task, technology, & :
environment
Align org & human
needs
Develop agenda &
power base
Create faith,
beauty, &
meaning
Leader
Attention
.......... . .......
Goals & mission;
organization’s
relationship with
the environment;
clarity &
consistency of
roles & structure;
appropriate rules S
policies
People & their
needs; ways to
facilitate individual
productivity;
interpersonal
relationships; good
& frequent
communications;
motivation;
commitment &
satisfaction
Empowerment;
coalition building;
providing arenas
for conflict &
disagreement to
surface
Vision; charisma;
interpreting
experience for
org; creating
rituals & symbols;
presiding at
ceremonies;
evoking logic of
confidence for
org; playing well
to critical internal
& external
audiences
Image of
Leader
....
Rational Rule-
Maker with
Authority
Helps focus
responsibility &
clarify
accountability;
develops shared
sense of direction
& commitment;
Sensitive to both
task & process
Overcontrol or
understructure
leads to frustration :
& ineffectiveness
Able to access
scarce resources
for the benefit of
the org; Helps to
find common
interests & unite
coalitions in org;
Judged by style &
coping skills,;
Dramatic
performances
emphasizing traits
associated with
leadership
(forcefulness,
responsibility,
courage &
decency) will
improve image
Leadership
Contribution
Authorship Love Power Significance
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
198
STRUCTURAL
HUNAN
RESOURCE
POLITICAL SYMBOLIC
Effective Analyst or • Catalyst or l Advocate or Prophet or Poet
Leader Architect who , Servant who ; Negotiator who who uses
j analyzes & supports & advocates & builds i inspiration&
1 ;! designs empowers , coalitions : frames experience
f—
| Ineffective Petty tyrant who ( Weakling or Con Artist or Thug : Fanatic or Fool
j Leader manages by detail i Pushover who , who manipulates • who uses mirage
j & fiat manages by s and uses fraud & smoke in
abdication mirrors
i Qualities of Do homework; Believe in people & Clarify what they Use symbols to
( Effective Relationship of communicate their want & what they capture attention:
Leaders structure, strategy, j belief; can get; Access Frame experience;
& environment; Viable & distribution of Discover &
Focus on accessible; power & interests; communicate a
implementation Empower others Build linkages to vision; Tell stories
1 Experiment, key stakeholders;
; J evaluate, & adapt Persuade 1st,
( I negotiate 2nd, & use
coercion only when
I : S
necessary
Job of Leader Focus on tasks, Communicate Recogmze.major Give people
facts & logic (rather effectively & care constituencies, something to
than personality or about their people; develop ties to their believe in,
emotion); Not Works on behalf of , leadership, & inspires;
rigidly authoritarian interests of both manage conflict; Give org an
& don’t necessarily org & people; Build a power base identity & make it
j solve all problems Supports through & use carefully; special;
j through orders; Try ; listening, caring, & ; Create arenas Passionate about
j to design & communicating where groups can making org the
i implement a personal warmth & j negotiate best &
i process or openness; differences & come r communicates
| structure Empowers through up with passion to others;
| appropriate to participation & compromises; Uses dramatic,
j circumstances collaboration, Articulate visible symbols to
1 making sure they commonalities so excite people &
i
have autonomy & you can fight give sense of org’s
resources needed external enemy mission; Create
1
slogans, tell
stories, hold
rallies, give
. i awards, appear
t
i
when least
expected; Walk
!...............
around to manage
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
I Specific
Challenges for
Leaders
(org study)
|
i
Specific
Characteristics
of Excellent
Companies
(org study)
Leader’s Org
Responsibilities
199
STRUCTURAL
Keep on top of
large, complex set
of activities;
Set goals &
policies under
conditions of
uncertainty;
Attain intellectual
grasp of policy
issues
j HUNAN
RESOURCE
j Motivate,
j coordinate, &
j control large,
diverse group of
subordinates;
| Use their
j personalities to
best advantage
POLITICAL
Achieve “delicate
balance” in
allocating scarce
resources;
Get support from
bosses;
Get support from
corporate staff &
other constituents;
Exploit all
opportunities to
achieve strategic
gains
SYMBOLIC
Develop credible
strategic
premises;
Identify & focus on
core activities that
give meaning to
employees
Autonomy & Close to customer; i Hands-on, value-
entrepreneurship; , productivity j driven;
bias for action; j through people; , simultaneous
simple form; lean Home-grown * loose-tight
staff; Clock- ! management properties; stick to
