University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content CONNECTING DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS TO IMPROVE TEACHING AND
LEARNING: A CASE STUDY OF DISTRICT EFFORTS IN THE
LOS COYOTES HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
by
Damon O. Dragos
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2005
Copyright 2005 Damon O. Dragos
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U M I Number: 3180460
Copyright 2005 by
Dragos, Damon O.
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3180460
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
This dissertation represents the culmination of a great and once in a lifetime
experience in learning and growth. It is dedicated to my wife Mara and my daughters
Marisa and Caroline. These women are my foundation, and only with their love,
support and patience was this effort possible. Thank you for helping me by providing
the purpose, drive and focus to obtain this educational goal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to thank and acknowledge all those who were part of the team that made
this journey, the members of our cohort. The cooperation and support through the
many classes and obstacles along the way kept the momentum going. A special nod to
my colleagues including: Dr. Carlye Olsen, Dr. Greg Buckner, Dr. Sylvia Kaufman,
Dr. Nancy Padilla, Dr. Carolee Ogata, Dr. Kathy Bihr, Dr. Myma Morales, Dr. Judy
Fancher and Vem Stewart.
Thanks also to my chair, Dr. David Marsh, and to the other mentors who
guided me through this process including Dr. Stuart Gothold, Dr. Larry Picus and
Timothy S. Buchanan. Never overlook the value of Arkansas, a quality meal, and a
healthy supply of Tab Cola.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION..................................................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................. iii
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ vi
CHAPTER ONE...................................................................................................................1
Problem Statement......................................................................................................1
Background of the Study........................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study.................................................................................................14
Significance of the Study.........................................................................................14
Research Questions...................................................................................................15
The research questions for this study include:........................................................15
Definition of Terms...................................................................................................17
Organization of the Study........................................................................................20
CHAPTER TWO................................................................................................................22
Staff development leading to improved instruction...............................................38
Models....................................................................................................................... 51
A. District driven frameworks........................................................................ 51
Externally Developed and Commercially Promoted Reform Designs.................54
Site based efforts...............................................................................................58
Convergence Theory........................................................................................ 59
CHAPTER THREE............................................................................................................66
The Sample................................................................................................................68
Selected District........................................................................................................69
District participants.................................................................................................. 72
Instrumentation.........................................................................................................74
Relationship of Data Collection Instruments to Research Questions.................. 75
Frameworks for Instrument Design........................................................................ 76
Data Collection Instruments....................................................................................81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER FOUR..............................................................................................................91
The District Design.....................................................................................................93
Key Considerations.....................................................................................................95
Leveraging Change.....................................................................................................96
Leadership Frames......................................................................................................97
Professional Development in the Past.......................................................................98
Accountability Pressures.......................................................................................... 100
CHAPTER FIVE.............................................................................................................. 132
REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 142
B. Bacon.......................................................................................................... 163
APPENDICES.................................................................................................................. 164
Appendix A: Case Study Guide.............................................................................165
C. Overview of Data Collection.................................................................... 165
Overview of the Design - Elements & Elaboration............................................ 170
Factors Shaping the Design................................................................................... 171
Change Efforts—Design and Strategy Implementation...................................... 171
Extent of Implementation...................................................................................... 172
Appendix B: School District Profile..................................................................... 173
Appendix C: Document Review Guide.................................................................176
Appendix D: Researcher Rater Form.................................................................... 177
Appendix E: Conceptual Framework A................................................................178
Appendix F: Conceptual Framework B................................................................ 181
Characteristics of Bolman & Deal’s Four Frames............................................... 181
Appendix G; Los Coyotes High School District Goals and Objectives.............187
Appendix H: Los Coyotes High School District Board Priorities......................188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
ABSTRACT
National, state and local trends for educational accountability have been
growing in intensity over the past 40 years, and even more so since the 1983 landmark
A Nation at Risk report. Both the government as well as the citizenry continues to
demand evidence that schools are improving the learning of their students, and that
trend has expanded to include all of the students in schools, not just those who have in
the past traditionally been the high achievers.
Researchers on the topic of educational reform tout that effective and lasting
improvement in school performance is linked to instruction and learning. Instituting
successful instructional change initiatives requires careful planning, setting objectives,
providing professional development, and meaningful analysis of efforts as in the
case of instruction itself in order to determine the next steps in order to improve
performance so as to make a positive impact on the accountability systems.
This study investigated the design and implementation of one Southern
California high school district (“Los Coyotes High School District”) in a case study
model. The study examined the elements, factors and implementation of their district
design for a research-based instructional improvement innovation working from a
research-based foundation grounded in the literature of the Classroom Instruction that
Works meta-analysis led by Robert Marzano, the district leadership designed and
implemented a three-year, phased plan for staff development that delivered instruction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and supporting exemplars to core teams from the instructional staff at each of the
district’s schools.
The study’s findings report the success of the district in meeting their goals of
implementing a research-based instructional innovation, but the assessment
instrumentation used by the district to evaluate the effectiveness gathered only
quantitative data related to frequency of use rather than qualitative data reporting the
depth and integration of the Marzano identified strategies into the lessons delivered by
the district’s teachers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Despite the great advancements and high quality of life enjoyed by those who
live in the United States today, there continues to be comparisons made with other
nations and within the states themselves concerning the academic performance of our
young people in schools. In addition to the traditional expectations for a certain
percentage of high performing academic students, there has been an additional
emphasis in the past few years on the distribution of performance rather than just
averages, and on how various subgroups have performed against the greater body of
American students. These concerns and comparisons most likely had their foundations
with the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983. This report presented a picture of the
foundation of the American system of education as being eroded by the
institutionalization of mediocrity, and as a result threatened the country and its people
(Marzano and Kendall, 1998).
Problem Statement
Over the last decade, the drive of education reform has led district leaders to
reorder and restructure the purpose and operations of many districts. There are a
number of exemplary districts that have developed a vision for their instructional
program—assessing the needs of schools and then placing teachers and teacher
capacity at the core of their reforms (Hightower, Knapp, Marsh and McLaughlin,
2002). The capacity of a district and school is measured through its teachers an their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
limitations, but the forethought and consideration in anticipating potential weakness
can work to reduce these barriers to implementing the instructional improvement.
Keeping the focus on research based designs and associated frameworks can serve as a
viable route to improved student performance (Marzano, Pickering and Pollock,
2001).
Building a systematic reform that encourages teacher confidence and buy-in
can be accomplished by clear and considered communication to a school staff
regarding the data and findings reported out from an effective needs assessment. The
implementation of the following strategic course of action cause staff members to
experience several stages of concern. Effective and strategic implementation will set
in place appropriate steps to address the concerns of staff by guiding them through the
stages of concern model (Marsh and Jordan-Marsh, 1986). Teacher empowerment in
the process and ownership of the instructional design works to motivate staff to pass
through the barriers of implementation (Fullan, 2001).
Implementation of a program requires the support and commitment of
principals, site instructional leaders and most importantly teachers. Effective
instructional efforts are those that are sustainable. Often staff development workshops
take the form of one day, one shot attempts to impact teacher’s daily teaching
practices, but fail due to the lack of sustainability. District leadership is faced with the
responsibility of providing vision, focus and implementation strategies that support
and sustain efforts that are carried out at the site level. Additional information on the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
contexts and factors that influence particular reform designs would be extremely
valuable to provide district leaders with insights about how well similar designs might
work in their districts.
Background of the Study
Since 1983, the numbers of American students reaching their 12th grade year
without the basic command of reading, mathematics and history is in the millions, yet
most still managed to complete their K-12 education. Millions more have opted to
drop out all together, with higher percentages represented among minority groups
(Center for Education Reform, 1998). The overall results of student achievement
following the 1983 landmark have been mixed with some improvements in
mathematics and science, while reading proficiency has declined and writing
performance overall has shown little change. (National Assessment of Educational
Progress, 1994) This information is tempered with the results of the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). This report was sponsored by
the International Association for the evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and
was funded in the United States by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). The TIMSS report showed that
internationally, some select groups were performing well against students from other
nations, but in the current atmosphere of assessment and accountability, these results
are not good enough to out weigh the areas of deficit. Despite the gains and positive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
indicators, the overall result of the TIMSS report was to fan the fires of concern
already burning for many.
In looking for a cause for low student achievement, there are really a number
of factors that can influence student performance in schools including: sociological,
economic, political and linguistic elements. In addition to these more global
considerations, performance can also be affected by instructional factors such as: the
effective use of resources, instructional time, teacher collaboration, scheduling, level
and extent of student engagement and past experiences of the instructional staff.
Specific considerations of the use of standards based curriculum, instructional
strategies, appropriate materials and assessments can all be critical to the overall
performance of students within a particular educational setting. Creating and
maintaining an effective combination of these factors and the well-prepared teacher
may be one essential key to improving student success. (Darling-Hammond, 2003) As
in any good recipe, having quality ingredients and blending them in the intended
proportions really can make or break the effect of the end product (Crocker, 1956).
Of all the many factors that can influence student performance, teacher
effectiveness has the most significant impact—far over other major factors including
class size, ethnicity, location and socioeconomic status. Poor teacher quality for three
consecutive years yields student academic performance scores at levels below the
national norm (Holland, 2001). Teacher quality can be established by a combination of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
assessing student learning as measured by test scores, observations of professional
practice, and gains in student achievement (Ferguson, 1998).
High quality teachers are well-trained teachers, a status which is often
accomplished through well designed and fully implemented staff development. High
quality research-based professional development is essential for improving teaching in
order to impact all students (Action Learning, 2004). Staff development that engages
and encourages teacher collaboration in planning and assessing has not only great
impact on the teachers themselves, but also on the students in their charge (Joyce and
Showers, 2002).
In the mid-1970’s, research began that looked for a connection between
instruction and student learning. Earlier research often concluded that the factors that
had the greatest impact on student learning were the student’s own aptitude,
socioeconomic status and home environment (Marzano, 2001). More recent research
contradicts the earlier conclusions and has found that the role of the individual
classroom teacher has a much greater impact on student learning that previously
thought—so much so that teacher effectiveness has more influence than any other
single factor (Williams, 2003).
The historical or traditional approach to improving instruction— methods in
place for decades— shared some common themes. Starting from the explosion in
American education following the Russian launch of Sputnik in 1957, one found
priorities placed on the lesson design as the critical evaluation factor, rather than the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
delivery or the role of the teacher. This methodology led to the outside development of
“master lessons” that ultimately diminished the role of local control (Atkin, 1997).
Standardized assessments of the time were applied to determine educational issues of
student capacity, leading to a formulaic procedure to correct the deficiencies (Mazzeo,
2001). It was the establishment of this model of thought that helped shepherd the way
for gurus such as Madeline Hunter and others who became the standards for teacher
training for more than a generation. A great deal from this era and approach to
teaching remains as many of the teachers who acquired their initial training in this
philosophy are currently still in the majority of the education workforce. The
formulaic approach to lesson design and execution has been transferred into later
reforms, and continue to serve as a common language for many veteran educators.
Approaches tended to have groups of students as targets, initially focusing on
the gifted and talented in science and mathematics. Then during the Lyndon Johnson
administration, the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) shifted the focus to support the poor and
disadvantaged students (Mazzeo, 2001). With this legislation, “...we bridge the gap
between helplessness and hope for more than 5 million educationally deprived
children” (Johnson, 1965). The resulting impact on local schools included increased
directives from the federal level with new goals and priorities for equal opportunities
in education, and increased funding and related influence from federal sources. During
this time federal funding increased from about 4.4% to roughly 7.9%, and with it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
federal influence at the local level (Scherer, 1996). New programs such as bilingual
education, special education, modular scheduling and the like provided venues to gain
additional revenue, but also brought increased paperwork, bureaucracy and rules.
These often translated into new administrative positions at the district level, an added
bureaucracy, to monitor the new categorical programs (Tucker and Codding, 1998).
The greatest of these categoricals, known now as Title I, may have actually
brought on the current age of accountability as this funding source sought to equalize
opportunity for students, overturning the previously held notion of student capacity as
the limiting factor. A catch phrase, “all children can learn” has become a mantra in the
age of accountability (Mazzeo, 2001). Early incarnations of this “accountability era”
included calls for “back to basics” reform and the adoption of minimum competency
tests (Ammar, Bifulco, Duncombe and Wright, 2000; Cohen and Steinberg, 2000). The
initial steps were quickly revised with the release of “A Nation at Risk”, and the initial
conceptual framework of “minimum competency” suffered a politically flavored end
(Elmore, 1997).
The revised view of American education that came out of the era placed the
blame of the state of affairs on a specific category of villain—the classroom teacher.
At stake were not only the American educational system, but also the American
economy and the entire American way of life (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Scherer,
1996). Many states approached the problem by increasing the expectations and
requirements for teacher credentialing and education (LaRue, 1996; Scherer, 1996).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
Professional teacher organizations such as the National Council for Teachers of
Mathematics (NCTM) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) had their
beginnings during this time (Bingeli, 2001). The concerns of many in the political
realm brought about reforms from the state and federal levels including new state
assessments and stronger model frameworks as the Reagan administration also
encouraged energetic state leadership and “more education for less money”
(Connover, 2001; Mazzeo, 2001). Some local level reform efforts that came out of this
time include some deregulation, site-based management, shared decision making and
school choice (Elmore, 1997). Other guiding forces that were an outcropping included
the guiding document, Second to None, and a new accreditation process called Focus
on Learning. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush called an Education Summit and
met with all 50 state governors. For a brief time, federal and state efforts worked
toward a common goal with bipartisan support. The summit was the foundation for the
National Education Goals under the Goals 200 Education Program, which was
ultimately enacted in 1994 (Austin, 1996; Elmore and Fuhrman, 2001; Reigeluth,
2004).
In the wave of change that has swept the United States following the
publication of A Nation at Risk, there was first a charge to educators to identify and
establish a set of rigorous standards in core academic areas, which was soon followed
by the need to evaluate the related elements of instructional practices, the use of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
instructional time, and student engagement in order to meet these new standards
(Marzano and Kendall, 1998).
The role and relationship of education in the United States has changed
dramatically over the past three and a half decades, and as a result new roles and new
stakeholders have developed from the federal, state, district and school site level. The
most extreme of these role changes has been at the level of the classroom teacher who
rests at the apex of the inverted triangle established by the new roles and
responsibilities. Prior to the standards movement, the classroom teacher was often able
to create and evaluate their own curriculum. With the advent of standards and the
associated assessments, the expectations and requirements of the classroom teacher
have changed enormously— particularly the level of accountability in relation to
student academic performance. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES,
2003) found that the state education reforms that made up the initial standards
movement consisted of four primary policy items: school choice; teacher training and
allocation of resources to improve learning; school finance reforms related to revenues
and their distribution; and reforms related to standards, assessments and accountability
directly linked to student achievement (Ammar et. al., 2000; Cross, Finn and Torres,
2004; NCES, 2003).
The rigor and quality of standards balanced with a reliable assessment system
again balanced with an accountability system that includes incentives, interventions,
rewards and consequences for results completes the tripod of standards based reform.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
(Cross, Finn and Torres, 2004) The application for teachers results in specific expected
outcomes of meeting an absolute target, making relative annual growth or narrowing
the achievement gap (Duffy and Goertz, 2001).
One aspect of most state accountability reforms was the linking of rewards and
sanctions to student performance (Elmore and Fuhrman, 2001). The consequences of
low performance ranged from requiring the development of an intervention plan to
takeover or even reconstitution of a school (Duffy and Goertz, 2001). One unforeseen
and negative side effect of the sanction strategy has been the challenge of lower
performing schools to attract and keep highly qualified teachers, which in turn could
compound the challenge of school improvement (Darling-Hammond, 2003).
In the context of the standards based reform movement that emerged in the
1990’s, there have been many assumptions made regarding the nature and make up of
good instruction that include elements such as: goals for learning, alignment of
instruction and assessment, as well as the role of the specific content material. The
reforms have been influenced by sociopolitical demands, an increased awareness of
how organizations work and may improve, as well as how the educational world has
changed its view on learning (Mayer, 1998; Resnick, 1999).
Prior to this, and nearly for a century, the behaviorist approach was dominant
in the educational world and framed attempts to shape and reform schools. Only with
the advent of the standards based reform efforts has there been a major shift towards
the cognitive constructivism approach to school and educational reform. In this
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
change, reformers have moved from the view of looking at learning as a passive
activity resulting from simple stimulus-response and operant conditioning mechanism
to a more complex mental process of learning—a relativistic view of constant change
as the learner interacts with his environment (Hiebert, Gallimore and Stigler, 2002;
Mayer, 1998; Woolfolk, 2001; Asmul, Wilhehnsen and Meistad, 1998).
The shift in focus to constructivism in the standards based reform efforts have
raised questions about the efforts of past change or reform models. Specific
differences include now embraced assumptions that: intelligence is teachable, and all
children can learn at high levels; effective school reform is linked to students and their
learning results; and that teachers are learners too— constructing new knowledge
through collaboration in “professional learning communities” (DuFour and Eaker,
1998).
In this still evolving time of standards-based reform, local districts need to play
a vital role in instructional improvement. The role of the district is to provide a clear
and consistent vision and workable model for instructional improvement—making
good use of personnel and financial resources in order to train and support the
instructional leaders at the school site. The culmination of the district effort needs to
be a systematic method of reform that includes a clear set of parameters for
implementation and expectations for the local instructional leaders. (Resnick, 1998)
Historically, most district reform has consisted of “tinkering with institutional
arrangements”, and has had little impact on the established practices of teaching and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
learning (Resnick and Hall, 1998). Traditionally, teaching and learning have been
considered to be the purview of the site, while structure and management has been the
role of policy makers. But one result of the recent reforms has been the exploration of
the potential of purposefully designed policies that explicitly link testing, curriculum,
textbooks, teacher training, and accountability with clear expectations of student
learning outcomes (Resnick and Hall, 1998).
More recently, districts embarking on the road to strategic reform have taken
one of three different directions. One form has been the prepackaged or commercial
program, often supported by consultants and externally created materials. These
approaches are used widely, and allow for decentralized school-based initiatives
centered on a pre-determined course of action. Another strategy has been the use of
centralized, district driven and supported staff development and instructional practices
training such as the Classroom Instruction that Works (CITW) model proposed by
Robert Marzano (Marzano, 2001). Such strategies depend on the consolidated
financial, human and political resources of the district to impact schools and students.
These approaches requires much more investment from the district level, and can
provide a one size fits all solution for a district. Finally, a third strategy would be a site
based effort that made use of the findings of such sources as the Coalition of Essential
Schools or the Professional Learning Communities concepts proposed by Richard
DuFour (DuFour and Eaker, 1998). This strategy can take the form of site driven
direction with quiet district support, or a convergence model that is more of a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
partnership between the district and site leadership to provide a collaborative approach
while still making the reform site specific (Darling-Hammond, Hightower, Husbands,
LaFors, Young and Christopher, 2003).
Exemplar districts modeling the various approaches to standards-based reform
efforts come in many sizes and variations. Small to medium sized districts such as the
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD), Fullerton Joint Union
High School District (FJUHSD) and Paramount Unified School District (PUSD) vary
in their approaches from larger entities such as the San Diego City Schools, New
Haven Unified and New York City Community School District #2. Each district has a
set of challenges to consider, and have selected specific reform strategies that they
have determined to best meet these challenges. Challenges range from overall low
achievement among students in academic courses and on outside assessments, to
performance and achievement gap issues wherein some groups of students have very
high results on both of these measurable elements while others in the same schools
and in the same courses for that matter, have significantly lower performance
outcomes. Identifying the factors that lead to these discrepancies and determining
district led or directed initiatives to address these concerns work to shape the design
and approach of district actions. District led reforms can be extremely complex
undertakings, yet “where there were consistent improvements in instructional practices
and sustained gains in student achievement, there was strong school leadership
focused on instruction, a sense of professional community, curriculum-based
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
professional development, and effective use of data including review of student work”
(Christman and Corcoran, 2002, p. 13).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the design, implementation and
impact of instructional improvement and standards based instruction strategies by a
district. The focus will be to identify the key design elements of the strategies, and the
extent to which the design has been implemented, both by evidence as well as
perceptions.
Significance of the Study
There is a tremendous amount of reform occurring in the world of education.
Current stakeholders have had changes in their roles and motivation, while being
joined by new stakeholders through the efforts of reform in order to reshape and in
many cases change the direction of schools in the pursuit of improved student
learning. It is essential that those key to decision making such as district and site
administrators, board members and professional support organizations gain a clear
understanding of the specifics and implications of educational reform efforts.
District level leadership, including superintendents, board members and key
administrative leaders need to have insight as to the factors to consider, as well as the
options available prior to embarking down a specific strategy of reform for a district.
Having access to the knowledge and skills that support successful reform can guide
these leaders in their planning and implementation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
Site level leaders, the “middle management” of education, are crucial to the
effectiveness of any reform effort. Their knowledge of the skills and philosophy of
such efforts, in addition to the strategy that is being pursued by district level
leadership, would provide these key leaders of schools tools they need to make reform
efforts real.
Teachers and site instructional leadership other than the administrators are the
individuals who translate philosophy, strategy and design into applied curriculum to
meet the learning objectives for the students they meet daily. Teachers will gather
insight into the nature of the reform efforts, as well as the critical factors that those in
the management roles are facing. In addition to classroom teachers, professional
organizations and researchers can take the insight gained in the study of the
development and implementation of successful reform models in order to support
future study of district practices that can contribute to the field.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study include:
1. What were the elements of the district’s design for improving teaching and
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 this reform strategy?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Limitations
As the data collected for this study will be from one district office instructional
team at a single mid-sized school district in Orange County in Southern California,
there may be some limits to the generalization of the findings with reference to
districts elsewhere. The brief window of data collection provides only a snapshot of a
much longer change process, and relies on participant perceptions in many instances
rather than actual results data. Finally, the researcher’s own experiences as a school
administrator could potentially introduce researcher bias into the interpretation of the
qualitative findings.
Delimitations
Because this study takes the form of a case study, the data gathered is delimited
to a single mid-sized school district. The district was selected with consideration to a
set of pre-selected criteria. The district was considered representative of districts in
California, having a total student enrollment between 15,000 and 60,000 students, and
because it was thought to be successful in implementing a comprehensive reform
design. The schools selected by the district as being demographically typical of other
district sites and was thought to be effectively implementing the district’s reform
design. The size of the sample is delimited to the district superintendent, 6 district
level administrators, and two site principals. This small sample size may limit the
ability to generalize the study’s results to other settings.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms are operationally defined as
specified below:
Academic performance index (API): California’s numerical indicator of
student achievement, used as a basis for a comparative ranking of schools statewide.
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 (Elmore, 2002).
Assessment: A measurement of a student’s particular skill or knowledge that
may be written, oral, or performance in nature. Standardized assessments are
administered and scored in exactly the same way for all students that are designed to
measure specific skills and knowledge.
Behaviorism: The learning theory that describes learning as a response to an
environmental stimulus. Behaviorism 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 articulated 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 that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
is comprised of both qualitative and quantitative factors that reside 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: Learning theory asserting that children construct new
information themselves based on a foundation of preexisting beliefs. Within this
process, their ideas become more complex and they need to verify new information in
a social context. This position advocates that students need to create their own
knowledge and it cannot be transferred to them through listening to lectures or
engaging in rote practice.
Content standards: As the foundation of a standards-based system, content
standards describe what content knowledge and skills students must master (American
Federation of Teachers, 2001).
Data-driven decision-making: The 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 (Massed, 2000).
Design: A plan that is intended to affect change which may be district-wide,
specific to a certain level or population, or specific to individual schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
Equity: Educational impartiality that ensures all student receive fair treatment
and have access to the services they need in order to receive a high-quality education.
Elaboration: The extent of specific directions given for the enactment of a
design to improve instruction (Cohen & Lowenberg-Ball, 2000).
Implementation: The translating of an idea into action in order to accomplish
the specified goal.
Innovation: An effort, strategy, or plan whose goal is to improve instruction by
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.
Performance Standards'. The level of performance that students are expected
to demonstrate in relation to the content standards; such as, basic, proficient, or
advanced levels of performance (Hambleton, 1999).
Professional development: Opportunities for staff to develop new knowledge
and skills that will improve their teaching ability. Also termed “staff development” in
some literature.
Reform: A change effort that is undertaken to improve the educational system.
Sanctions: The consequences imposed for not meeting expected performance
outcomes in some accountability systems.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
Stakeholder: Any person with interest in operation and outcomes of the
specific educational system, including administrators, teachers, parents, students, and
community members.
Standards-based reform: The change to an educational system that utilizes
subject-matter benchmarks to measure student achievement, assessments aligned with
standards to measure student performance, and accountability systems that provide
rewards or sanctions to district, schools, and students based on student performance.
Full implementation of all three components—standards, assessment, and
accountability—is also termed standards-based accountability.
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 policies, curriculum, assessment, professional development, instruction, and
budgeting. The goal of systemic reform is more clarity, coherence, and economy
throughout the system (Schmoker, 2003).
Teaching and learning: Based on the premise that effective instruction results
in strong student performance, improving teaching and learning refers to the
demonstration of improved instruction, even in the absence of precise student outcome
measurements.
Organization of the Study
Chapter One of the study presents the introduction, the statement of the
problem, the background and historical perspective of the factors in education that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
have led to the study, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, the
research questions to be answered, and the definitions of terms.
Chapter Two provides a thorough review of the related literature, educational
policy during the past four decades and the sequence of educational practices as well
as descriptions of some exemplar districts with that conducted successful reforms.
Chapter Three serves to describe the research sampling, instrumentation and
methodology used for the study.
Chapter Four imparts the findings of the study and presents the related
discussion.
Chapter Five includes the summary of the findings, conclusions drawn from
the five research questions and presents the implications and recommendations for
future research on this and related topics in the field.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The concerns over student achievement in the United States, both in terms of
comparison to perceptions of the performance level of the past as well as with regard
to the performance reported from other nations continues to drive educational issues,
concerns and movements for reform. The political milestones of the Great Society, A
Nation at Risk, the TIMSS Report, and the era of accountability have all worked to
keep the pressure on education in the United States, and has driven the ongoing pursuit
of reform on the part of district and school leaders.
Compounding these internal pressures, the TIMSS report as well as the United
States political and economic world position has brought a new set of standards for
comparison. The immediate post WWII United States was a political and economic
super power who looked inward for direction. As the world’s sociopolitical
relationships have developed, so has the views of Americans and American society in
terms of their view of themselves and of their relationships with other nations of the
world. The notion that we are not all the same, and do not do things the same way has
brought about questions related to the outcomes of many factors of society, not the
least of which is education. Understanding the factors that are at play in today’s
educational arena require looking at how they came into place, and the resulting
legacy of the different pieces that have contributed to the current recipe.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
The concerns over student achievement in the United States, both in terms of
comparison to perceptions of the performance level of the past as well as with regard
to the performance reported from other nations continues to drive educational issues,
concerns and movements for reform. The political milestones of the Great Society, A
Nation at Risk, the TIMSS Report, and the era of accountability have all worked to
keep the pressure on education in the United States, and has driven the ongoing pursuit
of reform on the part of district and school leaders.
Compounding these internal pressures, the TIMSS report as well as the United
States political and economic world position has brought a new set of standards for
comparison. The immediate post WWII United States was a political and economic
super power who looked inward for direction. As the world’s sociopolitical
relationships have developed, so has the views of Americans and American society in
terms of their view of themselves and of their relationships with other nations of the
world. The notion that we are not all the same, and do not do things the same way has
brought about questions related to the outcomes of many factors of society, not the
least of which is education. Understanding the factors that are at play in today’s
educational arena require looking at how they came into place, and the resulting
legacy of the different pieces that have contributed to the current recipe.
History and factors relative to student performance
The history of the 20th century has been in many ways the history of the rise of
the United States of America as a world power. Following the military victory in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
World War II, American culture, industry, economy and related elements of society
began to have a great influence on the other nations of the world. At the same time,
many Americans became self aware of this new role of leadership—taking pride in
what the nation had done in its first 175 years. Yet this role of superpower was
threatened philosophically with the successful launch of Sputnik in 1957 by the
USSR. Americans were concerned about this challenge to their hard won supremacy,
and consequently launched a response to the Soviet Union that was directed toward
the American education system. A great emphasis was placed on student achievement
in the areas of math and science in order to support a specific race for space, but
indirectly started in motion an ongoing expectation of high student performance. The
coupling of this perceived need for additional scientists and mathematicians
fortunately coincided with the growth of the entire education system.
A second by-product of the end of World War II already well in place before
the push from Sputnik, was a two-fold benefit to the education system in the United
States with the population explosion of new births which brought about the
construction and expansion of K-12 school, and a generation of military servicemen
that had earned the right to a free or highly subsidized college education under the
Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, more commonly known as the GI Bill of
Rights or just GI Bill (Butts & Cremin, 1953; Noble, 1960). The legislation was
designed and intended to provide greater opportunities to returning war veterans of
World War II by providing federal aid to help these veterans adjust to civilian life in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
the areas of hospitalization, the purchase of homes and businesses, and especially,
education. The bill provided not only tuition, but subsistence, books and supplies,
equipment, and counseling services for veterans to continue their education in school
or college. Veterans were free to attend the educational institution of their choice and
colleges were free to admit those veterans who met their admissions requirements. In
less than 7 years after its passage, roughly 8 million veterans received educational
benefits— many who might otherwise would have not pursued higher education. The
effects of increased enrollment to higher education institutions were significant,
leading to an immediate need to increase the capacity and number of college and
university campuses available. These accommodations became permanent changes
rather than just a temporary condition, which as a result changed the role and
perception of colleges and universities in the national culture. Higher education
opportunities opened employment to a wider variety of socioeconomic groups than in
previous generations, and the exponential growth in the nation’s economy in the post
war era provided incentives and pathways to apply these opportunities (Noble, 1960).
One of the side effects of this development was an overall rise in the public’s
expectations for student performance in the academic arena. Despite the opportunities
created by the increased access to college, very little had changed in the K-12 world to
prepare more students for such a course. The intent to have more of America’s youth
attend and have success at a higher level of education was not consistent with a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
relatively static K-12 system that experienced a high level of students who did not
even complete their K-12 program.
The final and most long lasting benefit was the dramatic change away from the
notion that higher education was the privilege of a well-born elite— leading to a
greater number of students and families changing their perspective of the role and
purpose of K-12 education. Indirectly, K-12 education became a pathway to higher
education to many when only a few years prior it had been the ultimate destination
(Gutek, 1986). Despite these new perspectives, the preparation students received in
their K-12 education as well as their actual performance across the board in terms of
the student’s academic performance did not change much at all during the this same
period.
The wave of concern over the status of American education triggered by the
Sputnik launch was followed by two other significant milestones. The release of A
Nation at Risk, just over a quarter of a century after the rush for space, hit many
American’s hard as the second of these waves. The context of the early 1980’s
included the nation’s attempt to rebuild confidence and pride that were challenged
during the political and economic turmoil of the 1970’s. The 1983 publication drew
the attention of policy makers as well as regular citizens as it characterized the
American system of education as a shell of its former self, and the acceptance of
mediocrity as the norm instead of the drive for excellence that had followed the
Sputnik scare. This harsh representation shook the status quo into a panic of reform
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
that has continued in one form or another until today (Marzano and Kendall, 1998;
Center for Education Reform, 1998). The report outlined a state of affairs that
included millions of students reaching the culmination of K-12 education without
gaining the ability to read or demonstrate minimum proficiency in mathematics and
history. Millions more did not complete schooling at all, and dropped out. Statistics of
subgroups of minority students were even more discouraging as they showed even
higher percentages of students performing at the low levels or dropping out altogether.
The subsequent release of the third TIMSS report in the 1990’s served as the final
wave to hit the educational system as it reported comparison data from the broad
international study. Americans, despite the efforts following the release of A Nation at
Risk, were still being out performed by students of many other nations in a number of
academic areas (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1994). This continuing
status brought many in the policy making levels of government to redouble efforts to
bring about change in the results of the American education system, and as such began
renewed efforts to examine the processes and practices that relate to the elements of
teaching and learning—ultimately to the outcome of student achievement.
Factors that affect student achievement
There are a great number of factors that have varying levels of influence on
student performance in schools. Broad classifications include sociological, economic,
political and linguistic elements— essentially, the preparation and conditions the
student brings to school from the home. Less broad and more educationally defined
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
classifications include instructional factors such as the effective use of resources,
amount and use of instructional time, teacher preparation and collaboration,
scheduling, level and extent of student engagement as well as the past experiences of
the instructional staff. Even more specific are the nature of the design of the
curriculum, instructional strategies and assessments. Factors such as teacher quality,
professional development, scheduling, class size, socioeconomic levels, race,
preschool attendance, and language proficiency all have significant impact on a child’s
education (McLaughlin, NCES1994). Of the major factors regarding student
performance, teacher effectiveness has the greatest impact by far over class size,
ethnicity, location and socioeconomic status. The impact of poor teacher quality for
three consecutive years yields student performance score below national norms
(Holland, 2001). Teacher quality is established through evaluation of student learning
as identified by teachers’ test scores, observational ratings of professional classroom
practice, and achievement gains made by students (Ferguson, 1998). These indicators
serve as a more accurate and meaningful measure of teacher quality than statistics
such as numbers of advanced degrees, years of service or professional certification.
Linda Darling-Hammond has identified that creating and maintaining an effective
combination of the design of the curriculum, instructional strategies and assessments
in addition to a well-prepared teacher is the one most essential factor to improving
student success (Darling-Hammond, 2003).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
A brief review of other factors helps to verify their relative importance with
regard to that of good instruction. These elements include year-round schooling, class
size reduction programs, SES status, preschool enrollment, and the student’s
proficiency in English if they are a second language learner.
Year-round school schedules eliminate summer breaks and the disruptive
transitions before and after them, often resulting in a month loss of learning (Cooper
1996). Nearly 75 percent of schools on year-round schedules selected this option
because of academic benefits. (Sadowski, 1998) Another approach to modifying
traditional scheduling model is known as ‘banking’ instructional minutes. A banked
schedule works by adding addition instructional minutes to each day in order to allow
for a shortened student day at regular intervals, allowing for teacher collaboration
without sacrificing student instructional time. During this time teachers can share
expectations, experiences, expertise and best practices with one another, so that
teachers from lower grades can better prepare students for the following year.
(Whitmire, 1997)
Initial research findings from the U.S. Department of Education (2000)
indicate that class size can significantly influence instruction. Students who were
members of a smaller class met their performance objectives with students increased
at both the proficient and advanced levels in reading and math. The benefits of
participating in smaller classes continued well beyond the time the students were in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
small classes (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). The study did not report out
factors related to teacher effectiveness or good instruction.
Family background and socioeconomic status (SES) are consistently shown to
be linked to student achievement (Coleman et al. 1996; Hanusheck 1986, NCES
-2000). In addition to the basic measures of SES, parent educational level, transiency,
and home environment all contribute to a child’s academic performance results
(Maylone, 2002). The indicators of residing in poverty, with only a single parent, and
having a parent who is not a high school graduate were all identified as key measures.
The combination of all three provides a much greater obstacle for students to
overcome to succeed academically (Maylone, 2002).
Some research indicates that race does not impact student performance to the
same as the home environment. Whitmire’s research (1997) reflects that student
achievement gaps are greater before these students enter kindergarten. His evidence
states the achievement gap develops between the womb and kindergarten. Children
entering kindergarten have a vocabulary recognition range between 4,000 and 12,000
words. Students with a non-traditional or impoverished home environment often
begin at the low end and may make gain ground over the years.
Students who begin instruction with a language deficit are those who are not
proficient in English. The English Language Learner kindergartens have a two-fold
challenge of assisting the student in adjusting to a school setting as well as dealing
with the struggle of a communication gap. Teachers spend time increasing the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
vocabulary with these students and do not address academics as deeply right away as
for the monolingual students. (Padron, 1992) Latinos have the highest dropout rate of
all ethnic populations. Katz (1999) connects their unfamiliarity with the language as a
primary reason affecting their success.
Instructional Practices that Affect Student Learning
In the 1970’s researchers began to look at the connection of instruction to
student learning. Earlier research concluded that factors relating to student
achievement were dependent mainly on the student’s natural ability or aptitude, the
socioeconomic status of the student, and the student’s home environment (Marzano,
2001). More recently, many conclusions have been drawn that individual teachers
have a profound influence on student learning, even if in schools that themselves are
relatively ineffective. Williams (2003) concluded that individual classroom teachers
have even more of an effect on student achievement than originally thought, leading to
the immediate and clear implication that more results can be accomplished to improve
education by improving the effectiveness of teachers than by any other single factor.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education’s 1983 reporting of A
Nation at Risk helped to shape education standards, and the process began in earnest
as American educators established rigorous standards regarding what students should
know and be able to do in core academic areas. Subject-matter organization quickly
developed into establishing content standards in core academic areas. The standards
movement worked to establish common expectations and “standards” of performance,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
leading educators to evaluate teaching practices, time issues, and student engagement
to meet these goals (Marzano & Kendall, 1998).
Currently, there are volumes of studies, books, and journal articles written with
the latest research on effective teaching strategies. Many of these strategies are not
new, but have been in use for decades. Ronenshine (1996) provides insight into the
most relevant and effective teaching functions that have helped to shape university
courses in teacher preparation over the past decade including: presenting new material
in small steps, guiding student practice by working examples and verbalizing the
processing steps, regularly checking for understanding of all students, and clarifying
meaning to avoid student. These instructional strategy methods have been determined
to be some of the most effective, and are measured not through standardized testing
results, but by observing and recording classroom instruction and identifying those
instructional procedures that were associated with the most successful and the least
successful teachers.
Despite these strong conclusions, there are still questions without clear answers
regarding instructional practices including the relative effectiveness of particular
strategies at certain grade levels and/or specific subject areas, as well as impact on
students with different contextual setting, backgrounds and circumstances (Marzano et
al, 2001).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
Improving Instruction and Student Achievement
The notions of improving instruction and student achievement have been
thought of as being connected, and in some settings even being the same thing. But the
definitions of each have changed drastically over the last 40 years, and current efforts
are far from what even many teaching in schools today remember being taught in their
professional preparation.
Approaches to student achievement
Historically, approaches undertaken to improve student achievement have
identified groups of students as a target rather than entire populations. The initial focus
on student achievement centered on the gifted and talented students and was
successful for a small portion of that population. But that focus shifted just a few years
later to a different end of the spectrum with the changes brought about by the passage
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) during the Lyndon Johnson administration. These key pieces of legislation
that served as the foundation for the Civil Rights Movement and the related War on
Poverty, worked to redirect the focus of educational policy and student achievement
from the gifted and talented to those in financial and social need (Mazzeo, 2001). The
Johnson administration intended to bridge the gap between the millions of children
who were living in poverty and the rest of the nation. (Johnson, 1965) The social and
educational initiatives included in these pieces of legislation created new funding
sources and new programs from the federal level. These would influence local schools
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
both in terms of increasing federal funding by nearly double (Scherer, 1996) to
creating specialized programs such as bilingual education, special education, modular
scheduling and others that resulted in enormous changes in the way school and school
districts would conduct their business of educating students. These federal initiatives
have become known as categorical programs as they receive funding from different
categories in the federal budgetary process. With the introduction of these programs
and associated funding sources, came legal requirements for spending and reporting
which translated into administrative positions, directives and procedures at the local
district level (Tucker and Codding, 1998).
The splitting of students into categories and related programs might bring one
to the conclusion that different expectations might be set for each group, but it is
perhaps the most influential of these categorical programs, now known as Title I, that
actually brought common ground and perhaps even the beginning of the current age of
accountability. Title I is a large categorical area that provides a great deal of funding
per pupil in order to leverage against the difference in opportunity brought to school
by different students. A foundational element of the Title I philosophy is that “all
children can learn”. This phrase has become a cornerstone of the more recent age of
accountability, but was operationally opposite from the previously held beliefs as to
the key factors that influence student performance (Wong and Meyer, 1998).
With the support and direction of programs under Title I, the factors that were
believed to impact student learning such as SES, parent educational level, transiency,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
and home environment elements. Funding supported the creation of specialized
classes, programs, counseling services and free and reduced meals. Adding
compensatory support was intended to level the playing field for those students
coming to school with a perceived deficit. The programs did not necessarily consider
the delivery of the programs, but operated under the premise that the support offering
itself would be of benefit (Wong and Meyer, 1998).
The approach to improving instruction during this time placed the emphasis for
quality instruction and improving instruction on the development of lessons rather
than the delivery of the lessons or the role of the teacher. This methodology led to the
outside development of “master lessons” that ultimately diminished the role of teacher,
creating more of a generalized scenario for teaching, a mass produced style recipe of
sorts rather that an individual meal created to meet specific needs and specific tastes
(Atkin, 1997). In this set of practices, standardized assessments were applied broadly
to determine educational issues of student capacity, leading to a formulaic procedure
often consisting of program sequencing to correct the deficiencies (Mazzeo, 2001). It
was the establishment of this model of thought that helped shepherd the way for gurus
such as Madeline Hunter and others who became the standards for teacher training for
more than a generation. This approach worked well as a way of mass producing
teachers—providing standardized lessons and generalized approaches to deal with
students. A great deal from this era and approach to teaching remains as many of the
teachers who acquired their initial training in this philosophy are currently still in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
majority of the education workforce. The formulaic approach to lesson design and
execution has been transferred into later reforms, and continue to serve as a common
language for many veteran educators. The notion that a good lesson is a good lesson,
detached from the context of the student’s needs, the school, the teacher’s other
preparations, as well as a number of other factors drove this approach to instructional
improvement. The philosophy is very reflective of elements of American society from
the first half of the century—the assembly line, mass production, quality control and
other principles that held true in the business world as well as in the successes of
WWII. The practices produced results, but the improvements in student performance
were not consistent across the board in terms of the needs of all students, and were not
designed with flexibility to address situations in which the initial master lesson did not
produce the intended outcome of student performance.
The trend for equity and equal opportunity kicked off by Title I and
characterized by the slogan “all children can learn, changing the previously held view
that school quality and performance was constrained by students’ capacity (home
factors). As the shift to the school factors was made, changes took place in the
profession and administration of education that reflected this philosophical
transformation. California’s Stull Act of 1971 (Former Ed. Code, §§ 13485-13490
changed to Ed. Code, §§ 44660-44655 in 1976) directed school districts to institute a
uniform system of evaluation and assessment of the performance of “certificated
personnel” within each school district based on established expected student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
achievement. This individual accountability in terms of certification reflected the view
that the teacher was now seen as a critical variable in the learning process and was
expected to ensure that each student’s academic achievement progressed towards the
district’s goals through effective instructional techniques and strategies, adherence to
curricular objectives, and the establishment and maintenance of an effectual learning
environment (LaRue, 1996). This change raised concerns over what were the
measurable units of student learning and performance of staff resulted in the
beginnings of an excellence movement and a fiscal conservatism. (Ammar et. al.,
2000).
The definitions of improving instruction, despite these changes, continued to
focus on the teacher and their actions. A quote from A Nation at Risk explains that “...
declines in educational performance are in large part the result of disturbing
inadequacies...” and that the problems stem from four instructional areas including “
.. .process, content, expectations time and teaching” (National Commission on
Educational Excellence, 1983, p. 1).
One approach that has been consistent in working to improve instruction has
been the concept of using some sort of staff development. Yet the method, strategies,
and results of this approach have been inconsistent, and have really only become more
focused and reliable in recent years as it has been shaped by the standards based
reform movements.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
Staff development leading to improved instruction
Reviewing past strategies of staff development attempts helps to provide
insight into why the structure simply did not work. Many past models of staff
development can only be described as “haphazard endeavors”. (Brennen, 2001)
Most teachers in America have participated in some form of professional or
staff development. Even though participation in professional development has been
wide spread, its effectiveness and impact upon of classroom instruction has often been
characterized as disappointing for both teachers and districts (ASCD, 1990). One
explanation is that there has been a misalignment of goals and priorities for both the
teachers and the providers of staff development, with the resulting “hit and miss”
approach showing a lack of connection by the providers of training to what is actually
happening in the classroom. This circumstance has been attributed to legislation that
was written based on research that didn’t necessarily reflect practices in actual
classrooms. It seems evident that the considerations of professional development have
not been a significant priority for either the universities preparing teachers, or the
districts employing them. (ASCD, 1990)
In addition to the seeming disconnect between the site, district and state
expectations, staff development was often designed based on a deficiency model. This
model makes the assumption that the district, school and/or the teacher is either not
doing something that should be done for effective teaching and successful learning to
occur, not doing enough of something, or that what is being done is simply wrong.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
This concept finds it roots in research conducted in 1950s and 1960s by the National
Science Foundation. Educators were seen as consumers of reform requiring
retraining, much like factory workers being prepped for a different assignment as
opposed to partnership in the curriculum reform effort. (CPRE, 1993) This view
contributed to a secondary failure of professional development efforts to have a
sustained impact on teachers and on improving instruction. When change goals and
vision are not widely shared, or even understood by the practitioners, positive
participation is unlikely (CPRE, 1993).