building, not time- the knit; Big, hairy
telling; tries a lot, audacious goals;
keeps what works cult-like cultures;
good enough is
never enough;
preserve the core,
stimulate progress
People are clear Develop long-term Agenda setting; Maintain culture to
about HR philosophy - Mapping the protect org against
responsibilities. & build into corporate political terrain- larger political,
their contribution to structure, determine channels ? social & economic
mission; Policies, incentives, & of communication; trends through
linkages, & lines of measures of HR identify principal maintaining
authority are management; agents of political legitimacy &
straight-forward & Invest in people - influence; analyze support in eyes of
widely accepted Hire right people & , possibilities for both multiple
reward them; internal & external constituencies;
provide job mobilization; Uses instrumental
security; promote anticipate structures &
from within; train & strategies that processes to
educate; Share the others are likely to reduce
wealth; employ uncertainty,
Empower Networking & provide basis for
employees & building coalitions understanding
redesign their work Bargaining & present & vision
- Provide negotiation for future; Use of
autonomy & garbage-can
participation; focus decision-making,
on job enrichment when necessary
& teamwork;
Ensure
egalitarianism &
:
upward influence
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
1
STRUCTURAL
HUNAN
RESOURCE
POLITICAL : SYMBOLIC
i Org Problems People problems Authoritarian or Never enough i No common
stem from insensitive leaders resources for all; i symbols or beliefs;
structural flaws; when people feel Excessive internal Lack of culture or
Without workable org is not conflict can lead to identity
structure ■ = > responsive to great losses;
confusion, needs or If power at top of
frustration, & ! supportive of their highly regulated org,
conflict goals political activity is
often forced
underground (over
bounded)
Diffuse & loosely
controlled system,
ft conflict & power
games (under
bounded)
Potential Perils Risk ignoring Romanticized view Can become a Concepts may be
everything that of human nature in cynical self-fulfilling vague & elusive,
falls outside of which everyone prophecy that with effectiveness
rational jurisdiction wants growth & reinforces conflict dependent on
of proc., policies, & collaboration; & mistrust, while user’s artistry;
org charts; Can be too sacrificing Symbols often fluff
Can overestimate optimistic about opportunities for & camouflage for
! power of authority integrating indi. & rational discourse, those who seek to
!
| ;
& underestimate org needs, while collab. & hope; manipulate the
: ;
authority of power neglecting power May appear to be unsuspecting;
I i
of structure & amoral, scheming, May be awkward
stubborn realities unconcerned for attempts that
of conflict & common good embarrass, not
scarcity energize
Determining Technical Quality Individual High levels of Individual
Frame for of decision commitment & ambiguity & commitment &
Situations important motivation uncertainty; motivation
essential to
Conflict & scarce
essential to
Cl IP P 0 C C
success
High levels of
ambiguity &
uncertainty
Conflict & scarce
resources are
significant
'
....................... ;
O U w C O g
resources are
significant;
Working from the
bottom-up
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2 0 1
:|
{ Group
j Dilemmas &
: Strategies
STRUCTURAL
HUNAN
i RESOURCE
POLITICAL SYMBOLIC
Differentiation vs. I Develop Skills; How someone
Integration;
Agree on the
becomes a group
member is
Gaps vs.
Overloads;
1 basics;
I
important;
l Search for
! ■ . . ■
Diversity provides
Underuse vs. 1 interests in
team a competitive
Overload; 1 common;
advantage;
Lack of clarity vs. Experiment;
Example, not
Lack of creativity;
Doubt for
command, holds
Excessive infallibility;
team together;
autonomy vs.
Treat differences
Specialized
excessive
independence;
as group
responsibility
language fosters
cohesion &
Too loose vs. too
commitment;
tight;
i Stories carry
Diffuse authority
vs. over
;
history & values &
reinforce group
centralization;
identity;
Goalless vs. Goal-
Humor & play
bound; i ;
reduce tension &
Irresponsible vs.
: ;
encourage
creativity; Ritual &
Unresponsive
Ceremony lift
spirits & reinforce
values;
Informal cultural
players contribute
disproportionate to
formal roles; Soul
is secret of
Success
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Assumptions
; STRUCTURAL
) Orgs exist to
I achieve goals &
j objectives
j Orgs work best
II when rationality
H prevails over
i personal
1 preferences
j Structures must be
I defined to fit
j organization’s
i circumstances