Sparks and Hirsch (1997) called for a radical rethinking of professional
development that modeled the same procedures for teachers as was encouraged for
students. Their work explained that often attempts at staff development required
teachers merely to sit passively and listen to a lecture. Shanker (1990) indicates that
educators should have known better than to teach by just telling people what they
should do. This is not the method and practice that was prescribed for students, yet
there seemed to have been some sort of assumption it would be an effective model for
adults. Noticeably missing in these presentations were discussion of implementation
strategies, follow-up and support training or a focus on practical use of the
methodology. This format was frequently seen in traditional one day, one-shot
approach in services, and was a chief reason why such workshops met regularly with
contempt from both instructional staff and administrators (Shanker, 1990).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
Another barrier to gaining enduring results from staff development was that even
when better, long-term staff development programs with built-in remedies for the
above problems were offered, there were linked to monetary compensation and
movement across the salary schedule. Although this may seem to have been a logical
and reasonable approach, the very nature of the motivation—namely increased
compensation—often worked against the motives that truly motivate sincere effort at
staff development, as was reported by research data (Shanker, 1990). It is suggested
that in order to made a real and meaningful difference in student achievement, the
quality of learning experiences for students provided by those run school needs to be
changed (Butler, 1991). Similarly, Corwin (1975) presents that effective change at the
institutional level is primarily dependent upon the views and actions of the leadership.
The breakdown in staff development endeavors could be attributed to the failure of the
entire system to be responsive to the actual needs including a political climate that
failed to acknowledge classroom achievement, to organizational structures that
discouraged teacher participation, to the adoption of staff development that was
singularly focused. Staff development failed because there was a lack of focus and a
lack of clear leadership at each level (Butler, 1991; Corwin, 1975; Shanker, 1990;
Sparks and Hirsch, 1997).
Rather than just developing a new model for staff development in order to
improve instruction, the contextual framework of what good instruction needs to be,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
and to what ends it should be driving education towards emerged in the form of a
common, or standards based reform movement.
New Methods o f Improving Instruction
The standards-based reform movement (SBR) emerged in the 1990s, driven by
renewed interest and concern of the status of education as reported by A Nation at Risk
as well as popular media outlets capitalizing on the initial concerns expressed at the
1983 publication. This new take at re-prioritizing and reshaping American education
drew from not only the research conducted regarding education, but from research
findings that had been applied to businesses and other large entities. Not only was the
new reform influenced by sociopolitical demands and increased awareness about how
organizations improve, it was guided by a concurrent shift in the way the educational
world viewed learning (Mayer, 1998; Resnick, 1999). For nearly a century, the
behaviorist approach had dominated educational thinking and had framed attempts to
reform schools in a particular mindset, but SBR brought a new philosophy that shifted
toward cognitive constructivism. This change guided the new wave of school
improvement efforts into a new direction, and with a much different record of success.
Rather than maintaining the view of learning as a passive act that happens to students
that is the result of simple stimulus-response and operant conditioning mechanisms,
constructivist-based reformers have described learning as a collection of complex
mental processes that result in a change in the student. (Hiebert, Gallimore, & Stigler,
2002; Mayer, 1998; Woolfolk, 2001). The behaviorists viewed intelligence as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“absolute”, static and measurable on the bell curve. Cognitive constructivists deem
intelligence to be “relativistic” and constantly changing as the learner interacts with
his environment (Asmul, Wilhehnsen, & Meistad, 1998). Constructivists subscribe to
the believe that students are active participants in their own learning, and construct
meaning from connections they are able to make with prior knowledge. Making
meaning in this manner leads to a level of understanding that goes far beyond what
can be learned through rote learning strategies that are typically used in behaviorist
based classrooms (Asmul et al., 1998; Mayer, 1998; Reyhner, 2003).
This shift in focus from behaviorism to constructivism has brought change in some
fundamental beliefs, and in the process clarified the basic tenets of SBR. The three
pillars include: 1) intelligence is teachable, and given clear and rigorous expectations,
all children can learn at high levels; 2) effective school reform is linked to students’
learning results, taking place at the classroom level or the “educational core”; and 3)
teachers are learners too, and in the same manner as students, they construct
knowledge through participation in collaborative learning communities.
Intelligence Can Be Taught
The constructivist view on intelligence is that it is teachable through effort-
based learning (Resnick & Hall, 1998, 2000). Helping students become “smarter” is
one of the prime drivers behind the SBR movement’s motto that “all children can
learn” at high levels (Resnick, 1999). In a departure from the traditional beliefs that
student aptitude and capacity is fixed, and that students have predetermined levels of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
ability, effort-based reform proposed that an individual’s capability is open-ended.
Resnick and Hall’s (2000) effort-creates-ability position states that all students can
meet rigorous expectations through a sustained and targeted effort.
A major key to success in this effort is knowing how and when to apply
strategies that guide learning. This process has been identified by psychologists as
metacognition. Metacognitive skill development empowers students to help direct and
track their own learning, and helps to provide strategies that can redirect them towards
success as they find challenges (Cordes, 2001). Internalizing these strategies and
incorporating them as regular practice can lead students to view themselves as
“smart.” Resnick (1999) suggests, that intelligence is really nothing more than “the
sum of one’s habits of mind.” The development of such skills can assist all students
access challenging curriculum that was earlier thought to be available only to those
traditionally viewed as “smart” (Resnick, 1999).
Many educators who have found success in their effort to reform schools also
were found to embrace the philosophy that all students are capable and worthy of
creating knowledge. The nature of learning in these instances was redefined through
“reculturing” schools to accept a new vision of teaching (Fullan, 1996), stepping back
from the stance that knowledge is absolute and intelligence is static commodity
(Resnick & Hall, 2000). High performance learning now is not an exclusive
experience for a select few while others receive a less meaningful version of
education. Understanding that the intelligence forming process is a dynamic series of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
elements allows reform-minded teachers to create and adjust classroom environments
that make good use of the varied experiences of all students (Garcia, 1999). The use of
a “responsive pedagogy,” to build on strengths and reduce deficits supports this
strategy (Garcia, 1999). Classroom settings are fluid and non-linear in this model and
allow for instruction that can be easily adjusted to the needs of the group and
individual students (Bunting, 1999; Reilly, 2000).
Classrooms no longer are bastions of passive silence with the teacher as the
single voice. Past practices placed the teacher as the “sage on stage” at the head of the
classroom, while current reform efforts place students at the center of the educational
experience (Brown, 2003). Reformed practice includes intellectually safe classrooms
where the culture is engaging and responsive for all students (Garcia, 1999; Hickey,
2003; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). Curriculum and lesson design reflect the
philosophy that all students are capable of performing at high levels. In support of this
philosophy of success, academic standards are conveyed in a clear and direct manner,
expectations are high, and rubrics are visible and explained. Classroom Instruction
that Works is a resource compiled through a meta-study that provides these same
concepts for teachers to support their design and implementation of lessons and
assignments that employ rubrics addressing academic standards and support student
effort as related to achievement (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001). Based on this
notion that knowledge and achievement are achieved through effort, the effort-based
rubric encourages students to chart and compare their level of effort with their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
performance on assignments, also defined by rubrics. Van Overwalle & De Metsenare
(1999) emphasizes the importance of effort by noting that lessons on effort and its
relationship to achievement have been shown to increase achievement much more than
lessons on time management (as cited by Marzano et al., (2001).
Too often students participate in teacher-centered activities that do not require them to
demonstrate the new knowledge they are able to formulate, and are instead encouraged
to merely reflect the model presented by the teacher (Brown, 2003; Sizer, 1991,
1995). Place the center of the reform at the front lines of education—the classroom—
promotes professionalization of teaching by having educators as the key figures in
applying both the research-based learning frameworks and organizational change tools
such Total Quality Management (TQM) (Goldberg & Cole, 2002; Louis, 1998). As
teachers become focused on student accountability—active learners building their own
knowledge— they increase their capacity to implement research-based instruction,
align curriculum to standards, to provide appropriate assessments, and to evaluate the
program effectiveness (Goldberg & Cole, 2002; Louis, 1998). The collaborative and
collective work of teachers and administrators in taking responsibility for the quality
of learning on a campus is a powerful combination that can create real and appreciated
results.
DuFour and Eaker (1998), Wiggins and McTighe (1998), Schmoker (1999),
and Marzano and Pickering, et al (2001) provide practical strategies for monitoring
student achievement. Monitoring takes place in a variety of ways: standardized
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assessment, self-assessment, and teacher assessment. Assessment can take a variety of
forms. The assessments may be multiple choice tests or they may be student work that
is graded on a performance-based rubric (CPSE, 1997; DuFour & Eaker, 1998;
Marzano et al., 2001; Schmoker, 1999; Snyder, 2002; Wiggins & McTighe, 1998).
Data analysis based on results from standardized tests, common departmental
assessments, and student work is a way for teachers collectively to reflect on and to
evaluate student performance, instructional materials, and instructional practice.
The Good News: Teachers and Students Learn Best in Collaborative Settings
SBR has as a fundamental challenge the task of overcoming years of teacher isolation
with a new era of sustained collaborative professional dialogue and development
(DuFour, 1997; Elmore et al., 1996; Fullan, 1993; Schmoker & Wilson, 1993). The
essential core of effective school reform along this model is the creation of
professional learning communities in which teachers, as with their students, employ
constructivist approaches to support the growth of individuals as well as the
collaborative team, learn. There is powerful closely linking student learning to teacher
learning, which suggests that schools’ potential for producing lifelong learners and
effective collaborators is limited by the same characteristics of their teachers (DuFour,
1997; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Richardson, 1998; Sparks, 1998).
But sadly collaboration without the use of sound research is no better than collective
intuition. The intuition strategies used in the past created strategies that only worked
for the best students (Sizer, 1995). A collaborative model of professional development
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
needs to be grounded in sound research, be purposeful, and carried on in a climate of a
professional learning community. Kounaikenshuu is the Japanese practice of lesson
study that is one example of professional development strategy that is used to perfect
lessons through a purposeful and research-guided collaboration (Stigler & Hiebert,
1999). American teachers collaborating in the creation and implementation of sound
and effective teaching practices centered around commonly accepted constructivist
principles can in practice become researchers themselves and as such are able to study
their own classes as well as those of their colleagues to gather information needed to
expand their own knowledge and improve instruction (Schmoker & Wilson, 1993;
Stigler & Hiebert, 1999).
Reform language that drives these concepts includes common goals,
teamwork, and collaboration. DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) Professional Learning
Communities depends on an organizational framework of teacher collaboration.
Teachers are to conduct themselves as professional researchers by systematically
engaging in instruction, assessment, and adjustment of instruction” (Schmoker, 2004).
Schmoker (1999) outlines the essential aspects of teacher teamwork in successful
school reform. Far too many “reforms” have failed because front line reformers had
only a cursory knowledge of reform practice (Spillane et al., 2002). Two examples of
failed efforts include Cooperative learning groups and whole language reading
strategies; failing because teachers attempted to implement them with little or
inadequate ongoing professional development. Both strategies had tremendous
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
potential for empowering students, by not when misapplied. The potential for success
in reform efforts is increased as educators actively engage in professional learning to
construct, incorporate, reflect, and evaluate best practices for student learning.
It seems that the success of standards-based reform efforts hinges on the ability of
educators to reconstruct what they believe to be true about the nature of learning and
that the effectiveness of research-based instructional strategies is dependent on
educators accepting intelligence as dynamic, while keeping students as the focus of the
educational core.
The challenge
Traditionally, many schools have functioned in great part in a collection of
isolated islands. Professionals and students have come together daily, yet most work
was done independently. As Resnick presents that student intelligence can be
increased (Resnick & Hall, 2000), the same holds true for teacher reform-intelligence.
be increased. A great challenge to many is that rather than continuing to exist in
pockets of isolation in the “ ‘egg-carton’ structure” of schools, teachers and
administrators embrace the social context of their own learning and professional
development through SBR reform, and participate in professional learning
communities that both echo and model the methods that provide success for their
students (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Schmoker, 1999; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002).
The realization of this challenge, and the successful victory in overcoming traditions,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
prejudices, concerns, fears and resistance will surely be the difference between the
overall success or failure of a SBR effort.
The Role of Districts in Improving Teaching and Learning
The role of school districts in the SBR movement has been in flux due to the
different pressures influencing policy and politics. Some broad efforts at the state level
in California, Kentucky and other states almost erased the role of districts by putting
consequences sanctions and rewards directly at the site level (Schmoker, 2001). The
key elements of a district design for improving instruction include consideration of
influencing factors, the appropriateness of the selected design to the needs of the
students and district, and the effectiveness of implementation.
Factors of influence
As districts consider reform efforts, consideration must be given to a number
of relevant factors that can impact the potential outcome for success, as well as the
realistic capacity for the district to undertake such a venture at all including: capacity,
size, understanding, leadership, organization and governance, political culture and
reform history, and nature of state policy (Marsh, 2000)
One large area is that of capacity—in this context the capacity to learn new ideas and
to do something with these ideas. Considerations need to be made of the human
capital, which includes the personal commitment available to place behind an effort as
well as the potential of the individuals who make up the organization. Social Capital is
identified as the relationship between individuals within the organization, including
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
the level of trust and communication. This factor is highly linked to success in any
change effort as failure in reform will most likely result in loss of social capital.
Finally, the concept of physical capital which includes tangible elements such as
financial resources dedicated to staffing, time and materials (Marsh, 2000;
McLaughlin, 1987; Spillane and Thompson, 1997).
The size of the district organization can be a critical factor, as the relative
collection of resources in most public school settings is directly linked to enrollment.
Districts with larger student populations can gather and wield greater amounts of
financial resources, but may be limited in the potential for change by the greater size.
The leadership influence has been identified as a factor that can account for the
consistency and stability necessary for a reform to complete implementation.
Specifically, the quality of leadership from the superintendent and curriculum
coordinator is most closely associated with success (Kirp and Cyrus, 1995)
The factors of organization and governance, political culture and reform history, as
well as the nature of state policy are considerations for the leadership of the district in
terms of planning and implementation strategies. Understanding the road already
covered, the traveling company and the road ahead helps in making the journey
without pitfalls.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
Models
With the pressures of school accountability and the drive for continuous school
improvement, a variety of strategies have been employed by districts to meet these
demands. The strategies fall into three basic categories defined loosely as district
driven, collaborative efforts between the site and central office, and site based efforts.
District driven frameworks
The centralized, district driven approaches can tend to be larger
undertakings that can be supported by outside consultants or centralized resources. In
general, district driven strategies draw on basic premises including aligning
curriculum and instruction to assessment, building capacity of district staff, fostering
relations with stakeholders, and attending to the allocation of district resources
(Regional Educational Laboratory Network, 2000). The district role in building
capacity at the school site level most often deals with some variation of data analysis,
modification of curriculum and instruction, enhancement and advancement of teacher
knowledge and skills in coordination with targeted interventions on low performing
students and/or schools (Massed, 2000). As district efforts have been developed, four
key components are seen again and again, namely: using a systemic or systems based
approach; creating and maintaining a collaborative school culture; building leadership
and consensus toward a shared vision; and monitoring student learning to gain school
improvement (Regional Educational Laboratory Network, 2000). Another study adds
to the list the issue of attending to the allocation of the district’s financial and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
personnel resources (Corcoran, 2003). In addition to these educational and
organizational strategies and priorities, the overriding need and importance of
communicating these strategies and the intent of any efforts to all involved is
reiterated (Coast Mountains School District #82,2003).
Another strategy employed by districts is that of a district-wide student success
plan. Such plans can include individualized intervention plans for students who have
scored beneath a determined level on a standardized assessment, targeting resources
and intervention efforts to specifically identified targets as opposed to large-scale
efforts aimed at entire school or district populations (Massachusetts Department of
Education, 2000). This method is included in many of the packaged or promoted
methods such as the pyramid of interventions that is the foundation of the Professional
Learning Communities Model presented by Richard DuFour (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
This strategy looks at the overall benefits to a district or campus by bringing up the
lower performing group while maintaining appropriately challenging elements for
other student constituencies.
As districts prepare to adopt strategies they need to evaluate their position
relative to a number of key challenges that nearly all districts face including:
unsatisfactory academic achievement; political conflict which could be within the
context of the community; inexperience in the teaching staff; low expectations of
students and a lack of appropriately challenging curriculum; a lack of instructional
coherence which can be caused by a disjointed set of initiatives or practices; high
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
student mobility; and poor business operations which can be exasperated by
uncertainties in funding. Finally, there are the local impact of a state legislature driven
foci on accountability and the subsequent issues of local politics and power relations
—translating into the implications of what happens at the school district and board
level if initiatives do not bring about the desired results (Snipes, Doolittle & Herlihy,
2002; Coast Mountains School District #82, 2003).
A separate district level approach is to develop a strategy that impacts the
physical setting of the schools themselves. A significant study (Frazier, 1993) links
improvements in student performance to changes made in the poor state of
infrastructure of many schools. As education is Constitutionally a responsibility of the
state, school facilities are primarily a local district responsibility. In times of financial
uncertainty as in recent years, efforts to maintain or improve school infrastructure
have been inconsistent. Indications are that improved facilities can positively impact
student performance, as well as the perception of the greater school community that
there is a priority on what happens instructionally within the classroom (Edwards,
1991).
Many leading experts agree that there are relatively simple, research proven
and financially viable structures widely available currently that could have a huge
impact in virtually any school. But Schmoker (2004) warns that these learning
communities are rare, and are in fact often blocked by institutionalized reform and
improvement models. The traditionally accepted strategic planning model that has
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
included the elements of mission, vision, goal setting and action steps often results in a
monster that takes on a life of its own apart from the intentioned improvements to
support student learning, and often even at their expense. He presents that the hidden
assumptions of the effective planning, value of related professional training and real
ability to monitor the great number of initiatives. The reality is that this strategy
produces a massive bureaucratic document, but little real impact in the daily activities
of classroom instruction and learning, while consuming a great deal of time and
money in the process. Kouzes and Posner (Kouzes and Posner, 1995) comment on the
relationship between “organizational momentum and the visible signs of success” and
the level of simplicity of the adopted plan. In the case of strategic planning for school
improvement, the axiom less is more holds true in terms of the potential effectiveness
of the plans. Datnow (2000) points out that often in district driven efforts, little or no
attention is given to micro-political interactions that are the result of the change
process itself, agreement or disagreement over the actions in and around the reform,
and subsequent power distribution issues between the district, site and site
administration, as well as those that may develop between teachers relative to their
level and timeliness in adopting the reform (Hargreaves, Earl and Ryan, 1996).
Externally Developed and Commercially Promoted Reform Designs
There are broad selection of conceptual models available externally and
commercially that can be implemented by both schools and districts that will
effectively direct organizational systems and facilitate positive instructional practices
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
in an effort to achieve greater student learning. Most of these found their origins at
individual schools, developed in local efforts seeking to improve student learning and
overcome the obstacles that were unique to that school. As these programs
experienced success, they were emulated and implemented by educators in other
locations in order to better their own schools (Datnow, 2000). Currently, there are a
host of school reform designs that are being carried out at individual sites that are
tailored to the particular issues that confront those schools. Programs based on
creating a knowledge-base for teachers (Willis, 2002), developing teacher
collaboration know as “Evaluation Frames” (Conca, 1996), and the application of a
systems approach in a school (Necochea & Cline, 1996) are just a few examples of
reform designs that have been implemented in limited settings or only at specific sites
that may someday find a broader following in their areas or across the nation.
There are a number of reform designs that have already achieved the enough
local success to draw a national audience. These efforts have developed in response to
specific needs at local schools with a range of settings and fundamental beliefs.
However, these different reform designs reveal much about the conceptual basis that is
guiding different schools and districts through a transformation in instructional
practice. A selection of some of the visible follows.
One of the most popular reform designs is the Accelerated Schools Program
designed by Dr. Henry Levin through Stanford University with the goal of improving
schooling for children in “at-risk” settings. The philosophy of the design is that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
students experiencing deficit progress should be place in accelerated programs with
appropriate support—usually reserved for gifted or advanced students, as opposed to
the traditional path of remedial instruction that more often leads to more remedial
programs (Levin & Hopfenberg, 1991). In an effort to break a negative cycle of
failure, this academic intervention design has seen success at two San Francisco area
schools, and is the focus of implementation nationwide in different settings with
support from the national center located at the University of Connecticut (Accelerated
Schools Project, 2004).
Another reform effort that has gathered a broad following in recent years is the
Coalition of Essential Schools. Initiated in 1984 by researcher Theodore Sizer and
several colleagues at the conclusion of a five-year study of a number of high schools
across the nation, finding that most of them were remarkably similar in both area of
success and failure. Sizer (1999) laid out a set of principles promoting a smaller scale
education plan that sought to eliminate excess and confusion in programming to the
end of a more personalized education for students. A program that emphasized site-
based coordination but sought to incorporate system-wide contributions, was initially
adopted by a group, or coalition, of twelve schools in seven states, but the principles
soon caught on with numerous public and private schools across the country and is
presently being implemented at more than 1,000 schools nationally with the support of
a national office and 19 regional centers (Coalition of Essential Schools, 2004).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
The Comer Process, as a school reform design, proposes school reform via a
broad understanding of child development as the key to student’s academic
accomplishment and success in life. The Comer School Development Program
proposes that students develop along six “pathways” that include ethical, social,
language, psychological, cognitive and physical. The program calls for specific
training for the educational team including teachers, other school personnel and
community members to provide them with a foundation in the understanding of child
development from which to foster growth in students. A group of teams at the site are
responsible for planning, coordination and implementation of efforts to meet the
schooling needs of the children that they serve (Comer & Maholmes, 1999).
The Core Knowledge Program presented by E. D. Hirsch in 1986 promotes a
core curriculum to which all children should be exposed that includes specific topics
for children at different grade levels and builds sequentially from year to year, and
shows tight parallels to the theories of Lev Vygotsky in its belief that there is a
relationship between elementary and higher mental processes that follows a sequential
path that involves “qualitative transformations” (Mahn, 1999). Essentially stated,
students must have a knowledge base, or “Core Knowledge,” of a particular subject
upon which subsequent learning in that area can be built (Hirsch, 2001).
Success For All was designed as a means of developing a curriculum for
classroom teachers that would support cooperative learning strategies. Gaining
exposure as it was implemented in all of Baltimore’s, in addition to the cooperative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
learning component it added immediate intervention for students exhibiting learning
problems instead of remediation or retention.
In addition to these, there are many others based on similar principles and
concepts of modifying the learning environment, approach to students and student
learning, and application and selection of curriculum in order to improve instruction
and overall student learning.
Site based efforts
Each design includes a particular effort to improve teacher instruction and
student learning at a particular site, and found its roots in the basis of research and
philosophical principles. But there is an implication that meaningful reforms must
originate at the sites where they are to be implemented. Tucker and Codding (1998)
purport that the faculty and staff of a site are the source of the standards that drive high
achievement, and that the definition of those standards is the essential core of being a
professional educator.
Successful leadership for site-based instructional reform has a conceptual
framework that is commonly comprised of a number of key elements, the foremost of
which is a focus on student learning and achievement. It is usually easy to make the
connection between decisions about teaching strategies or curriculum and their impact
on student learning, but many other decisions that are made on a school campus have
an impact on student learning, though it may not be as easy to identify. For example,
David (1995) points out that, “A decision to invest in classroom telephones to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
facilitate communication between teachers and parents will also affect students.” The
main concern is to be sure that the rationale for decisions is founded in improving
student learning (Guskey & Peterson, 1995; Codding & Tucker, 2000). Identified
weaknesses of site-based programs include issues with decision-making, ability to
keep focus students and student learning, and the propensity of individuals and small
groups to subvert the reform process in order to gain power or influence (Guskey,
1995; Conway and Calzi, 1995).
Convergence Theory
For the better portion of the last century, the primary organizational structure
that educators have experienced was the top-down, district driven model. More
recently though, schools and districts have made a shift to a site-based decision
making structure. But both models have identified shortcomings with the district
down approach seeing the big picture at the expense of how individuals and local level
interpretations can change the greater intent, and grass roots approaches may tend to
over manage details at the expense of the bigger picture of student learning including
environmental factors and politics (Darling-Hammond, Hightower, Husbands, LaFors,
Young and Christopher, 2003). In consideration of each of these perspectives, it is
understandable that a philosophical change is underway leading towards a
convergence of the two models. Rather than choosing between centralization and
empowerment, the key is to find a balance for addressing district and site instructional
improvement challenges through problems flexibility in both structure and process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
(Conway and Calzi, 1995; Fullan, 2000 & 2004; Gallucci, Knapp, Markholt, and Ort
2003).
Datnow (2004) presents some key lessons identified from case studies of high
performing districts including the establishment of a district-wide sense of worth,
coupled with a district-wide focus on student achievement and quality instruction.
Having a well developed, adopted and employed collection of curricula, approaches to
instruction, aligned curriculum and teaching materials, learning materials and relevant
assessments are critical strategies that are present in successful district efforts.
Keeping these priorities, these districts developed or adopted common curricula and
instructional strategies, supported by aligned materials and assessment tools, all under
the umbrella of common performance standards. The consistency of such efforts was
maintained through the use of data to inform practice, holding site and district leaders
accountable, and an ongoing monitoring of progress. Efforts were conducted in
manageable phases, and with consideration to the factors of capacity, understanding,
leadership, organization and governance, nature of state policy, and staff development.
Datnow also suggests that to study the impact of district efforts at improving
instruction and student achievement, research should focus on the linkages between
district actions, implementation strategies, changes in the classroom practice and
student outcomes. Additionally, learning more about how the key players in the
development and implementation of reform efforts communicate and support these
efforts at the policy, leadership and classroom levels.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Exemplary districts: case studies
To better understand district-led reform efforts, it is helpful to study districts
that have already undergone such efforts. During the past 15 years, many districts
across the nation have taken on instructional reform efforts, but only a few whose
efforts have been researched. Both successes and failures have been researched, and
the findings have offered professionals in the education community lessons that can be
applied in driving efforts in districts anticipating implementation of similar reforms.
Fuhrman (1994) examined numerous reform efforts, addressing the challenges of
reform efforts to provide an inventory of strategies districts should consider when
looking to implement and instructional improvement plans.
The identified seven challenges are very similar to those found by other
researchers including: overwhelming work load, limited resources, articulating the
nature and intent of reforms, going beyond standards and assessments (incentives,
professional development, accountability, scaling up), equity, competing problems, the
grip of the past, and leadership. The use of these lessons and potential pitfalls can
assist future reformers in their planning. Suggested elements include: building
capacity in new ways, expanding the meaning of professional development, taking
sufficient time, being honest, and taking advantage of the national trend.
Examining the work of two individual districts is helpful as both elements of
success and failure can be seen with perspective. San Diego City Schools and
Philadelphia are two examples of districts that have stepped up to the challenge of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
implementing a district-led reform. Not only did both design and implement a reform,
but their efforts have been studied extensively.
Much research has been done on the reform efforts of the San Diego City
Schools.
Although still a work in progress, the implementation efforts of San Diego
have taught us a great deal about effective design and implementation of instructional
reform. As the 8th largest school system in the country, identified concerns about
performance brought about questions as to the size and nature of the district
bureaucracy—leading to a planned reform towards a systemic change in instructional
practices. Deemed “San Diego’s Big Boom”, and the approach was a wholesale
change targeted first at the district office, then working down to the sites. Although
historically recognized for pockets of success, the system wide evaluation showed
significant academic success differences based on geography, race and ethnic factors.
The reform incentives grew from community based demands, and drew to a point of
action with the hiring of a new superintendent. Alan Bersin, a non-educator, selected a
well-known educational reformer in Anthony Alvarado to serve as his chancellor of
instruction. Alvarado had been key in a successful reform earlier in New York’s
District #2 (Hightower, 2001). Darling-Hammond, Hightower, Husbands, LaFors, and
Young (2002) provide a detailed look at how the San Diego leadership designed and
implemented a multi-year plan to improve student achievement—consistent with the
recommendations of targeted phasing. Through interviews, observations, surveys and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
record data collected at the state, district and school levels over four years, the
research team examined the “nested interactions of several sets of policies that target
teachers and instruction at all levels of a state system and the implication for teachers’
practice of those sometimes conflicting, sometimes coherent policies” (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2002), p. 1). The research focused on curriculum and assessment
initiatives, teacher professional development initiatives, as well as the accountability
initiatives (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002, p. 62). Although the design of the
curriculum and related elements followed many of the research recommended aspects,
the challenges faced in successful implementation have emerged from the style and
actions of the leadership as well as with the response to and from the political culture
that framed the context of the district. Lessons that come from these studies include
the need to engage and communicate with all stakeholders during the planning,
implementation and evaluation stages of the reform effort.
Philadelphia, noted as the first major attempt by an urban district at systematic
reform, also provides professionals and potential reformers with lessons regarding
implementation. Supported by a $100 million grant issued over 5 years, the landmark
reform effort took a large-scale approach at impacting the learning of students. The
reform “Children achieving” had noble, researched based goals including improved
coordination of resources, content and performance standards, decentralized decision
making, and coordinated accountability systems. Although there were modest gains
posted in elements of the district reform initiative, most who have studied the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
Philadelphia reform suggest the efforts did not meet their objectives for a sustained
change (Spiri, 2001).
Using four years of data- including school level data, census surveys of
teachers, school characteristic indicators, and many interviews— Foley (2001) suggests
the failure of the reform efforts were linked to: flaws in theory of action, flaws in
implementation, lack of capacity and lack of attention to building capacity, and
inconsistency by stakeholders about the beliefs and values underlying the reform
effort. More specifically, barriers at drawing and retaining qualified teachers led to the
dismay of site principals at their perceived inability to recruit or maintain quality
teachers in their schools. This undermining was attributed to contractual issues
between the teacher’s union and the district. The principal dismay was reinforced by a
lack of professional development for site administrators, resulting in a disconnect
between leadership and the teaching ranks related to the specific elements of the
educational reform (Spiri, 2001).
Both cases display large scale efforts, based on research and well planned
implementation strategies that experienced significant challenges if not clear failure
that was linked to breakdowns in both traditional organizational or recently created
systems of communication, policy and procedures. Schmoker (2004), identified as a
proponent of organizational reform based on results, warns of these exact issues. He
points to the institutionalization and heavy handedness of districts and the common
practices of staff development that are not responsive to the determination of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
capacity needs of participants. Most critical in successful efforts, and not identified as
priorities in either district effort, is combating teacher isolation. As staff members
return from programs, training and the like to school sites and individual classrooms,
the potential void for the new information is opened. Ongoing and regular
communication between teachers, administrators and support staff is an essential tool
to employ against the foe of isolation and the resulting abandonment of the benefits of
staff development and curricular change efforts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the research design, sample, instrumentation, and
methodology for data collection and analysis employed in the study. The purpose of
this study was to explore the strategy and methods of a high school district as they
implemented a districtwide instructional innovation. A narrowed focus was taken on
the linking of influential district actions of the innovation identified as: the design
selection, implementation, and effectiveness of research based strategy to improve
teaching. The emphasis of this study was to gain insight into the process as seen from
the perspective of the district office. This case study examined the following 5
research questions:
1. What were the elements of the district’s design for improving teaching and
learning?
2. What factors shaped the district design?
3. How did the district carry out the change strategy to implement the design?
4. What was the extent of the implementation of the district design?
5. How effective was the district design?
Driven by the purpose of the study, a decision to adopt a qualitative
methodology, specifically an analytical case study designed to provide a thoughtful
and well represented examination of a particular example to serve as model for study.
(Huberman & Miles, 1994). The case study approach provides for a modeling—
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
essentially the use of an example that can be used in the study of a more complex
process. By using an extensive and detailed approach with one sample case, broader
findings can be drawn and meaning can be applied in a more general context (Patton,
2002). The unit of analysis in this study was one school district.
This study was designed to make use of fully codified research questions,
standardized data collection procedures, and a number of systematic devices for
analysis. The analytic strategy used in this study was based upon the overlay of two
conceptual frameworks. Evidence collected from documents and artifacts was cross-
referenced against interview data. Instruments were developed in a manner so as to be
both based upon current educational research and designed to elicit answers to the
research questions of the study. Research on organizational theory and social theories
of change were the foundation for the Case Study Guide and the conceptual
frameworks.
Information related to the district, schools, and individuals interviewed was
true and accurate, but all participants were assigned pseudonyms in the reporting to
provide for their anonymity. The tangible documents and other items examined in the
study were acquired directly from the district, whereas some of the statistical
information related to the district was drawn from the California Department of
Education website, as well as local county education web resources.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
This chapter includes the research questions and a description of the research
methodology. The latter includes the sampling procedure and population,
instrumentation, and procedures for data collection and analysis.
The Sample
The sample of one high school district was specifically chosen for study as a
means to create a deeper understanding and knowledge of system wide instructional
improvements. The chosen district was identified based on meeting the following
criteria:
1. A mid-sized district that served between 10,000 and 60,000 students.
2. District was comprised of a diverse student population in regards to
ethnicity and socioeconomic status.
3. District demonstrated an intentional effort to improve teaching and learning
system wide for at least one year.
A number of Southern California districts that met the criteria were identified,
and informed of the study through a Study Information Sheet. Los Coyotes High
School District responded to the invitation and in turn made itself available to five
doctoral students to research their practices. Three of the doctoral students studied
instructional improvement efforts set forth by the district at the individual school site
level, while this researcher joined with another in focusing on the undertaken efforts
with reference to the district perspective. The participants in the study included the
superintendent, deputy and assistant superintendents, other district office personnel, a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
high school principal, and a board member. The selection of the high school principal
was randomly done from the eight schools. Participation in the studies activities was
voluntary, with confidentiality and anonymity assured to all participants.
A series of planned interviews were held with all participants. One to three
interviews were scheduled with each participant to allow for appropriate depth in data
collection, as well as to gain triangulation of gathered data. Initial interviews were
about one hour and took place at the participants’ workplace, which, with the
exception of the high school principal, was at the district’s central offices. The
interviews were structure around the Case Study Guide, itself rooted in a blend of
current educational research, Conceptual Framework A (CFA), and Conceptual
Framework B (CFB).
SELECTED DISTRICT
Located in the suburbs adjacent to the urban fringe between Los Angeles
County and Orange County, Los Coyotes High School District served over 16,000
students in grades nine through twelve at six comprehensive high schools, one
continuation high school, and an alternative high school within a fifty square-mile
attendance area. The district website states, “Active parent organizations, an involved
business community and supportive higher education institutions are enjoyed by the
District.” More than 85% of the district’s students live in the area and come from one
of four feeder elementary school districts. The remaining students live outside of the
district boundaries and are attracted to Los Coyotes by a variety of district magnet
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
programs, including International Baccalaureate programs offered by four of high
school sites. Additional specialty programs include arts academies, agriculture
programs, unique foreign language offerings, and a sampling of JROTC programs.
The district was made up a very diverse student population— both socio
economically and linguistically, representing more than forty languages and 38
countries. Slightly more than 30% of the students were identified as English Language
Learners. The district’s ethnicity was reported overall as 48% Hispanic, 29% white,
17% Asian, 2% African-American, and 4% other. The diversity of the student
population was not equally distributed among the traditional high schools as one of the
high schools was 62% Hispanic and 8% Asian while another of the district’s schools
that was only 12% Hispanic and 56% Asian. The district had three high schools that
qualified for and provided targeted assistance through Title I funding, with a total of
6% of the students receiving free or reduced-pay lunches.
Analysis of assessment and accountability data, including Academic
Performance Indicator, California Standards Tests, California Achievement Test (CAT/
6), and California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) results verified the districtwide
stated priority that mathematics and reading comprehension was of interest at each
campus. All of the district schools indicated reading as an area for improvement in
their Single School Plan for Student Achievement, with mathematics improvement
also indicated as an area of priority and focus. The raised prioritization of mathematics
was linked specifically to the new state legislation requiring one year of Algebra for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
all students as a requirement for graduation. The three Title I schools each identified
concerns in providing support to students to meet state standards and passing the
CAHSEE. Disaggregated data reports identified the two main groups of students with
achievement needs: English learners and Hispanic students. As seen with the
district’s diversity, the state accountability measure of the various schools showed
great variety, with the 2003 California Academic Performance Index (API) ranging
from 606 at one high school up to 873 at another school. All schools met their 2003
API targets.
The districts’ teachers are a stable group with an average length of service of
thirteen years in the district for the 606 certificated classroom staff. Cyclical and
career terminus based retirement was referenced as the most typical the reason for the
hiring of new teachers. At the time of this study, 7% of the districts’ teachers were in
their first year of teaching and 8% of the districts teachers were in their second year of
teaching. Throughout the district, 88% of the teachers were fully credentialed under
the provisions of the California Commission for Teacher Credentialing, with 86%
compliant to the requirements outlined in the Federal No Child Left Behind.
The initial interview of the study with the Superintendent served to reveal the
organizational hierarchy of the district and worked to identify other key district leaders
involved with the improvement effort. From this starting point, the sequence and
roster of district leaders to be interviewed at a later date was set.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DISTRICT PARTICIPANTS
Superintendent. The superintendent has held this position for only one year;
however, the superintendent worked for over thirty years in the district previously in
the positions of Deputy Superintendent, Director of Curriculum, Principal, Assistant
Principal, Athletic Director and initially teacher.
Deputy Superintendent. The deputy superintendent was recently promoted
from Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services and Accountability. In a prior
position, this individual was responsible for shaping and directing efforts to improve
teaching and learning, along with providing for the appropriately related professional
development. The prior superintendent tasked this person with providing for the
localized development and initial implementation of the plan for the innovation. The
deputy has worked for the district for twelve years, serving earlier as the Director of
Curriculum, Principal, and as an Assistant Principal.
Assistant Superintendent o f Educational Services and Accountability. The
assistant superintendent recently joined the district and has assumed the role left open
by other promotions. This office is charged with supporting and reporting on the
process of the innovation to the Board of Trustees.
Assistant Superintendent o f Human Resources. This assistant superintendent
has held the position for three years. Previously, this individual had worked as a high
school principal in the district for five years. The focus for this interview was to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
establish the relationship between the hiring of personnel and the development of the
profession, including any organizational beliefs that guided the process.
Director o f Curriculum. The Director of Curriculum has been in the position
for two years. When the innovation was first implemented this individual was an
Assistant Principal at a district high school. The Director began working for the
district as a teacher, and is also a graduate of the district.
Director o f Special Education. The Director of Special Education has been in
the position for three years and was an Assistant Principal at a district high school
when the implementation of the innovation began. Special education was included in
the focus of this study to provide data on equity standards with a group that is often
disenfranchised in similar efforts. Additionally, data collected on the perspective of the
innovation’s impact on enhanced learning outcomes within this arena deepened the
analysis of a districtwide effort.
Director o f Technology. In the realm of communicating internally and
externally through use of the Internet, the Director of Technology held a position of
interest for this study. The Director of Technology has held the position for 7 years.
Director o f Special Projects. This individual holds responsibility for assisting
in the alignment of programs to the requirements of outside definers, such as in Title I
and federal requirements for English Language Learners. This individual also works
indirectly with both the Assistant Superintendent for Education Services and Business
Services to coordinate their various functions as applied to district initiatives and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
school sites. The Director of Special Projects has served in this position for more than
12 years.
High School Principal. Three of the high school principals were excluded
from possible selection as participants in the study. One principal had only been with
the district for one year, another principal was a doctoral candidate and considered too
close to the study, and the final excluded principal was responsible for alternative
education programs where the additional challenges of a transient student population
was not representative of the district as a whole. A participant was selected from the
remaining four principals. The selected principal had held the position for 8 years and
was previously an assistant principal for 18 serving at this at one other high school.
The principal’s school was in the upper half of the district’s ranking of schools based
on API and was not identified as a Title I school.
Board Member. The selection of a board member to participate in the study
was based upon the recommendations of the superintendent. The board member
selected has served on Los Coyotes Board for more than 17 years. All of the board
members had volunteered to be a participant in the interview process. The most senior
member of the board has served nearly 25 years, and the junior just over 15 years.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation was development by sixteen members of a cross-analysis
research study team. Team members were Ed.D. candidates at the University of
Southern California and met during the summer of 2004 in a seminar led by David
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
Marsh, Ph.D., Associate Dean of Academic Programs. The sixteen-member team was
divided into two eight-person teams: one investigating instructional improvement
through the district’s eyes and the other focusing on the improvement effort through
one individual school’s eyes. The eight-member team focusing on district-led
instructional improvement determined the purpose of the study and the research
questions. After much discussion and review of current literature, the team eventually
reached consensus on the two conceptual frameworks and three data collection/
analysis instruments. The instruments were refined and field-tested in the summer
prior to data collection. A matrix demonstrating the relationship of data collection
instruments to the research questions addressed can be seen in Table 1 below.
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 Rater Rubric X X
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
FRAMEWORKS FOR INSTRUMENT DESIGN
Two conceptual frameworks and the Case Study Guide served as the
foundation for data collection in this study. Conceptual Framework A (CFA),
Conceptual Framework B (CFB), and the Case Study Guide were developed from an
analysis of current research. The conceptual frameworks and data collection
instruments are described below.
Conceptual Framework A. 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 systemwide
instructional improvement (Gilbert et. al., 2002). This model works to facilitate
examination of district efforts through the identification of seven domains districts use
to leverage wholesale and system wide change:
1. Defining teaching and learning
2. Developing the profession
3. Communicating externally and internally
4. Responding to and contending with exogenous policy
5. Acquiring and allocating human, fiscal, and physical resources
6. Creating local systems of accountability
7. Partnering with non-system actors
Within each of these domains of action, three factors influenced outcomes:
1. Leadership focused on enhancing quality and equity of student outcomes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
2. Equity standards utilized to inform action
3. The use of data to inform action, signal capacity issues, and build
coherence throughout the system during reform.
District quality outcomes for the model were defined as:
1. Coherent policy and action across domains
2. Professionalism and learning communities pervasive at all system levels
3. Equitable and enhanced student learning outcomes across and within
district schools
4. Strategic district action was sustainable.
This framework, depicted graphically in Figure 1 below, was utilized
for the development of instruments and analysis of data in this study.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework A
Domains of District Action
f Acquiring,'
H n d ullmins
K m m , ih c k i
iu r f fitfy sJcal
feM lilrii;
Mild k ‘jr iii« K
/ Iti % |inaiclln|* \
hikJ c * r ilt tid ii$ H
'[ V iilll J
v p r f c y /
IK tvbfitl \ <^— j
III* firW c u lO n I * — i
C r« H la §
U cM q r a U a n u f
•K o u n ln W ttty
11 o iiia a u k r.i4ln|> \
I ta ta r n r f ly anil 1
\ tatenuly j
t'urlnwlnB *lih
lou-vi'tlca* i t » r
Q m d ilj'; C o h e K ii w , P a ite w w iiiilis in < L r a m iiig C o m m u n ity ,
S y s t e m 'i v k k E q u ity , S u st.n in .ib ilU y
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Conceptual Framework B. Bolman and Deal (1997) provided a critical
framework that worked to integrate a number of key perceptions and interpretations to
the structures, roles, and behaviors of leadership found within organizations. Bolman
and Deal (1997) identified four distinctive frames or lenses from which people view
their world: structural, human resources, political, and symbolic. Leadership was
identified as a key factor in each of the domains of district action found within
Conceptual Framework A, essentially the fuel that drives the process of action.
Bolman and Deal’s four-framed leadership model provides another dimension to the
framework. Acting as a large-scale change agent, the district leaders needed to utilize
the frame that offered the best opportunity for focusing all the actors on a workable
solution. Depending on the population or task to be addressed, different frames allow
for varied approaches as well as a range of perceived strengths and liabilities.
Common organizational processes are expressed differently in each of the four frames,
therefore, overlaying Conceptual Framework B on Conceptual Framework A increased
the depth of analysis and understanding conveyed by the data. A chart summarizing
some of these different interpretations for each frame was utilized in this study and
can be found in the appendix.
Framework for first research question. The first research question asked,
“What were the elements of the district’s design to improve teaching and learning?”