! (including goals,
j tech, & environ)
j Orgs increase
I efficiency &
I enhance
! performance
j through
I specialization &
| division of labor
i
I Appropriate forms
i of coordination &
i control are
essential to
r ensuring that indi &
units work together
in service of org
goals
I Problems &
j performance gaps
! i arise from
j structural
: deficiencies & can
be remedied
through
: restructuring
HUNAN
RESOURCE
Orgs exist to serve
: human needs not
I the reverse
People & orgs
; need each other:
ideas, energy, &
talent - vs -
i careers, salaries, &
1 opportunities
When fit between
' indi & org is poor,
both suffer—
exploited vs.
j exploitation.
•I Good fit benefits
both - meaningful
, work vs. talent &
energy
POLITICAL
Orgs are coalitions
of various
individuals &
interests groups
Enduring
differences among
coalition members
in values, beliefs,
info, interests, &
perceptions of
reality
Most important
decisions involve
the allocation of
scarce resources -
who gets what
Scarce resources &
enduring
differences give
conflict a central
role in org
dynamics & make
power most
important resource
Goals & decisions
emerge from
bargaining,
negotiation, &
jockeying for
position among
different
stakeholders
SYMBOLIC
What is important
about any event is
not what happened
but what it all
means
Activity & meaning
are loosely
coupled: events
have multiple
meanings because
people interpret
experience
differently
Most of life is
ambiguous or
uncertain - what
happened, why it
happened, or what
will happen next
are puzzles
High levels of
ambiguity &
uncertainty
undercut rational
analysis, problem
solving, & decision
making
In the face of
uncertainty &
ambiguity, people
create symbols to
resolve confusion,
increase
predictability,
provide direction, &
anchor hope &
faith; Many events
& processes are
more important for
what is expressed
than for what is
produced - forming
a tapestry of
secular myths,
rituals & stories that
help people find
meaning, purpose
& passion
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2 0 3
Appendix D: School District Profile
District Teachers
Number of Teachers
Full Credential
Intern or Pre-Intern
Emergency Waiver
1st Year Teachers
2n d Year Teachers
Avg. Yrs. Teaching
Avg. Yrs. In District
District Students
Total Student Enrollment
ELL
Free & Reduced
Cal Works
Special Education
District Accountability Measure
District Base API 2002
District Base API 2003
Characteristics o f District Schools:
# Comprehensive
High Schools
Smallest
Largest
# Alternative
High Schools
# Middle Schools
# Elementary
Student Ethnicity:
Hispanic
White
Asian
African-American
Other
District Growth API 2004
Highest 2004 Growth
API
Lowest 2004 Growth
API I
Average Class Size
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
School District Profile (continued)
Apportionment
10th Gr. Counseling
Economic Impact Aid
Instructional Materials
Lottery
PAR
School Safety
SIP
Title I— Acad
Disadvant
Title II— Tchr
Quality
Title V—
Innovative
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
205
Appendix E: Document Review Guide
Docum ent Title: Author & Date:
Description
R e s e a r c h
Q u e s tio n s
and Purpose:
B o lm an &
D e al F r a m e s
o
Q C
CN
o
Q
CO
O
C t L
O
cc
i O
S
DOMAINS OF
DISTRICT ACTION
Researcher Notes
S tru c t
C L
X
o
C L
S y m b
Defining Teaching &
Learning
Developing the
Profession
Responding &
Contending
"'Exogenous Policy
Communicating
Externally
& Internally
Acquiring & Allocating
Human, Fiscal,
Physical Resources
Creating Local
Systems of
Accountability
Partnering with Non-
System Actors
R Q l:D esig n R Q 2:F actors Shaping D esign R Q 3:C hange P rocess & Im p lem en tatio n
R Q 4:E xtent o f Im p lem en tatio n R Q 5 :Im p act
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2 0 6
Appendix F: Researcher Rater Form
C om p on en t Fully Im plem ented Partially Im plem ented J u st G etting Started
Defining
Teaching and
Learning
All district staff articulates a
vision, and develop a common
understanding of instructional
improvement that includes
high expectations for all
students.
Some district staff can
articulate the vision of
instructional improvement
that includes high
expectations for all students.
There is minimal articulation
of a vision for instructional
improvement.
Acquiring &
Allocating
Resources
All district decisions regarding
use physical, fiscal and
human resources are linked to
Implementation of the
strategies. Good use of
professional expertise
(internally and externally) to
meet goals for instructional
improvement.
Most district decisions that
use physical, fiscal and
human resources are linked
to implementation of the
strategies. Some use of
professional expertise
(internally and externally) to