Beneath this primary research question, secondary questions related to the processes
used for the development of the plan, overview of the design, elaboration of the plan,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
as well as intended strategies for implementation and the vision of full implementation
of the innovation. The Case Study Guide provided additional probes designed to fully
illuminate the district’s design.
Framework fo r second research question. The second research question posed,
“What were the factors that shaped the district design?” The development of the plan
was viewed with regard to contextual factors, both internal and external, along with
any force or critical incidents that impacted the effort. The District Profile presented a
picture of AHSD in terms of the internal and external contexts. The Case Study Guide
further elaborated this question in relation to the concerns for local conditions, equity
among student groups, and the process for developing the district design.
Framework for third research question. The third research question inquired,
“How did the district carry out the change strategy to implement the design?” Based
on CFA, this question reviewed the methods districts used to influence and leverage
change throughout the system. The potential domains through which district-wide
change was affected included: (1) defining teaching and learning; (2) developing the
profession; (3) communicating internally and externally; (4) responding to and
contending with exogenous policy; (5) acquiring and allocating resources; (6) creating
internal systems of accountability; (7) partnering with non-system actors. CFB further
investigated those actions in terms of the leadership utilized within each domain as
expressed in the four frames in Bolman and Deal’s (1997) model: (1) structural; (2)
human resource; (3) political; and, (4) symbolic. Within the Case Study Guide, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
factors that advanced or held back the change process, along with any resulting
amendments in the district’s theory of change provided clarification of this research
question. The District Profile clarified the range of implementation efforts needed for
an effective district-wide change effort.
Framework for fourth research question. The fourth research question asked,
“What was the extent of the implementation of the district design?” The extent of
implementation and degree of instructional change since the initial roll out of the
innovation was uncovered through application of the Case Study Guide and the
Researcher Rater Rubric. CFA provided a framework through which to organize and
observe the changes, including the use of data, level of equity, and perceptions of the
district staff related to the extent of implementation.
Framework for fifth research question. The fifth research question asked,
“How effective was the district in implementing the reform strategy?” The Case Study
Guide and Researcher Rater Rubric were the tools used to determine the impact of the
district’s design on teaching and learning. The Case Study Guide also probed into the
changes in the organizational culture as expressed through the domains and outcomes
described in CFA. These quality outcomes included coherence among policies and
actions, the development of professionalism and learning communities, increased
equity among student groups and between schools, and sustainability of the reform.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS
The four data collection instruments were developed as a result of the
adoption of the conceptual frameworks and were specified and assembled to align
with and capture the elements of the design, development, implementation, and impact
of the innovation. The instruments consisted of a Case Study Guide that demarcates
each research question, allowed for the mapping of the data collection process, and
provided a guide for collecting documents and artifacts across the district; a District
Profile that represented key elements of district the demographic composition of the
students, the characteristics and qualifications of the teaching staff, and the range of
funding sources found within the district; a Document Review Guide that provided a
structure for collecting and deep analysis of documents based on the Case Study
Guide, CFA, and CFB; and a Researcher Rater Rubric used after collecting data to
determine the extent of implementation and impact of the design, as well as for
determining areas that required additional questioning or clarification. These
instruments together provided the necessary tools for collecting and evaluating the
essential data related to each research question.
Instrument 1: Case Study Guide. Each of the five research questions are
reflected in the five sections of the Case Study Guide that outlined the parameters for
each question and cross-referenced relevant questions to Conceptual Framework A.
This tool addressed the elemental components of each research question and directs
the researcher in the collection of data. The Case Study Guide was developed from a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
deliberate and careful blending 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 & Massed, 1999,
2002; Hightower, 2001, 2002; Marsh, 2000; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2002; Schmoker,
1999, 2004; Spillane, 2002; Togneri, 2003).
The Case Study Guide established an outline for the formal interviews of the
district participants. The guide also provided the framework for the collection of data
through observation, artifact, and quantitative data collection through the mapping of
the data flow and the reporting of findings in Chapter 4. Interviews were conducted in
hour-long sessions using the primary and secondary research questions, then using the
Case Study Guide for probes, as necessary for elaboration and clarification. Questions
followed the same grouping of the research questions mirroring the Case Study Guide.
Evidence to support the interview data was collected through documents, artifacts,
observations, and other interviews. Study participants provided additional supporting
evidence.
The focus of each interview varied depending upon the position and
responsibilities of the district leader. The original interview with the superintendent
was broader in focus in order to identify the different positions responsible for the
specializations related to the district design. These latter interviews focused on each
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
individual’s specialization, knowledge and experience in an effort to link district
actions and policies to the instructional improvement effort. Each of these interviews
was held in the respective administrator’s office to ensure their comfort and
accessibility to supporting documentation. The exception was the board member
interview, which was held in the superintendent’s conference room so as to afford the
same professional setting as in the other interviews. Confidentiality and anonymity
was guaranteed to all.
Instrument 2: District Profile. The summary of district data in the District
Profile was divided to capture key data including teacher characteristics, student
characteristics, school characteristics, and district funding sources. Data were
compiled from the California Department of Education website and district
documents. This summary provided contextual information and highlighted the range
of implementation required throughout the district.
Instrument 3: Document Review Guide. Created to provide an organizational
scheme to allow for the analysis of district documents, the Document Review Guide
was based upon the Case Study Guide, CFA, and CFB. Remarks regarding each
document were written within one of the domains found in CFA, while allowing for
the quick coding of the research questions addressed and evidence of one of the four
frames from CFB.
Instrument 4: Researcher Rater Rubric. Designed to provide an organizing
format that addressed the extent of implementation and adequacy of the district design,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
the Researcher Rater Rubric was employed after the collection of data in each
interview setting. The team of two researchers examining different aspects of the
same district collaborated on the completion of this tool after each round of data
collection. Inter-rater reliability was increased through extensive collaboration before
collection of the data and a clear and common understanding of the elements
expressed on the rubric. The extent of implementation and effectiveness of the
innovation were organized into the seven domains outlined by the CFA. The
directional scale of the rubric was based upon the Case Study Guide. The elements of
the district’s effort were rated in two categories: (a) as intended in implementation,
and (b) as impacted by implementation. 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 researchers’
perception throughout the process helped identify gaps in the research that needed
further investigation.
Data Collection
Data for the study were collected primarily in two distinct rounds over a two-
month period ranging from October 2004 through December 2004. The multiple-
round method of data collection increased validity through opportunities for member
checking and triangulation of data (Guba & Lincoln, 1986). After each round of data
collection, participants reviewed drafts of the data collected to ensure that their words
and actions were correctly captured. Multiple data sources resulting from different
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
methods that were compared between two researchers increased the credibility of
results through the convergence of information, known as triangulation.
The criteria for participating districts were established in the summer of 2004.
At that time, a list of eligible districts was compiled and the Study Information Sheet
was distributed to elicit interest. Los Coyotes High School District accepted the
invitation and welcomed five 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 Los Coyotes was comprised of five Ed.D.
candidates, three of whom collected data at individual school sites and two of whom
focused on the district perspective. As part of the team focusing on the district
perspective, the first interview was with the superintendent. This interview was
designed to gain a broad picture of the instructional innovation and identify key
district leaders involved with the implementation of the innovation. This one-hour
interview provided the basis for the division of labor among the two district
researchers. One researcher examined data related to the instructional core, i.e.,
defining teaching and learning, developing the profession, and communicating
internally and externally. As the other researcher, the focus of this study collected the
structural components that increased the district’s capacity for instructional
improvement, i.e., acquiring and allocating resources, creating an internal system of
accountability, and partnering with non-system actors. This division was based upon
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
the domains found in CFA. With the strong support of the superintendent, accessibility
to other participants was not an issue.
In addition to the superintendent, the deputy superintendent was interviewed
during Round One. As the responsible party for the initial implementation of the
innovation and related professional development, this interview was able narrow to the
specific design, strategies, and goals of the innovation. The identification of key
district personnel was compared to the list developed from the interview with the
superintendent so as to guide the interviews in Round Two. Evidence in the form of
documents and artifacts was collected during both interviews. District personnel
assisted in the completion of the District Profile and data collected from the CDE
website was verified. Observations of district activities were noted throughout Round
One. The data collected were 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 Rater Rubric.
Round Two of data collection included interviews with five other district
leaders and a board member at the district office, follow-up interviews with the deputy
superintendent, continued observations, and further gathering of documents and
artifacts. Included in Round Two was an interview with a high school principal at
their school site. As the interpreter and conveyor of district design for instructional
improvement, this link was important in the illumination of the district-led effort. Data
collected from Round Two was compiled and presented for review. The two
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
researchers again completed the Researcher Rater Rubric. Following all of the data
collection, an exit interview was scheduled with the superintendent.
The structure of the interviews followed the protocol outlined by Creswell
(1998) for semi-structured interviews. The location of the interviews was selected to
minimize distractions and enable those interviewed access to key supporting
documents. The purpose of the study and the interview were reviewed with each
participant before asking open-ended questions relating to the study. In order to guide
the interview, some 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 took field notes during the interviews to provide
as data capture for the instrumentation. Notes followed both the interview questions as
well as identified follow up and probing questions as each interview took place. All
participants were assured confidentiality of the information and their anonymity in the
study.
Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to document the efforts of Los Coyotes High
School District as they implemented an instructional innovation systemwide, with
consideration relating to the contextual factors that shaped the design, the extent of
implementation, and the impact of the design on teaching and learning. Five research
questions addressed the purpose of the study and provided the foundation for data
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
collection and analysis. Collected data was reduced, codified, and then entered into a
database for comparison and ease of retrieval.
Interview field notes were coded according to research question. A contact
summary sheet was included with the interview data detailing the main themes of each
interview, initial questions arising from the interview, and any salient points
warranting further investigation (Huberman & Miles, 1994). The data was further
coded as to the domains in CFA. The Case Study Guide provided the foundation for
this analysis with the organization of probes into the five research questions
previously coded to the related domain. Additional organization of the interview data
was done in relation to the four frames in CFB. The data was matched to the results
from other data collected, including prior interviews as well as documents.
Data collected from the Document Review Guide was sorted by research
question, and then cross-referenced to the domains in CFA and the four-framed
leadership model in CFB. The data was compared by both frameworks to highlight
trends in the district efforts. Information was coded and sorted according to the
research question it addressed, and then entered into a database for comparison with
other data.
The Researcher Rater Rubric completed at the end of each round of data
collection was compared to the results of the other researcher. Discrepancies in the
comparison were noted and marked for further research and clarification.
Discrepancies between the raring of either researcher and other data collected were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
also further explored. Quantitative data from the District Profile, documents, and
artifacts was reviewed and sorted by the research question, then referenced for
comparison with other data.
Validity and reliability. Validity was verified through the use of multiple
sources of evidence, establishing a chain of evidence and by the previewing of the
case study by key informants (Yin, 2003). The matching of patterns, triangulation of
data from multiple sources, and detailed descriptions addressed internal validity (Yin,
2003). External validity was beyond the scope of this single case study, the
responsibility for determining overall gemeralizability falls on the reader and was
facilitated through detailed description of this single case (Stake, 1995). Methods to
ensure reliability included the use of the Case Study Guide, compilation of data into a
matrix, and member checking of the data collected.
Relationships were identified among different data sources and information
was determined regarding the agreement and consistency of district policies and action
with the theory of instruction they were attempting to impart districtwide.
Conclusion
This chapter discussed the research methodology used for this study. This
discussion included a description of the sample and population, data collection
instruments, data collection process, and the analysis of data. Procedures for this study
included obtaining permission from the district superintendent and board of trustees to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
conduct a study in the district, conducting interviews, gathering documents and
artifacts, and collaboratively rating the implementation and impact of the instructional
innovation with another researcher. Results and the examination of data related to
each research question are presented in the following chapter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
In this chapter, the findings collected by the study are presented, followed by a
discussion. A review of the findings is made in relation to each of the five research
questions and the two conceptual frameworks, interview data, documents and the
researcher rating matrix that all fit together in providing the analysis of the results. The
first section of the chapter provides a description of the background and settings of the
organization including prior practices, policies and traditions surrounding staff
development and instructional innovations within the Los Coyotes High School
District in order to communicate answers about (1) the elements of the district’s design
for improving teaching and learning, (2) the factors that shaped the district design, (3)
how did the district carry our the change strategy to implement the design, (4) the
extent of the implementation of the district design, and (5) the effectiveness of the
district in implementing this reform strategy. These five areas directly correspond to
the five research questions that provided the guidance for this study. The discussion
expands on the findings, and provides an analysis of these finding which extends to
the end of the chapter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Data Findings
Research Question One: The Elements o f District’ s Design for
Improving Teaching And Learning
The research question asked, “What were the elements of the district’s design
for improving teaching and learning?” The focus of this research question is on
identifying the fundamental elements of the district’s plan. The interviews conducted
with district personnel as well as through the careful analysis of district documents
provided the answers for this particular question.
Foundation fo r the Design
The research-based literature piece identified through interviews with district
staff that provided the foundation for the reform was Classroom Instruction That
Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement by Robert J.
Marzano, Debra J. Pickering and James E. Pollock. The book, published in 2001,
represents the culmination of research conducted as a meta-analysis of prior studies of
related topics, and was conducted through the Mid-Continent Research for Education
and Learning (McREL). The meta-analysis examined studies of instructional
improvement strategies in order to find commonalities among the data, used the
measurement unit of effect size, grouped and evaluated data along a normal
distribution model, and through a series of subsequent analyses, identified nine
categories of instructional strategies that had a reoccurring high probability of
enhancing student achievement for all students, in all subjects areas in a K-12 setting.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
The balance of the book identifies these strategies, provides descriptions of these
strategies in both pedagogical and practical terms, examples of their application, and
offers some suggestions for application within the classroom setting. An additional
workbook of samples and model components were used to develop trainings and
professional development.
The broad based instructional strategies presented by the book were: (1)
identifying similarities and differences; (2) summarizing and note taking; (3)
reinforcing effort and providing recognition; (4) homework and practice; (5)
nonlinguistic representations; (6) cooperative learning; (7) setting objectives and
providing feedback; (8) generating and testing hypotheses; and (9) cues, questions and
advance organizers. These strategies were not new or freshly identified through this
study, but rather were identified and grouped together for clarity and use in application
along these lines as a result of the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis presented
conclusions that these nine strategies were most likely to lead to improvements in
instruction and subsequently student performance, but were not guaranteed to do so.
The District Design
The design that was set on by the key leaders in the district took the
philosophical underpinnings of the Marzano research, and sought to place it into an
applied and practical setting within the Los Coyotes High School District. Initially, the
topic was presented as a staff development plan and was explained by the then
Assistant Superintendent of Education Services to the Superintendent’s cabinet—
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
essentially the goal was to inform the principals what the intent of the initiative would
be. The design described called for addressing all nine of the strategies, but over a
three-year period. The district employs just over 600 classroom teachers, and to
provide direct instruction to all of them and trying to present all nine of the concepts at
one time had no practicality. Looking to find a reasonable approach to applying the
findings of the Marzano research to an organization such as a school district, the
decision was announced that three strategies would be presented each year over the
period of three years, and that taking one school at a time was the most sensible
approach. Each of the schools would select a team of thirty representative teachers
who would participate in an all day professional development workshop held at the
District’s Education Center, and through the course of the workshop would be
presented with the findings of the Marzano literature, as well as examples of how to
apply it in their classrooms. Finally each teacher would work in curricular teams to
plan their own course specific lesson based on the strategy or strategies presented as
part of the in-service training. Each school would send their team to two such in-
service trainings held in an alternating schedule to include each school for two
sessions each school year, with two strategies presented on the initial training, and the
third for the year presented during the second, alongside a review of the prior
strategies.
The District’s design expanded on this initial set of training workshops by
directing principals to facilitate site-based trainings to extend the exposure of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
information presented in the workshops to the entire teaching staff. These site-based
efforts had unique designs as the needs, the staffing and resources varied at each site,
but the goal of the design was the same—that each teacher by the end of the process
had been presented with the prescribed strategies for the year, and had the information
and a plan that would allow for the successful use of the Marzano identified strategies
into their particular instructional setting.
Some of the sites used the general state funded professional development days,
some used after school workshops and paid staff, while others campuses took
advantage of professional time built into their class schedules to conduct their
localized efforts to ensure all instructional staff were trained in the strategies. In all
cases, the sites used the thirty initially trained teachers and principal to provide the
local set of experts to lead the training efforts.
Key Considerations
Through the interviews, key considerations for the superintendent were
identified as the timeline for the staff development and then implementation into the
classroom, cost, and potential effectiveness of this course of action. The Assistant
Superintendent of Educational Services shared,
Basically what the Superintendent said is, “You know, I saw this book.
Have you read it?” I said, “You know I haven’t read it, but I’ve seen it
and it looks good.” He said, “You know, let’s do something with it.” So,
because I, in my position at that time, met with the curriculum committees a
lot and of course, met with the principals every week. In gathering input
from those two areas, I put together a plan as to how we could put it into a
three-year process and just sort of said, “Ok, these are probably the three
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
easiest strategies, let’s take those the first year, then the medium ones, and
the harder ones at the end. I put together a model, presented it to the
curriculum committees and to the principals. They said, “”Yes, let’s move
forward.” So, that’s what we did.
The superintendent sought counsel from his cabinet in terms of the application
of this innovation, and charged various members of the cabinet with aligning the
necessary details in terms of providing the organizational methodology in the staff
development component, the financial support for a district-wide effort, and the
accountability model employed. The current Assistant Superintendent for Educational
Services reported these considerations regarding implementation considerations,
I think some of the issues in the implementation have to do with time. The
fact that it is 25-40 subs for one school to participate is huge. There is a
gigantic difference between some of the schools reception. I just did three
strategies-two with one team and one With the other. That had to do with the
implementation. All of the facilitators were teachers, probably the oldest
teacher was 34, and with staff at schools with veteran staffs, there were
some issues about their willingness to take some ownership of what was
going on.
Leveraging Change
The elements of the district program quite clearly follow the delineation as set
in the Domains of District Action conceptual framework. Typically the left side of the
diagram would fall under the responsibility of the Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services, and the right side of the diagram would fall under that of the
Assistant Superintendent of Business Services. The Superintendent’s initial plan called
for this division, with one exception—that being the accountability model which
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
instead of falling under the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, went to the
Educational Services side.
Leadership Frames
The second conceptual framework, the Bolman and Deal four frames also
work well to clarify the actions of the Superintendent in this initial selection of the
core elements of the district innovation. The selection of an instructional innovation
that impacts teachers and students addresses the structural frame. The use of key
district players in the design and implementation of the innovation speaks directly to
consideration of the human resources frame. The need identified by the Board of
Trustees and the state accountability system is addressed by the basic nature of the
innovation and speaks directly to the aspects that fall within the political frame.
Finally, the entire package, being a district-wide endeavor, the top-down aspects, the
alignment with the Board Priorities and the nature of being a school district (whose
main function is to provide instruction for students), all fit well with the symbolic
frame.
Research Question Two: The Factors that Shaped the District’ s Design.
The research question asked, “What were the factors that shaped the district’s
design?” The focus of this question was to identify the key influencing forces that took
the initial concept, put in place parameters, and then resulted in the specific course of
action that the district ended up pursuing in enacting their innovation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Professional Development in the Past
Prior to the implementation of the instructional innovation, the Los Coyotes
High School District employed a number of unique and customized strategies in
conducting professional development, instructional improvement, curriculum
alignment, and other educationally focused efforts. Both the Superintendent and
Deputy Superintendent described a long history of site-based initiatives. The tradition
of localized decision making in terms of the determination of need, the selection of
strategies, and the allocation and expenditure of funds was verified to have been in
place for well over 20 years. Each of the schools had been through a number of
changes in terms of population, leadership, needs and goals. The faces of each campus
still reflect this in terms of the unique specialized programs and opportunities provided
for students including International Baccalaureate Programs, JROTC Programs,
specialized career academies in Culinary Arts and Medical Prep, and AVID College
Preparation Programs just to name a few. No two schools look alike with regard to
their populations, programs or needs.
These divergent directions also reflect the different interests of each school’s
surrounding community. The exceptions to these independent evolutions include the
development of district-wide common standards, and common standards-based
curriculum that took place in the late 1990’s. The campus principal shared an
observation about the change from locally driven to centrally directed efforts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
The first big change came a couple of years back with the curriculum
committees and the push to create common courses. This was in response to
the state and the knowledge we had that there were state standards coming
down the pipe. We were united in this work—to keep our district’s
independence and so we wrote and adopted the common courses. It was right
after that that we had the [curriculum] groups write the content standards. Up
until these two events, campuses always did their own thing.
Up until very recently a series of summer curriculum institutes in the core
academic areas, focusing on common strategies and approaches to the selection of
powerful curriculum tools, instructional methodology, course configurations and other
similar issues. According to the Director of Special Projects, the Assistant
Superintendent of Business Services and the Deputy Superintendent, the summer
institutes were funded through district staff development funds as opposed to site-
based initiatives that were dependent on site based allocations, specialized grants, or
other unique finding sources. It was reported by the Assistant Superintendent of
Business Services that it was a regular practice to spend a significant amount of
resources to support these efforts, both the site based as well as the district driven.
The summer institutes were expensive endeavors. For example, the math
institute went for five days, and had at times as many as thirty-five teachers.
The simple math tells you that the people cost alone was over $17,000 for
teachers, plus whatever materials they needed—which sometimes ran as
much as $1500. We did these [trainings] for the math folks for a number of
years.
The Board of Trustees was strongly behind continuing this practice as long as
the budget would support it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
Accountability Pressures
With the onset of the state accountability program that includes the
Academic Performance Index (API), coupled with a crisis at the state level in terms of
full funding of the planned budget, the Board of Trustees charged the Superintendent
with reviewing options available for meeting both of these critical needs. Starting in
1998, the Board of Trustees and the Superintendent had been presenting a fairly
consistent set of priorities for each school year, with the top priority being the focus on
quality instruction. According to the current Superintendent, his predecessor put
together these pieces and while on a trip to a professional conference, he came across
the Classroom Instruction that Works study presented by Robert Marzano. It was his
belief that this meta study would provide the key elements necessary to drive the
district in the direction identified by the Board of Trustees, while meeting the
parameters of the outside limitations—namely the ever increasing importance of the
API and the impending cuts that would need to take place in terms of the district
budget based on the financial conditions of the state. The fact that the accountability
from the state comes annually, whether the district has done anything or not helped
add the sense of urgency shared by the Superintendent’s cabinet. This known and
constantly advancing benchmark serves not only as the source of the API, but as of
year two of the innovation, was also a contributing factor to school’s NCLB Annual
Yearly Progress (AYP). Following in the third year of the innovation and beyond, not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
only the schools, but also the district itself earns an API and AYP rating based on the
performance of the component schools.
Both as a result of the importance of the API and AYP measures, as well as
their accountability to the local constituency of voters and homeowners a high priority
for the district leadership, both for the Superintendent as well as the Board of Trustees,
was the improvement in performance of all of the schools in the arena of the state
accountability system. The API results have a great deal of influence over not only the
perception of the schools, but can severely impact funding sources for some campuses
that draw Title I and other federal monies to provide specialized support systems for
students. The innovation needed to be able to address all students and all schools, but
those schools in dire circumstances were a special priority. The Director of Special
Projects shared that the Title I schools must spend 10% of their funding on
professional development, and in another statement reiterated that because of their
status as Title I schools, were held to a higher standard for performance under the
requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Connecting these two comments,
one can surmise the concerns that the Board of Trustees have expressed regarding not
only the performance of all of the schools in the district, but special concerns over the
assessed performance of the Title I status schools.
The Board of Trustees’ annual priorities had for over 4 years held this as their
top item— instructional excellence. The practice of the Board of Trustees setting
annual priorities goes back well over a decade. The Superintendent who instituted the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
innovation worked with the Board to narrow their focus as in the early years, the
priorities had as many as 19 items identified by the Board as their top concerns. The
years just prior to embarking on the innovation, the Board priorities narrowed to more
essential points, always identifying instructional excellence as the highest priority.
Other significant items included the passage of a local bond in order to expand and
modernize the campuses, in order to support the efforts for instructional excellence.
The Superintendent annually presents the Board’s priorities at the close of the summer
management team retreat, and soon after, copies are sent to each staff member. School
sites and district divisions are all required to review the priorities at the start of each
school year, and to work to ensure that all actions and efforts support these priorities
as set by the District’s governing board.
Highlighted elements in this priority included: assurances of learning
opportunities for all students and excellence in classroom instruction by every teacher
in every school, classroom, and during each period; regular use of standards-based
instruction and assessment so that students meet the standards, regardless of the
students’ special needs; and an overall raising of student achievement as evidenced by
improved student performance on the California Standards Test (CST), California
English Language Development Test (CELDT), and the California High School Exit
Exam (CAHSEE). A related subcomponent of this priority included providing
“support [for] staff development to ensure highly qualified professionals.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
Constraints Influencing the District Design
Timeline. The timeline for implementation needed to be fairly short. The
overall timeline for full implementation was not perceived by those interviewed as the
critical measurement, but rather the immediate start time for realization needed to be
brief and the resulting changes in school culture needed to be seen immediately—
preferably in the next round of the state assessments.
Scope o f reform. The large number and scope of strategies identified in the
Marzano research (nine total categories of strategies) was seen as too much to take on
all at one time, so a decision was made to implement the training in a staged and
staggered approach. This recommendation was made by the Assistant Superintendent
of Educational Services and was accepted by the Superintendent as a measured and
viable strategy to meet the identified needs in a reasonable manner.
Professional development facilitators. Adding to the mix in terms of
limitations, the Educational Services Division did not posses a great deal of in-house
experts for leading professional training, and as such had often drawn on either outside
experts or those at the campuses to lead specific training opportunities. The decision
was to go with the latter, and the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services
contacted selected staff at the campuses to serve as the professional development
facilitators for the impending trainings.
The trainers themselves were selected by me. They were teachers that I
knew that were good teachers, I had been in their classrooms. I knew that
they were effective in the classroom, knew that they were well-respected by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
their colleagues from working with them. So, we say down and said, “This
is sort of the big picture of what we want the day to look like. We want to
talk about what the research says, we want to be able to define what the
strategies are, we want you to give examples of how you use the strategies,
we want the teachers hands-on working with the strategies because our
philosophy is the most effective workshop we go to is when you walk out
of the door of the workshop and have something in hand that you can use
in your classroom the following day or that week. So, with that in mind,
quite honestly, I picked really strong teachers and on Day One, we had a
team of four. One of those was the lead presenter who I knew could really
put it off and had a background of doing some presentations. That person,
during the summer time, put together a mock-up of what he or she wanted
to do, came in and met with me several times and we got to the point where
we had kind of a skeleton idea put together, and that’s when we met with
the other three teachers that were on the team. That was Day One.
Everything jelled from there. They were provided stipends and release time
in order to get that planning put together.
Funding. The issue of money and appropriate funding to undertake a major
district-wide effort was one that was addressed by the Assistant Superintendent of
Business Services. Prior to this innovation, annual expenditures in the area of
professional development district-wide had been upwards of $900,000, and had been
undertaken both by individual campuses as well as through the district’s central office.
Budget implications and limitations from the state level brought about a local need for
a reduction in this amount, and through recommendations and discussions held in the
Superintendent’s cabinet, a consensus of allocating critical supporting funding from a
variety of sources in excess of $500,000 would be provided to sustain all efforts
district-wide, and at least $50,000 per annum for this specific program. The Director
of Special Projects explained that the innovation’s costs run roughly $50,000 per year
as the substitute costs alone are over $36,000 in order to release thirty teachers by six
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
campuses twice a year. This number did not include the cost for stipends and
substitutes for the trainers, and the cost of the materials that included copies of the
Marzano book, and instructional and other materials for the workshops. He reported
that $50,000 per year is budgeted for this innovation, and over the course of three
years, the cost has been roughly $150,000.
The factors that shaped the district’s efforts fell clearly into the Conceptual
Framework A — the Domains of District Action. The Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services dealt with the nine strategies as they fell within the defining
teaching and learning domain, the domain of developing the profession, and the
communicating externally and internally domain as the training facilitators were
secured from the campus sites. The Assistant Superintendent of Business Services in
turn was left to deal with the issues of funding as outlined in the domain of acquiring
and allocating human, fiscal and physical resources. The Superintendent coordinated
all of these activities and dealt with the linchpin domain, that of responding to and
contending with exogenous policy in the consideration of all outside pressures
including the Board of Trustees, their priorities, and the pressures brought on by the
state accountability model as well as the state budget financial considerations and
limitations.
Leadership Frames
In lining up the findings of research question two with Conceptual Framework
B, the frames of leadership employed line up clearly as well. The logistics of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
training considerations and financial concerns fall into the structural frame, the
selection of key site players to participate as facilitators invokes the human resources
frame both in the selection of the individuals as well as the choice of following a tact
of engaging in-district personnel to take on this task. The political frame encompasses
the decisions made to spend the monies needed in a time of restricted availability. The
symbolic frame components were addressed through the selection of key terms from
the Board of Trustees Priorities in presenting this course of action to the Board and
eventually to the staff of the district as the symbolic value and link to these generally
known and accepted priorities endorsed the course of action as valid. The Bolman and
Deal frames are important considerations to include in the determination of and
strategy taken to shape the innovation. Factors that came from the outside and from
inside of the organization required leadership actions drawn from different frames.
Awareness of and action in response to these factors show clear thought and planning
went into the efforts to shape the nature and design of this innovation.
Research Question Three: How did the District Carry Out the Change Strategy to
Implement the Design?
The research questions asked. “How did the district carry out the change
strategy to implement the design?” This question is answered through the nuts and
bolts of the district’s plan, as well as through the messages and symbols used to carry
the message throughout the district.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
Developing the Profession
The plan for the training of teachers in order to bring the innovation into classes was
developed and laid out by the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services.
Taking the nine strategies identified by the Marzano book as the total scope of the
innovation, three strategies were to be addressed per school year in a set of two
trainings a year. Each of the in-service trainings would service a school site team—
with 30 teachers and the principal attending the workshop at the district offices. The
in-service trainings were led by teacher-leaders selected by the Assistant
Superintendent of Educational Services. The expectations for the trainings were laid
out in meetings during the summer prior to the 2002-2003 school year, and the
facilitators were given the Marzano materials as well as the support materials, a
schedule of the trainings, and were allowed to prepare their own materials for the
forthcoming presentation workshops.
The Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services set as a non-negotiable
condition of the training clear expectations that teachers participating in the in-services
would be given not only the theoretical foundations for each of the strategies, but also
participate in some sample lessons that they could take back to their classrooms as
well as prepare at least one of their own lessons that incorporated the specified
strategy during the day long training. Teachers were also expected to use at least of
these lessons upon their return to campus. The presentations themselves were to
incorporate the aspects of the selected Marzano identified strategy in the course of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
their presentation. The Director of Educational Services shared regarding the
workshops,
... [Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services] would usually
introduce to you 3-4 teachers that taught throughout the district and they
were usually from a different school site and they were the ones that ran the
workshop. Usually they would start off talking about Marzano’s study that
was a meta-analysis of other studies, then from there they would give you
the research background. They would spend a good two to three hours per
component. So, if we were working on Homework and Practice, they would
start out talking about the basic research and then switch off to somebody
else who was one of the presenters and they would give examples of how
they are using it in their classroom. Then another presenter would talk to us
and have us be interactive with it, so maybe we would have a big Post-it
and have to get into groups and come up with a lesson or somehow talk
about how we could go back the very next day and teach it to our students,
and you had to present it to everyone else. This usually ran all the way ...
we had lunch about 11:30 — by about 1:00, the presenters were all done
presenting each of their areas - which usually like I said was two.
The strategies selected for the first year were Nonlinguistic Representations,
Identifying Similarities and Differences, and Summarizing and Note Taking. The six
comprehensive high schools were in-serviced from October through December of
2002 on a weekly rotating cycle—each school was trained on session one in
alphabetical order, then the rotation began again for session two. Each full day of
training included opening remarks by the Superintendent, expectations overtly
expressed for the day’s activities set forth by the presenters, and concluding activities
led by the site principal as to how the site action plan would look. Each school site
was left to their own methods on how to train the balance of the staff as roughly one
third of the campus instructional staff was in attendance at the district workshops. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
make up of the 30 representatives included department leaders from the core academic
areas (English, Mathematics, Social Science, Science), members from each of the core
academics, and a variety of representatives from Foreign Language, Special Education
and other departments. Each principal was supplied with a copy of the Marzano text,
and most purchased additional copies for their key instructional staff.
The in-service format was retained for year two and three of the sequence. The
strategies of Reinforcing Effort and Providing Recognition, Homework and Practice,
and Setting Objectives and Providing Feedback served as the focus of year two while
the balance of the strategies including: Generating and Testing Hypothesis; Cues,
Questions and Advance organizers; and Cooperative Learning for year three which
took place during the 2004-2005 school year.
Local System o f Accountability
The accountability system for this innovation was actually determined by the
Superintendent, and was based on an extension of a pre-existing procedure. The Board
of Trustees had an expectation in place for seven years prior to the innovation in the
“Every Teacher, Every Week” classroom visitations by site administrators. In this
procedure, one of the site administrators pays a classroom visit to each teacher each
week. This personal observational accountability was applied to check for frequency
of use of the CITW strategies.
In the first year, site administrators looked for application and use of the three
strategies in each of their visits, and reported percentages of use back to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
Superintendent monthly through reports made by the principals at an administrative
meeting. These site reports were in turn combined and presented to the Board of
Trustees by the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of Education Services
during closed session portions of School Board Meetings. Although not highly
scientific, the reports showed the percentage of use of the strategies at the classroom
level, and helped to shape some policy decisions accordingly.
The reaction to the incorporation of the CITW accountability and the Every
Teacher, Every Week became an issue at two of the campuses. In each of these cases,
both teacher leaders as well as teacher union representatives responded to concerns
voiced by some teachers as to the exact purpose of the regular visits and the capture
and reporting of specific information. In prior years, the visits were viewed as more of
a checking in with teachers, but had apparently been construed as checking up on
teachers in this case as the visiting administrators carried clipboards and had extensive
check lists—looking for occurrences of the Marzano strategies in place. Perhaps
because of the more formal appearance, because of the make up and dynamics of these
campuses, or because of other undetermined factors, the perceptions and conclusions
made by teachers led to the filing of a professional grievance. The resolution of this
circumstance resulted in strained relationships on those campuses. The other campuses
did not report any similar circumstances, and although the teacher union
representatives at all of the campuses [explain more on resistance ... touched on topic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
later, but give a little more detail on teachers’ reaction on two campuses to Every
Teacher Every Week with checklists]
Leveraging Change
When looking at this research question through the conceptual frameworks,
there is a definite pattern that results. The workings of the innovation predominantly
fall into three domains—those of defining teaching and learning, developing the
profession, and acquiring and allocating human, fiscal and physical resources.
Secondary domains would also include communicating externally and internally in
terms of the plans developed at the sites to train the balance of the staff, and the
domain of responding to and contending with exogenous policy also come into play.
By adopting and modifying an existing accountability system to accommodate the
needs of this innovation, the full engagement of the domain of creating local systems
of accountability was essentially skirted.
Leadership Frames
Conceptual Framework B (Bolman and Deal) seems to group nearly all of the
actions of this innovation’s implementation into the leadership areas of structural and
human resource as the pragmatic and operational elements of most innovations fall
into those frames of leadership.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Research Question Four: What was the Extent o f Implementation
o f the District Design?
The research questions asked. “What was the extent of implementation of the
district design?” The information provided during the interviews regarding this topic
ranged greatly as they were based on each individual’s knowledge and experiences
with the innovation, the related training, and their individual understanding of the
nature and actual extent of the innovation. Detailed and specific answers were
provided by the Deputy Superintendent (formerly the Assistant Superintendent of
Education Service, serving in this position during the first two years of the
innovation), the Assistant Superintendent of Education Services, the Director of
Education Services and the site principal. Each of these respondent’s interviews
painted a nearly identical picture of the implementation of the innovation, including
the scope and nature of the training, the assumptions of site based trainings to expand
knowledge and use of the strategies from the initial group of 30 teachers, and
summary data of the principal’s monthly reports to the Superintendent.
As individuals within the organization’s position moved farther from the
instructional side and the Educational Services Division, the responses provided in the
interviews showed a variety of notions with regard to the nature of the innovation, the
specifics of the strategies (there were reports of 10, 11 and 12 innovations), and two
individuals who did not reference any of the details of the innovation other than the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
title, and replaced the contents and strategies with other district priorities and values.
The Deputy Superintendent shared,
It is kind of interesting because I think it has to do with personalities. [The
Assistant Superintendent of Business Services] is very good on the
business side, but she does not have an education background. So while she
knows what we are doing and she knows the philosophy of what we are
doing, and she knows the importance of what we are doing, it is hard for he
to relate to the day-to-day stuff because she has never been a classroom
teachers. Where those of us on the instructional side have been in the
classroom and walked that walk. If you interview [The Director of
Business Services], I think he will have a different perspective of it because
he has been in the classroom. That is nothing against [The Assistant
Superintendent of Business Services]. It just kind of depends upon the
district that you are in and who those business people are. [The Assistant
Superintendent of Business Services] understands the philosophy that all
the rest of us exist to support instruction. From that part of it, she
understands the importance of it. She and I have always worked very
collegially when we go to the Budget Study Committee to ask for Lottery
Funds to support additional staff development that Title II won’t cover
because she understands the importance of having professional
development for the teachers. There are other districts that aren’t quite as
good, so I think it all depends on the personalities that you have in those
seats.
The scope of this research was essentially limited to the district office, and the
only data gathered regarding implementation at the site level was of the official
trainings, the subsequent expectation of additional site based trainings, a report from
the principal that indeed those trainings took place, and a collection of the monthly
reports on the percentage of use on each campus.
Monthly Summary Reports
The data provided from the summary of monthly principal reports showed that
a majority of teachers employed at least some of these strategies on a regular basis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
These reports did not expand to include the quality or depth of use, rather focusing on
the percentage of instructional settings observed using the strategies. Results of
individual teachers were not included in the reports, as this became an issue at two of
the campuses early on in the process.
Each of the campuses reported different percentages of observation, but all fell
within a range of roughly 54-84% of classrooms visited employing some aspect of the
instructional strategies of the CITW innovation. The percentages varied by school, and
each school’s resulting observation rates varied itself throughout the course of the
monthly reports. The reports were described as a snapshot view of each campus, and
factors pointed out during the interviews included: the time of day, the type of class
(traditional classroom versus physical education or arts class), and the calibration of
each of the site administration teams. Definitions of what accounted for an observation
of a strategy varied, and there were changes in personnel at many of the sites through
the course of the implementation of the innovation that may have compounded these
issues.
Research Question Five: How Effective was the District in Implementing
this Reform Strategy?
The research questions asked. “How effective was the district in implementing
this reform strategy?” The findings for this question are determined by the district’s
original intent in implementing the strategy, and not any actual results produced by the
strategy other than generalized assumptions made by individuals through the course of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
interviews. In addition, the four quality outcomes of increased equity, sustainability,
increased professionalism, and coherent policy and actions identified in Conceptual
Framework B were used to determine the effectiveness of the reform strategy.
Intended Outcomes
The Board of Trustees and the Superintendent set out to select, organize and
deliver an instructional innovation to impact teaching and learning, to address the
ongoing and growing expectations of the state accountability model, and to do so in a
fiscal environment that would potentially restrict the availability to fund professional
development activities as they were supported in prior years.
Evaluating the effectiveness of the innovation approach by the ruler of meeting
the initial goals set by the district’s leadership, this innovation and reform strategy was
effective. A research-based initiative based on a broad foundation (a meta-analysis)
provided the fundamental concepts for the innovation, as well as serving to provide
many of the tools used to train and deploy the strategies of the innovation to the
instructional staff of the district. The top down approach of setting the expectations for
training, dissemination and use did not leave much room for negotiation or re-defining
the scope of the district vision. By providing the critical resources— the trainer-of-
trainers model to lead the in-services, the financial costs of staff release time, and the
accountability model to be used by the site administration— all of the potentially
variable factors that had previous existed in the site-based individually specific
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
approach to staff development were evaded while keeping the focus on the district
leadership’s intent of the innovation.
The Assistant Superintendent of Business Services and the Director of Special
Projects both asserted that financially the innovation meet all expectations and
assumptions placed by the Board of Trustees, the Superintendent and indirectly by the
state budget crisis. The Assistant Superintendent of Business Services reported,
The [budget] cutbacks we had to put in place across the district did not
negatively impact our plans for the CITW roll out. We were able to provide
the program that [Assistant Superintendent for Educational Services] set up,
and because we controlled the costs, we were able to deliver everything we
promised to the Board [of Trustees] and keep ourselves right on budget.
Consistent funding was maintained throughout the course of the innovation,
and all predetermined costs were met as well as some new expenditures that were
added for additional trainings at the alternative schools once the course of the
innovation was underway.
Finally, the basis of the innovation was to impact and improve teaching and
learning, which had been and continues to be the Board of Trustees and current
Superintendent’s top priority. In terms of selecting, implementing, and completing a
specific course of action to enact an instructional innovation, this reform methodology
utilized by the District’s leadership was effective at meeting the intended goals set at
its onset. Investigating site-based and instructional improvement results were not part
of the scope of this research, nor had it been a specific aspect of the District’s efforts.
Generalized results and conclusions as to the effectiveness of the efforts at impacting
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
the academic performance of the schools with relation to the state accountability
measures has been speculated, but no formal or scientific study has been conducted by
the District aimed at linking the specific strategies to specific performance outcomes.
The elements of Conceptual Framework A (Domains) that were addressed by
this question included the domains of defining teaching and learning, developing the
profession, communicating externally and internally, responding to and contending
with exogenous policy and acquiring and allocating human, fiscal and physical
resources. The District, through the actions of the Deputy Superintendent and the
Assistant Superintendent for Business Services, was able to bring into play an
organized and deliberate plan to impact the instructional program in the classrooms,
translated the priorities stated by the Board of Trustees into a message for the site
administration and teaching staff, and was able to accomplish all of this within the
parameters set related to fiscal limits and with the human resources already employed
within the district. By the terms and definitions of the Conceptual Framework A
(Domains), the District’s innovation was effective.
Quality Outcomes
In the process of aligning the findings gathered through the research
component of this study to determine the effectiveness of the district’s innovation as
posed in research question 5, the indicators of quality of success that were considered
included equity, sustainability, professionalism and coherency.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
Increased equity.
In moving from site based and site determined staff development programs to a
system of common and centrally determined staff development for the implementation
of the CITW instructional innovation, the equity among the schools and for the
students at each school was increased as a consistent and equitable set of financial and
human resources were expended in each school’s training. This increased equity
assisted in improving the real equity of resources as three of the campuses have access
to large amounts of funding via their Title I population.
Sustainability.
Through the selection of a research-based, instructionally centered innovation,
the District’s initial plan of incorporating the nine strategies identified by Marzano’s
research, the nature of the innovation is such that it is not time sensitive, and should be
resistant to trends of change. As such, the core elements of the innovation, the
integration of the strategies into the daily classroom instruction, can be sustained
easily both in terms of the fiscal and human resources investment.
Increased professionalism.
The process of training the representative thirty staff members per school, and
then having them serve as the core group charged with distributing the acquired new
knowledge and strategies among the balance of the staff at each site, provided both a
positive model of staff development as well as working to increase the overall level of
professionalism. Some campuses were able to use the CITW workshops as a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
springboard for other added and localized efforts, all of which also added to the end
result of increasing the level of professionalism of the instructional staff.
Coherency.
The simplicity of the program laid out by the Assistant Superintendent of
Educational Services provided a clear and coherent plan of attack to follow through
the three years of implementation. The nine strategies that are the core of the
innovation itself are in themselves logical, straightforward and easy to understand and
provided a coherent set of support strategies—easily understood by both the
instructional staff as well as the students who are the intended beneficiaries of the use
of the instructional strategies.
Leadership Frames
Conceptual Framework B (Bolman and Deal) can be applied to the findings of
research question with an emphasis on the political and symbolic frames. Although the
process of the innovation took place mainly in the structural and human resources
frames, the effectiveness of the innovation really is seen in the political frame by
through the leadership aspect of taking action to mitigate an outside pressure—both on
the part of the accountability expectations as well as the fiscal ones. The use of an
applied action strategy that directly addresses the requirements to improve instruction
for the benefit of students directly addressed the state accountability model while at
the same time being in line with the voiced priorities of the local Board of Trustees.