meet goals for instructional
improvement.
There has been an attempt
to see that physical, fiscal
and human resources are
linked to implementation of
the strategies. Limited use
of professional expertise
(internally & externally) to
meet goals for
improvement.
Developing the
Profession
There is clear evidence of
ongoing professional learning
at all levels of the organization
with a clear link to the
instructional design.
Some evidence exists that
the district is involved in
ongoing professional learning
at all levels of the
organization with a clear link
to the instructional design.
Evidence of ongoing
professional learning at all
levels of the organization
with a clear link to the
instructional design was not
found.
Contending with
Exogenous
Policies
The district design devotes
effort to aligning district
strategies that respond to
state & federal mandates.
Most of the time, there is an
effort to align district
strategies to meet state and
federal mandates.
Devotes insufficient effort to
aligning district strategies to
meet state and federal
mandates.
Creating Local
Systems of
Accountability
District leaders clearly
articulate the purpose of the
instructional design so that
site personnel can articulate
the instructional strategies
addressed. Teacher is
effective at redirecting activity
to better meet the overall
instructional objective.
District leaders articulate
aspects of the instructional
design so that site personnel
can articulate some of the
instructional strategies
addressed. Teacher is able
to redirect activity to meet the
overall instructional objective.
District leaders do not
provide a clear purpose of
the instructional design so
that site personnel are not
able to articulate the
instructional strategies
addressed.
Teacher activities are not
aligned to district goals.
Communicating
The District utilizes a two-way
model for communication that
provides for the effective
delivery of information to/from
the district to the site and
c la ss ro o m .
The District has a model for
communication that provides
adequate delivery of
information to/from the district
to the site and classroom.
The District model for
communication that does
not provide an adequate
delivery of information
to/from the district to the
s ite a n d c la ss ro o m .
Partnering with
Actors External
to District
Organization
There is clear evidence that
the district has a collaborative
network with external partners
that is linked to the
instructional design.
District provides some
evidence that external
partnerships exist that are
linked to the instructional
design.
No provision for outside
partnerships to support the
district instructional design.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Beach Promenade Unified School District

PDF

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

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Media Unified School District

PDF

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

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of a high school in the media unified school district

PDF

Districtwide instructional improvement: A case study of a high school in the Los Coyotes High School District

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

Implementing and assessing problem -based learning in non -traditional post -secondary aviation safety curricula: A case study

PDF

How effective schools use data to improve student achievement

PDF

A case study: The application of learning theory to teaching logic

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

A study of the relationship between student achievement and mathematics program congruence in select secondary schools of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Data: Policies, strategies, and utilizations in public schools

PDF

An analysis of the implementation of content standards in selected unified school districts of California

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Bihr, Katherine Elizabeth (author)

Core Title Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Orchard Field Unified School District

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, curriculum and instruction,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Marsh, David D. (committee chair), Giokaris, George (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-387496

Unique identifier UC11341014

Identifier 3180488.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-387496 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3180488.pdf

Dmrecord 387496

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Bihr, Katherine Elizabeth

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