Secondly, the symbolic leadership of taking an instructionally centered, research-based
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
route, carried into place by a team of well respected district teachers, and held
accountable by site level administration provided the impression and symbolism that
this was a grass roots effort designed to deal with outside pressures. Although the true
source of the innovations roots was with the top down process initiated by the
Superintendent, the symbolic perception for many outside of the school was that this
was a grassroots effort conducted by teachers.
Discussion
Findings were made related to each of the five research questions of this study
after careful analysis of the data collected through the many interviews and
documents.
Elements o f the Los Coyotes Design
The first research question posed asked regarding the elements of the district’s design
for improving teaching and learning. The interviews and the Classroom Instruction
that Works research outlined the basics. The research-based model used presented nine
strategies that had a greater tendency to improve student performance. The factors all
had certain commonalities, namely that they are all currently used and fairly common
approaches to teaching, that they all can be used in a variety of settings, and that all
nine strategies are dependent on the teacher as the initiating source in a classroom
setting. Although it may be possible that students could be trained to make application
of the strategies on their own, the likelihood is that lesson design and implementation
comes from the teacher rather than the students. In the study, none of the elements are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
presented as more effective than others, but are shown rather as possible courses of
action to employ in the classroom and in lesson design to improve the potential for
student success. It was also clear that although the strategies were determined through
the study documentation to be more likely to bring about success, they are dependent
on course content and standards based curriculum that is in line with the assessments
to bring about changes in the student success rate as determined by such common and
outside assessments—essentially that the strategies alone could not and would not
make a difference in student performance in the absence of the curriculum piece in the
educational formula. The district had such pieces in place, but no formal assessment of
their application and consistent use across the classrooms of the district had been
conducted. This verification would have aided in making a determination as to the
specific effectiveness of the implementation of the CITW strategies in the Los Coyotes
High School District.
Another key element of the design of the district’s approach was the top-down
implementation and decision-making model used. Prior instructional innovations in
this district had been determined by the individual school sites, based on their own
research and professional development committees. This particular innovation was
selected by the Superintendent rather than through a process, and the decision was
made without input from the schools sites or site representatives. Differing as well
from prior paths, a one-size-fits-all approach was taken as opposed to individualized
strategies aimed at the specific needs of each school. Prior innovations most often
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
came as the result of recommendations made by Western Association of Schools and
Colleges (WASC) accreditation visits, and came from the basis of a report made to
visiting committees after an extensive and years long self study and evaluation.
Examples of identified needs led to such programs and approaches as the
implementation of Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) and the
specialized secondary programs at certain schools that addressed groups of students
that were determined to have particular needs, or who would benefit from a unique
course of study. None of the campus efforts undertook a school-wide innovation of the
scope of the CITW efforts intending on addressing all students. The only exceptions
were the previously mentioned establishment of common standards and standards-
based curriculum that was undertaken by the district. That effort had substantial input
and shaping from campus representatives in each of the curricular areas both in the
determination of the standards as well as in the design and priorities of the subsequent
curriculum. Curriculum committees that were representative of the campuses worked
together with oversight and guidance to develop these large scale plans, and despite
the care given to ensure their development in an inclusive process, there were still
large pockets of resistance that have been resolved predominantly through time and
retirement of particular staff. The CITW efforts then did not follow the set standards
and procedures that had been a significant part of the district’s own culture. In that
sense, the process followed for the innovation was much more like that of an outside
consultant rather than a homegrown or grassroots venture grown from within.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
Factors that Shaped the Los Coyotes Design
“Factors that drive education come from many sources including
accountability, public perception, and those that are fiscally initiated, but most
importantly changes in the way districts and schools work should be founded on the
educational best interests of our students”. This quote provided by the site principal
during the interview process summed up what many others spoke to in their
interviews. The variety of factors that drove this innovation each had a set of
expectations and qualifications—but some of those limiting factors may have been
working against each other in this particular example. The academic, political and
fiscal factors all supported an innovation that was prudent, cost effective and that
made logical sense when viewed from a distance, yet the expectations for immediacy
in terms of outcome and results that came from the Board of Trustees as well as the
annual answering to the state and the public through the series of assessments could
not necessarily be fulfilled. The need for immediacy that was the propellant that drove
the Superintendent to enact this innovation without the usual lead-in time of
developing the local buy in of the earlier standards and curriculum process most likely
worked against the eventual longevity of this innovation. The local political influence
of teacher leaders and teacher’s union representation as to the origin and secondary
uses for this innovation—ulterior motive— grew from some initial seeds of resistance
into some full blown opposition to the accountability model employed later. Hindsight
in design and execution allows for analysis of what could have been done differently,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
but the current Superintendent reported that the perceived factors of immediacy by his
predecessor drove the pace of execution for this particular innovation.
The Change Strategy used by the Los Coyotes High School District
The method that the district leadership took in putting into place the
innovation, both in the design and timing of the trainings, as well as the development
of the accountability model represented consideration for the factors that led to the
selection of the innovation, but also took into account some existing elements of the
district’s culture. Selection of particularly well-versed and generally accepted and
admired teachers from different campuses to serve as the “face” of the innovation
through the series of training workshops brought about a trainer-of-trainer model
supported by literature as a powerful strategy, and by the selection of three strategies
per school year, the potential for content overload was avoided. The design for the
secondary level of training to be determined by each site principal and the site
professional development committee left many variables unchecked, as well as leaving
each campus with an uneven playing field. Campus resources in terms of time and
money were not equal as three of the sites had access to extensive funds via use of
Title I or School Improvement Plan (SIP) monies, while two other sites had in place a
banked minute scheduling system that provided for regular time in which professional
development activities such as this could be incorporated. Each campus followed
different methods in terms of their implementation, and as such experienced different
results.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
One of the research-based findings reported in related literature (Desimone,
2002) suggests that to be effective, broad innovations such as the district’s efforts need
to include all members of the organization including not just teachers, but
administration and policy makers. The district’s professional training plan did not
include administrators other than the site principal—passing over three assistant
principals at each site, as well as district level administrators who would be making
decisions and evaluations regarding the innovation and its results without knowledge
of its workings. Also not included in even the initial trainings were the Board of
Trustees whose policy making role was undertaken without specific knowledge of
what was presented to the teaching staff, nor even the meanings of the key terms and
concepts of the CITW materials. Assumptions and evaluations made by these
overlooked members of the district population and critical leadership, have had an
impact on the course of the innovation, as well as on determinations made regarding
its future implementation.
The course taken regarding the accountability and reporting system—
essentially the use of site administrators to observe and report out percentages of
perceived use, brought about some contention at two school sites. Teachers and
teacher union representation perceived the observations to be evaluative in nature, and
sought to oppose the prescribed method of data collection employed by administrators
as the belief was that teacher evaluations would be negatively impacted based on
perceived implementation of the innovation strategies. Site administrators had been
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
directed to use a checklist method of data collection that tabulated observances of the
strategies as well as other indications listed alongside the names of individual staff
members. Because of the perception and then formal complaints against site
administrators, revisions in the data collection and reporting process were instituted at
each of the district’s campuses. Although data collected at the site level was done so
based on the every teacher, every week model of classroom visitation, the resulting
reports were made on a generalized percentage model in response to these concerns
raised by the staff. As a result, data collected and reported out by the sites was not
verifiable or representative by teacher— consequentially leading to a limiting of the
type and validity of any subsequent analysis. The use of generalization of trends and
assumptions based on those trends took precedence over other models of study.
Additionally, the site teams consisting of four administrators were trained on
different models, by different standards. The site teacher teams were all trained by the
same set of presenters and included the principal of each school, but the assistant
principals were not included in those original presentations— but rather they were in
serviced at each site along with the balance of the teachers of that site. Based on this
secondary level of training, each site team then worked to calibrate a common
definition for observations as they made their reports back to the district. This
inconsistency in training and reporting most surely brought about a range of results in
the reporting process, and again any subsequent analysis would be impacted by these
factors.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
The interviews of the many district officials resulted in a variety of definitions
and perceptions as to the exact nature of the innovation, and also led to a range of
expectations of results that were to be expected as a result of the implementation of the
CITW strategies district-wide. The lack of common definitions and understanding of
the elements of the innovation was seen as working against open and honest
evaluation of the application of the innovation, and seemed to have created a set of
disconnected expectations for the results as the expectations did not relate to the use of
the nine strategies, but instead were based on other pieces of district philosophy.
The Extent o f Implementation o f the Los Coyotes Design
In reviewing the findings for the research question that asked about the extent
of the implementation of the innovation, a number of factors need to be considered.
According to the design laid out by the Assistant Superintendent of Educational
Services, that the schools would be provided training in a set of two workshops per
year over the course of three years in order to have training in each of the nine
strategies identified through the CITW literature, the innovation was completed to its
exact parameters. Each site did indeed participate in a total of 6 professional
development workshops. Thirty teachers and the principal from each school
participated actively in the series of workshops, and each campus used a localized
approach at training the balance of the staff at each site. Reports of the observed
application of these strategies used in classrooms were made to the Superintendent on
regular intervals, and the results of these reports were presented to the Board of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
Trustees. The letter of the innovation was completed to its full measure, but deeper
analysis of the findings with reference to the researcher rater tool provided results that
indicated the innovation was still in the early stages of development, even while in
year three of a three year implementation plan. Data provided by the accountability
reports is superficial in terms of describing the examples of implementation. The
percentages reported fail to communicate the level of integration of the various
strategies into the lesson design, and to what impact lessons and student learning were
impacted positively by the incorporation of the CITW strategies by teachers. The
accountability model did not in itself model or employ any of the instructional
strategies touted by the CITW itself save for use of graphic organizers (non-linguistic
representation) to communicate and convey the data collected. None of those
interviewed had an answer to the question of how many of the strategies should be
employed, what the target or expectation was for classroom teachers, or how they
would know the innovation was effectively in place. Failure to have an assessment
tool to value the extent of the implementation on the part of the district and site
administrators also presented a limit for both internal and external assessment of the
extent and effectiveness of the innovation.
As indicated, the extent of implementation as intended in the original plan was
met both district-wide through the workshops, and by each site through their own in-
house models. Teachers were reported to have included the strategies into lesson
designs and into the regular business of their classrooms. The evidence of this is found
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
in the regular monthly reports made by the principals, but a scientific study of the
level of understanding and incorporation of these strategies as perceived by the
teachers as a whole was not conducted as part of the innovation, nor is in the works as
verified through the many interviews. Based on this set of circumstances, it would
seem that any evaluation made as to the effectiveness of the innovation would be
restricted to the district’s own set of parameters for implementation—namely the
workshops. The research on effective, large-scale innovations calls for large-scale
involvement of all key players—in this case teachers, administrators and policy
makers. This did not occur in a large-scale manner, and localized trainings were not
necessarily consistent with the initial content and methodology of the primary
trainings. The literature provides a design model that calls for the development of
effective instruments for gathering and evaluating data for decision making related to
the innovation. No such instruments were developed or deployed throughout the
course of this innovations cycle of implementation. Additionally, successful
professional development efforts make use of ongoing training, as echoed in the
strategies of the CITW as well in the form of homework and practice and reinforcing
effort. Neither of these elements are part of the efforts of the district’s CITW
implementation. The only elements that continued beyond the workshops were the
ongoing visitations by administration, and the reporting out of these findings to the
Superintendent. Both activities are passive in nature with regard to the teachers in the
classroom, and as such are not serving as a reinforcing tool or strategy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
The Effectiveness o f the Los Coyotes Reform
Although the district’s goals of impacting teaching and learning through
implementation of a district-wide instructional innovation, controlling costs while
providing financial support for a large-scale initiative, and using research-based
methods in the process were all accomplished through the course of their three year
instructional innovation, the overall effectiveness for the reform innovation was
limited. The accomplishments that were made and that met the goals set at the
beginning of the innovation provided only initial steps toward a long term and
permanent change to the processes of teaching and learning that make up the district’s
culture. In applying the seven domains of the Domains of District Action through the
researcher rater form, each of the domains fall into the just getting started or emerging
practices category. Throughout all of the interviews and review of the documents,
there is no compelling evidence that the CITW strategies will become part of the long
term culture of the district as there was no articulated plan to extend or reinforce the
elements of the innovation beyond the initial three year execution plan. Links to
specific practices and their impact on teaching and student learning have not been
established, nor was a method of assessing the effectiveness of the innovation
developed or deployed as part of the course of the district’s plan. Save for the monthly
reports made by the principals, there was no evidence gathered or evaluated by the
district as to the extent of implementation of the innovation at the site or classroom
level. Additionally, despite past practices followed by the district Educational Services
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
division that were articulated through a number of interviews, there were no additional
formal trainings provided at the district level beyond the site based trainings for the
campus teams. Finally, the actions pursued through the course of the accountability
plan provided for only the collection of quantitative versus qualitative data regarding
the implementation’s saturation, also reinforces these conclusions. The frequency of
use tells only part of the story, whereas data regarding the nature of and depth of
integration into lessons would provide the basis for a more meaningful evaluation of
the effectiveness of the district’s reform strategy.
Conclusion
The data from the interviews and documents provided answers for all five of
the research questions. The findings from each of the research questions led to key
findings and some general themes. These themes suggest implications related to the
implementation of a district led instructionally based innovation. Chapter Five will
summarize the study, its findings, and will present suggestions and recommendations
that could lead to further research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
CHAPTER FIVE
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
The national, state and local trends for educational accountability have been
growing in intensity and specificity over the past 40 years, and at an even greater rate
since the 1983 appearance of the landmark A Nation at Risk report. Both the
government as well as the citizenry continues to ask for evidence that schools are
improving the learning of their students, and that trend has expanded to include all of
the students in schools, not just those who have in the past traditionally been the high
achievers. Significant legislation in the form of federal funding (Title I) and more
recently raised accountability system (NCLB) have brought a nationwide focus to
these educational concerns, while more local measures of accountability in California
have brought about a system where school accountability can be narrowed down to a
set of numbers through the Academic Performance Index (API). Researchers on the
topic of educational reform tout that effective and lasting improvement in school
performance is linked to instruction and learning. Instituting successful instructional
change initiatives requires careful planning, setting objectives, providing professional
development, and meaningful analysis of efforts as in the case of instruction itself in
order to determine the next steps in order to improve performance so as to make a
positive impact on the accountability systems.
There are a number of models in use currently, including district driven
initiatives, partnering of district and local efforts, and localized efforts designed at
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
meeting particular and specialized needs of the individual school. As district enter into
this arena of setting a course to positively impact the teaching and student learning as
measured by the accountability systems, considerations need to be made regarding the
course of action, the pacing and procedures selected, and the ability to sustain both the
initiative as well as the results.
This study investigated the design and implementation of one Southern
California high school district (“Los Coyotes High School District”) in a case study
model. The study examined the elements, factors and implementation of their district
design for a research-based instructional improvement innovation.
Statement of the Problem
During the last decade, the drive of education reform has led district leaders to
reorder and restructure the purpose and operations of many districts. There are a
number of exemplary districts that have developed a vision for their instructional
program—assessing the needs of schools and then putting teachers and teacher
capacity at the center of their efforts. The capacity of a district and school is measured
through its teachers and their limitations, and anticipating potential weakness works to
reduce these barriers to implementing the instructional improvement.
Systematic reform encouraging teacher confidence and buy-in can be
accomplished by clear and considered communication to a school staff regarding the
data and findings reported out from an effective needs assessment. The
implementation of a strategic course of action requires careful evaluation and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
planning, clear communication and articulation in all areas of the district, because
even the best planned and executed course of reform will cause staff members to
experience several stages of concern. Teacher empowerment in the process and
ownership of the instructional design works to motivate staff to pass through the
barriers of implementation (Fullan, 2001).
Implementation of a program requires the support and commitment of key
communicators at the district level, principals, site instructional leaders and most
importantly teachers. Effective instructional efforts are those that produce results and
are sustainable. Often staff development workshops take the form of one day, one shot
attempts to impact teacher’s daily teaching practices, but fail due to the lack of
sustainability. District leadership is faced with the responsibility of providing vision,
focus and implementation strategies that support and sustain efforts that are carried out
at the site level. Information on the contexts and factors that influence particular
reform designs would be extremely valuable to provide district leaders with insights
about how well similar designs might work in their districts. Identifying and
understanding the nature and key elements of effective reforms is a problem that many
districts are wrestling within their attempts to address the issues facing them in the era
of accountability.
i Findings
The instructional innovation and reform effort pursued by the Los Coyotes
High School District over the course of the 2002-2003 through 2004-2005 school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
years followed many of the identified elements associated with successful such
innovations. Working from a research-based foundation grounded in the literature of
the Classroom Instruction that Works meta-analysis led by Robert Marzano, the
district leadership designed and implemented a three-year, phased plan for staff
development that delivered instruction and supporting exemplars to core teams from
the instructional staff at each of the district’s schools. Fiscal support for the common
training efforts was provided by the district, and a suggested design for secondary
training was included in the district sponsored workshops. Each site was allowed to
plan their own secondary training and implementation strategy with respect to their
own site allocations and time considerations. The district workshops were led by
respected teacher leaders from the different campuses, and as such the innovation
incorporated key factors of the research based of identified successful strategies.
An accountability system for the innovation was adopted and modified from a
pre-existing observational model that was used by site administrators to ensure regular
contact and presence in each teacher’s classroom each week of instruction. The
accountability model followed a quantitative recording of observed applications of the
nine strategies of the CITW innovation, and results were reported back to the
Superintendent on a monthly basis. The Superintendent in turn made a summary report
of the findings from the school to the Board of Trustees during their regular meeting
schedule. Beyond the initial twice yearly in-service trainings to introduce the phased
strategies of the CITW innovation, no additional follow up or additional support was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
provided by the district, with the responsibility for furthering the innovation left to
each individual site principal and site professional development committee.
Formal or informative professional development opportunities were not
provided for members of the district administrative team, nor for the site assistant
principals—all of whom played a role in the decisions and actions that promoted and
directed the course of the innovation. Despite initial efforts to make this innovation of
a grass-roots model, the resulting configuration of the reform effort took the form of
an outside conceived and top down directed professional development seminar. Flaws
in the communication with site staff and with perceptions articulated by classroom
teachers at two of the sites led to the adoption of the quantitative only data gathering
model for the analysis of the effectiveness of the innovation, and limited the depth,
breadth and meaningfulness of conclusions drawn from the resulting analysis of the
data that was collected.
Conclusions
The information gaining from this case study investigation has led this
researcher to conclude that the Los Coyotes High School District has adopted a strong,
research-based plan for improving instruction and student achievement, put into place
a good initial plan for instituting and disseminating the initial phases, and has gotten
off to a good start along a path of professional development that could lead to meeting
their overall goals. The initial phases of the innovation were well supported by the
district through the use of fiscal resources and the more valuable human resources in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
the form of well respected and accepted master teachers from within their own ranks
who carried out the trainings and in-services for the site teams. The distributed trainer-
of-trainer model was effective for these original sessions, and provided a strong sense
of initial momentum as staff left the district trainings and returned to their own
campuses.
Shortcomings of the district’s plan included a lack of continued support at the
individual schools once the initial trainings had been concluded, a lack of
inclusiveness of key teacher leaders and ignoring of the district’s own traditions and
curriculum structures throughout the planning and implementation phases of the
innovation. The lack of consistency at each site possibly worked as both a strength and
weakness for the course of the innovation as each site had a different set of needs, and
a common set of expectations and outcomes may not have been prudent given the
existing set of precedents regarding the nature and design of site based professional
development and other programs followed previously to this innovation. Additionally,
the lack of inclusion of key policy makers and decision makers in the formal aspects
of the innovation itself may have negatively impacted decisions and recommendations
regarding the necessary support and comprehension of the course of the innovation,
and may have worked to slow the integration of the strategies into the culture of the
schools.
Finally, the adopted accountability and reporting model, although expedient,
did not provide information of depth or breadth of the incorporation of the innovations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
strategies into the culture of the school, into specific teacher lesson plans, nor did it
represent considerations related to the potential impact on student learning. No nexus
was created to provided a link between the institution of the innovation with
improvements in any of the outside accountability assessments, and connections made
seem to be purely speculative. The accountability model left principals and assistant
principals as passive observers of the frequency of use of the innovation strategies, but
did not provide for a method of impacting the frequency or quality of use other than
through the incorporation of the site professional development committees—who had
not been part of the innovations origin or implementation, and who were otherwise
just participants in a district driven initiative.
Implications
State and federal policy makers should be informed of the factors that allow
some school districts, such as Los Coyotes High School District and others, to pursue
courses of action to meet the ever present demands of accountability while still
addressing the day to day needs of students and the unique communities they serve.
The ever present priorities placed on the value of API, AYP and other measures show
the value that these policy makers place on these indicators as a means of judging and
evaluating schools and districts with regard to their approach to student learning.
Unfortunately there are a number of circumstances that can impact these results, and
districts and schools need to work proactively to meet these potential roadblocks while
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
at the same time providing interventions that can positively impact student
performance.
With the variety of approaches available, and the similarly broad range of
potential results, it is critical for districts to select and design innovations that are
effective at meeting their intended goals, fall within the scope of the available fiscal
resources, and that make best use of research-based findings in terms of the concepts
of the innovation as well as the means for implementing it. District policy makers need
to consider the use of their own in-house staff, provide for both the training of their
initial instruction team as well as for the needs of a subsequent distribution model. A
critical consideration should be made as to the selection of the innovation itself, the
level of involvement of key teacher leaders and site administration in concert with
district policy makers in order to bring together the combined expertise and insight
into potential roadblocks within the district’s own culture, as well as with the nature
and direction of the reform effort. Building in a buy-in factor, providing time and
resources for an effective planning process to map out the scope, direction, and
expectations of a particular innovation, as well as a meaningful and workable
accountability model to provide for the evaluation and effectiveness determination of
the efforts is key to a positive and worthwhile outcome.
Los Coyotes High School District officials need to recognize that their initial
planning and implementation model provided a good start for their innovation, but the
lack of continuing support for the incorporation of the strategies as well as for the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
teachers and site administrators working to that end most likely will cause this
innovation to decline as the three-year plan comes to an end. Ongoing support of staff,
support in the form of district resources as well as the philosophical support and
understanding from district level leadership and policy makers could have
significantly impacted the rough spots in this reform effort.
State policy makers should recognize the impact of the Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSAA) have had on teaching and learning as well as on the design
and implementation of curriculum. The resulting changes may have shown
improvements in some school and some districts, but have also caused a great shift in
the nature of what and how students are taught—and not all has been positive. The
focus on the narrow aspects of API has had an impact on districts, leading to the
institution of district driven instructional innovations that are intended to address the
needs identified through API and other accountability results, but because of the
immediacy of the pressures associated with those results, often are put into place too
quickly, or without the required planning to account for all the considerations.
Local policy makers should use examples like that of the Los Coyotes district
as a starting point for their own innovations and reform efforts, and look to both the
strengths of such designs, as well as taking into account the areas of need identified
and make their plans and designs accordingly. The development of a more thorough
support structure, and a qualitative assessment and evaluation tool would have brought
far more meaningful results from this type of innovation, and would have provided a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
much stronger and better model for other districts to follow when researching a course
of action intended on positively impacting teaching and learning for their students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
REFERENCES
Au, K. Balanced literary instruction: Addressing issues o f equity. University of
Hawaii.
Action Learning Systems, Inc. 2004. Professional development that improves student
learning and professional development that does not improve student learning
- What does the research say?. Action Learning Systems.
Allen, M. (2000). High-stakes testing pressures teacher education
[Electronic version]. State Education Leader, 1 8 ,1. Retrieved
March 10, 2002, from www.ecs.org/ clearinghouse/16/23/
1623.htm
American Educational Research Association (2004, April 14). Curriculum
measurement methodologies: New developments from the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) [Electronic
Version]. Proposal for Division D: Measurement and Research
Methodology at the annual meeting of AERA, San Diego, CA.
Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://convention.allacademic.com/
aera2004/AERA papers/AERA sess 1041 11384a.PDF
Ammar, S., Bifulco, Duncombe, W. & Wright, R. (2000). Identifying low-
performance public schools [Electronic Version]. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 26, 259. Retrieved January 11, 2004, from
www-cpr.maxwell.svr.edu/efap/publications/identifVing%201ow-
performance%20public%20schools.pdf
Ananda, S. (2003). Rethinking issues of alignment under No Child Left
Behind [Electronic Version]. San Francisco: WestEd. Retrieved
November 1, 2003, from www.wested.org/cs/wew/view/rs/693
Ansell, E. and J. Behrend (1998). "Understanding teachers' self-sustaining,
generative change in the context of professional development." Teaching
and Teacher Education 14(1): 76-80.
Asensio, L. & Johnson, J. (2001). Comprehensive school reform: Perspectives
from model developers [Electronic Version]. WestEd CSDR Proceedings
Document. Retrieved April 13, 2004, from www.wested.org/online pubs/
csrdperspective.pdf
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
Asmul, S. I., S. Wilhehnsen, et al. (1998). Psychological theories; A brief survey of
the changing views of learning. CSCL-A brief overview & interesting links
for further study. Bergen, Norway, Department of Information Science,
University of Bergen, Norway: Term Project. Atkin, J. (1997, October 4).
Applying historic lessons to current educational reform [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, DC. Retrieved May 6,2004, from
www.nas.edu/ sputnik/atkin.doc
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/goal s200. html
Avalon East School District. The Strategic Planning Process. In Avalon East
School District Web Portal (chap.). Retrieved June 5, 2004, from http://
www.aesd.ca/about.asp
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall. Barton, P. (2001). Raising
Achievement and Reducing Gaps: Reporting Progress Toward Goals for
Academic Achievement. Washington, D.C.: National Education Goals
Panel.
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/
Birman, B., J., Chaney, K., Gallagher, L., Hikawa, H., Quick, H., & Wolman
(2003, July). Evaluation study o f the immediate intervention/
underperforming schools program and the High Achieving/Improving
Schools Program o f the Public Schools Accountability Act o f 1999
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from www.air.org/
publications/elemsec education.htm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
Boese, L., Burkhardt, R. Carstens, L., Devine, L., Gaffney, T., & Just, A. (2000)
Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP): How
low performing schools in California are facing the challenge o f improving
student achievement. Sacramento: California Department of Education:
Division of Policy and Evaluation
Bowsher, J. (2001). Fix schools first: blueprint for achieving learning standards.
Gaithersburg, MA: Aspen Publishers
Brewer, D. & Goldhaber, D. (2000). Analytic issues in the assessment of student
achievement. Improving Longitudinal Data on Student Achievement: Some
Lessons from Recent Research Using NELS: 88. Washington, DC: NCES.
Brown, K. L. (2003). "From teacher-centered to learner-centered curriculum:
Improving learning in diverse classrooms." Education 124(1): 49-54.
Brown, C., Hara, S., & Shepardson, B. (1998). What every education should
know...about the changing social policy landscape and efforts to ensure
student success [Electronic version]. Council o f Chief State Officers,
Publication No. 15. Retrieved March 10, 2002, from www.temple.edu/LSS/
PubSeries98-15 .PDF
Brown, R. (1999, November). Creating school accountability reports [Electronic
version]. The School Administrator Web Edition. Retrieved March 31,
2002, from www.aasa.org/publications/sa/1999 11/brown.htm
Brunner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press.
Brunner, J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information Given. New York, Norton.
Bunting, C. (1999). "School reform— does it really matter?" The Clearing House
72(4): 213-216.
Bunting, C. (1999). "School reform— does it really matter?" The Clearing House
72(4): 213-216.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
Bumaford, G., J. Fisher, et al., Eds. (1996). Teachers doing research. Mahway,
N.J., Erlbaum.
Butts, R.F. & Cremin, L.A. (1953). History of Education in American Culture.
New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Bybee, R. (1997, October 4).The Sputnik ERA: Why is this educational reform
different from all other reforms? [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, DC.
Retrieved May 6, 2004, from www.nas.edu/sputnik/index.htm
California Department of Education (2002). The Academic Performance Index
(API): A six-year plan for development (2001-2006). A paper Presented to
the State Board of Education April 25, 2002. Sacramento: CDE,
Accountability Branch, Policy and Evaluation Division.
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
Carpenter, T. P., E. Fennema, et al. (1990). "Understanding teachers' self-
sustaining, generative change in the context of professional development."
Teaching and Teacher Education 14(1): 67-80.
Center for Education Reform. (1998). A Nation Still at Risk: An Education
Manifesto. Washington D.C.: Author.
Christman, J., & Corcoran, T. (2002, September). The limits and contradictions of
systemic reform: The Philadelphia Story. [Electronic Version]. Retrieved
November 1, 2003, from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/childrenO8.pdf
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
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]. University of Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy. Retrieved April 13, 2004, from http://depts.washington.edu/
ctpmail/PDFs/Brieffive.pdf
Coalition for Essential Schools. (2004). The History of CES and the Common
Principles [Electronic Version]. Retrieved June 22,2004 from the world
wide web:
http://www.essentialschools.org/pub/ces docs/about/phil/historv.html
Coast Mountains School District #82. (2003). Context-Who We Are. In Coast
Mountains School District #82 Accountability Contract 2003-2004: chap..
Accountability Contract 2003-2004. Retrieved June 5, 2004, from British
Columbia School Districts, CANADA: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/
______ schools/sdinfo/acc contracts/
Cochran-Smith, M. and S. L. Lytle (1990). "Research on teaching and teacher
research: The issues that divide." Educational Researcher 19(2): 2-11.
Codding, J. & Tucker, M. (1998). Standards for our schools: How to set them,
measure them, and reach them. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Codding, J. B. & Tucker, M. S. (2000). A New High School Design Focused on
Student Performance. NASSP Bulletin. 84(6151. 79-92.
Cohen, D. & Hill, H. (1998). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The
mathematics reform in California [Electronic Version]. CPRE Research
Report Series, RR-39. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from www.cpre.org/
Publications/rr39.pdf
Cohen, D. (1996). Standards-based school reform: Policy, practice and
performance. Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in
education. H. F. Ladd. Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
Cohen, D. K. and C. A. Bames (1993). Pedagogy and policy. Teaching for
understanding: challenges for policy and practice. D. K. Cohen, M. W.
McLaughlin and J. E. Talbert. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass: 207-239.
Cohen, D. K. and H. C. Hill (1998). Instructional policy and classroom
performance: The mathematic reform in California. Ann Arbor, University
of Michigan.
Cohen, M. & Steinberg, A. (2002, March 13). Rigor and relevance: Can policy
keep pace with changing practice in our high schools? Education Week,
21(26), Retrieved November 1, 2003, from www.edweek.org/ew/vol-21 /
26thiswk.htm
Coleman, J.S, Campbell, E. Hobson, C. McPartland, J. Mood, A. Weinfeld, F. &
York, R. (1996) Equity o f educational opportunity. Washington, D.C: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Comer, J. & Mahomes, V. (1999). Creating Schools of Child Development and
Education in the USA: teacher preparation for urban schools. Journal o f
Education for Teaching, 25(1), 3-15.
Comprehensive School Reform. 2001. Perspectives from model developers. San
Francisco, CA: WestEd
Conca, L. (1996). Evaluation Frames: A Powerful Staff Development Tool for
Teacher-Centered School Improvement. Journal o f Staff Development,
17(3), 40-44.
Conover, S. (2001). Smart debt: Affirming the Reagan legacy [Electronic Version].
Retrieved June 1, 2004, from http://web2.iadfw.net/scsr/SmartDebt.htm
Conway, J. A. & Calzi, F. (1995). The Dark Side of Shared Decision Making.
Educational Leadership, 53(4), 45-49.
Cooper, H. (1996). The Effects of Summer Vacation on Achievement Test Scores:
A Meta-Analytic Review. Review o f Educational Research.,66, 3. Cross, C.
(1998, October 21). The standards wars: Some lessons learned. Education
Week, 18, 8, 48.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
Corcoran, T. (2003, November). The Use of Research Evidence in Instructional
Improvement. Consortium for Policy Research in Education Policy Briefs,
RB-40.
Cordes, S. (2001). Meta-Cognitive Development Strategies. K. Gossard. Irvine,
School Renewal WebCenter, University of California, Irvine.
Cotton, K. (2001). Monitoring Student Learning in the Classroom. Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory: School Improvement Research Series
(SIRS). Retrieved from http://www.nwrel.0rg/scpd/sirs/2/cu4.html
CPSE (1997). Learning-Centered Psychological Principles. Washington, D.C.,
American Psychology Association.
Croninger, R., Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1996). Restructuring high schools can improve
performance [Electronic version]. Wisconsin Center fo r Education
Research Highlights. Retrieved March 10,2002, from
www.wcer.wisc.edu/ publications/WCER Highlights/
Vol.8 No.l Spring 1996/Restructuring high schools.html
Cross, R., Finn, C., Rebarber, T. Y Torres, J. (Eds). (2004, January). Grading the
systems: The guide to state standards, tests, and accountability policies
[Electronic Version]. Thomas Fordham Foundation. Retrieved May 6,
2004, from www.edexcellence.net/doc/GradingtheSvstems.pdf
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Consistency and change in American
classrooms, 1890-1990. New York: Teachers College Press.
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. (2003, February). Standards and assessment: Where we are
and what we need [Electronic Version]. Teachers College Record.
Retrieved November 5, 2003, from www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?
ContentID=11109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
Datnow, A. (2000). Power Politics in the Adoption of School Reform Models.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 22(4). 357-374.
David, J. L. (1995). The Who, What, and Why of Site-Based Management.
Educational Leadership, 53(4), 4-9.
Diamond, J. & Spillane, J. (2002). High stakes accountability in urban elementary
schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Northwestern University
Institute for Policy Research Working Paper WP-02-22. Retrieved February
12, 2003, from www.northwestem.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2002/WP-02
-22.pdf
Donmoyer, R. (ed.) (2004, April 14). [Electronic Version]. Paper presented at AERA
Conference, San Diego, CA. Retrieved April 26,2004, from http://
convention.allacademic.com/aera2004/AERA papers/
AERA sess 1135 10298a.PDF
Dom, S. (1998, January) The political legacy of school accountability systems
[Electronic version]. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6, 1. Retrieved
March 10, 2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v6n 1 .html
Dounay, J. (2000). High-stakes assessments bring out the critics [Electronic version].
State Education Leader, 18, 1. Retrieved March 10,2002, from www.ecs.org/
clearinghouse/ 16/23/1623.htm
Downs, A. (2002). Successful school reform efforts share common features
[Electronic version]. Harvard Education Letter Online. Retrieved March 10,
2002, from www.edletter.org/past/issues/2000-ma/schoolreform.shtml
Duffy, M. & Goertz, M. (2001, May). Assessment and accountability across the 50
states [Electronic Version]. CP RE Policy Briefs RB-3 3. Retrieved April 13,
2004, from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rb33.pdf
DuFour, R. (1997). The school as a learning organization: Recommendations for
school improvement.
DuFour, R. (2002). The Learning Principal. Educational Leadership, May, 14.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
DuFour, R. and R. Eaker (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best
Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA, Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development. EdSource (Ed.) (2000, May).
National accountability movement offers lessons for California [Electronic
version]. EdSource. Retrieved July 20, 2002, from www.edsource.org
EdSource, ed. (2000, May). National accountability movement offers lessons for
California [Electronic version]. EdSource. Retrieved July 20,2002, from
www.edsource.org
Edwards, B. & Frey, S. (2003, May). Show me the data [Electronic Version].
EdSource Report Retrieved November 1, 2003, from www.edsource.org/
pub abs 2003forum.cfm
Elmore, R. (1999). Leadership of Large-Scale Improvement in American Education.
Cambridge, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University.
Elmore, R. (1993). The role of local school district in instructional improvement
[Electronic Version]. In Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the
System, S.H. Fuhrman, ed., 96-124. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Retrieved April 13, 2004, from www.leed.coe.ecu.edu/ThompsonC/
role%20of%201ocal%20school%20districts.pdf
Elmore, R. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and
performance-based accountability [Electronic Version]. CPRE: NGA Center
fo r Best Practices. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from www.nga.org/cda/files/
0803KNQWING.PDF
Elmore, R. & Fuhrman, S. (2001, December). Research finds the false assumption of
accountability. The Education Digest, 67(4), 9-14.
Elmore, R. and M. W. McLaughlin (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice and the
reform of American education. Santa Monica, Ca, Rand Corporation.
Elmore, R. (1997, Fall). The politics of education reform. Issues in Science and
Technology, 14, 41-49.
Elmore, R., P. L. Peterson, et al. (1996). Restructuring in the Classroom: Teaching.
Learning & School Organization. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
Everson, S. (2004, April 13). The influence of a school’s context on the use of
educational knowledge [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 3105 17871a.PDF
Ferguson, R. & Brown, J. (2000). Analytic issues in the assessment of student
achievement. Certification Test Scores, Teacher Quality and Student
Achievement. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
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.pdfFinnigan, K. & O’Day (2003, July). External support
to schools on probation: Getting a leg up? [Electronic Version]. CPRE
Research Report. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from www.cpre.org/
Publications/Chicago.pdf
Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform.
London, Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. G. (1996). Turning Systemic Thinking on Its Head. Phi Delta Kappan,
February, 421.
Fullan, M. (2000). The Three Stories of Education Reform. Phi Delta Kappan,
81(8), 581-4.
Fullan, M. G. (2001). Leading in a Culture o f Change. San Francisco, California:
Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., Bertani, A. & Quinn, J. (2004). New Lessons for District wide Reform.
Educational Leadership, 61(7), 42-46.
Fullan, M. (1996). "Turning systemic thinking on its head." Phi Delta Kappa 77(6):
420.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
Fullan, M. (1998, April). Leadership for the 21st Century: Breaking the Bonds of
Dependency [Electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 55,1. Retrieved
March 10, 2002, from www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9804/
fullan.htmlFullan. M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco,
Jossey-Bass.
Frazier, L. M. (1993). Deteriorating School Facilities and Student Learning. ERIC
Digest, 82.
Fuhrman, S. (1994). Challenges in systemic education reform. CPRE Policy Briefs,
14. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/
rbl4.pdf
Galluci, C., Knapp, M., Markhort, 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]. CTP Research Report #R-03-2. Retrieved
April 13, 2004, from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/DistrictM-
GKMQ-07-2003.pdf
Gandara, P., eds. (1999). The dimension o f time and the challenge o f school reform
[Electronic version]. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Retrieved May 21, 2002, from
www.nea.org/neatodav/0003/gandara.html
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 Retrieved April 13,2004, from http://
depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/InProgress/OERI-CTPStanford.pdf
Goldberg, J. S. and B. R. Cole (2002). "Quality management in education: Building
excellence and equity in student performance." The Quality Management
Journal 9(4): 8-22.
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, DC. Retrieved May 6,2004, from
www.nas.edu/sputnik/goodlad.doc
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
Guskey, T. R. & Peterson, K. D. (1995). The Road to Classroom Change.
Educational Leadership, 53(4), 10-14.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). What Makes Professional Development Effective? Phi Delta
Kappan, June, 749.
Gutek, G. (1986). Education in the United States: A historical perspective. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Hanushek, E.A.(1986) The Economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in
public schools. Journal o f economic Literature, 24, 3 , 1141-78.
Hanushek, E. (1997, May). Applying performance incentives to schools for
disadvantaged populations [Electronic Version]. Education and Urban Society.
Retrieved November 1, 2003, from www.umich.edu/~psvcours/561/
incentiv.pdf
Hanushek, E. (2003, Spring). Lost opportunity [Electronic Version]. Hoover
Institution’ s Education Next. Retrieved November 27, 2003, from
www. educationnext. org/20032/
Hiebert, J. (2001). Improving Classroom Teaching: Enabling the Potential of
Standards-Based Reform. Wingspread Conference, Racine, Wisconsin.
Hiebert, J., R. Gallimore, et al. (2002). "A Knowledge Base for the Teaching
Profession: What Would It Look Like and How Can We Get One?"
Educational Researcher 31151: 3-15.
Hill, P. & Roza, M. (2003, May). How within-district spending inequities help some
schools to fail [Electronic Version]. A draft conference paper for the Brooking
conference The Teachers We Need. Retrieved May 6, 2004, from
www. crpe. org/workingpapers/pdf/Roza-Hil 1 .pdf
Hightower, A.; Knapp, M,.; Marsh, J. & McLaughlin, M. (2002). School districts and
instructional renewal. New York, N Y: Teachers College Press.
Hightower, A. M., M. S. Knapp, et al., Eds. (2002). School Districts and Instructional
Renewal. Critical Issues in Educational Leadership Series. New York, Teachers
College Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
Hirsch Jr., E. D. (2001). Seeking Breadth and Depth in the Curriculum. Educational
Leadership 59(2), 22-25.
Holland, R. (2001). How to build a better teacher. The Heritage Foundation.
Hoppe, M., Kirst, M.. & Massell, D. (1997, March). Persistence and change:
Standards-based reform in nine states [Electronic Version], CPRE Research
Reports. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/
rr37.pdf
Hurst, D., Meek, A., Sellers, J. & Tan, A. (2003, July). Overview and inventory of
State education reforms: 1990 to 2000 [Electronic Version]. Washington, DC:
NCES. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003020
Johnson, L.B. (1965, April 11). President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Remarks in Johnson
City, Texas, after signing the Elementary and Secondary Education Bill
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved June 21, 2004, from http://
www.lbilib.utexas.edu/iohnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/650411.asp
Joyce, B.. & Showers, B. (2002). Student Achievement Through Staff Development,
3rd Edition. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Katz, S. (1999, Summer). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their
teachers, and the structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100,4,, 809
-840.
Kester, D. & Linton, T. (2003, March). Exploring the achievement gap between white
and minority students in Texas: a comparison of the 1996 and 2000 NAEP and
TAAS eighth grade mathematics test results [Electronic Version]. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 11, 10. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from http://
epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v 1 1 nl 0/
King, D. (2002, May). The changing shape of leadership [Electronic Version]. Beyond
Instructional Leadership, 59(8), 61. Retrieved April 13, 2004, from
www.ascd.org/author/el/2002/05mav/king .html
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
Klein, S., Medrich, E. & Perex-Fereiro, V. (1996, October). Fitting the Pieces:
Education reform that works [Electronic Version]. Retrieved November 1,
2003, from www.ncela.gwu.edu/iasconferences/archives/1997/institutes/
change/fitting/
Koehler, P. (2003). Leading in difficult times: Are urban school boards up to the task?
[Electronic Version]. WestEdPolicy Trends. Retrieved April 13,2004, from
www.wested.org/online pubs/pt-03-01 .pdf
Koschoreck, J. (2001, May). Accountability and educational equity in the
transformation of an urban district. Education and Urban Society, 33(3), 284.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco,
California: Jossey-Bass.
Larson, K., Guidera, A. & Smith, N. (1998). The formula for Success: A Business
Leader s Guide to Supporting Math and Science Achievement. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
LaRue, A. (1996, August). The changing face o f teacher tenure [Electronic Version].
American Federation of Teachers’ Report. [Electronic Version], http://
www.aft.org/research/reports/tenure/Laruep.htm
Levin, H. M. & Hopfenberg, W. S. (1991). Accelerated Schools for At-Risk Students.
The Accelerated Schools Project. The Education Digest, 56(9), 47-50.
Leifeste, K.; Reavis, C. & West, D. (2001). Strategies for initiating and sustaining
change and organizational learning: The four cornerstones o f successful
change-A three-year longitudinal series o f studies. Paper presented at
American Educational Research Association Conference, 2001, in Seattle,
Washington.
Loveless, T. & Ravitch, D. (2000). Broken promises: What the federal government
can do to improve public education [Electronic version]. Brookings Review,
18(2), 18-22. Retrieved March 10, 2002, from www.brook.edu/dvbdocroot/
press/review/spring2000/loveless.htm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
Lubeck, S. (1996). Teachers and the teaching profession in the United Stated: Case
study finds. Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Michigan Center for Human
Growth and Development: 241-318.
MacMullen, M. & Rallis, S. (2000, June). Inquiry-minded schools: Opening doors for
accountability [Electronic Version], Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 10, 766. Retrieved
November 1, 2003, from www.umich.edu/~psvcours/56l/account3.htm
Mahn, H. (1999). Vygotsky’s Methodological Contribution to Sociocultural Theory.
Remedial and Special Education, 20(6), 341-50.
Marzano, R.; Pickering, D. & Pollock, J. (2001). Classroom Instruction that Works.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. & Kendall, J. 1998. Awash in a sea o f standards. McREL.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2000, November 30). District-wide Student
Success Plan Guidance [State Government — State Services]. In Massachusetts
Department o f Education Web Portal (chap.). Retrieved June 5, 2004, from
http://www.doe.mass.edu/: http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.asp?id=601
Massell, D. (1998). State strategies for building capacity in education: Progress and
continuing challenges [Electronic Version]. CPRE Research Report Series, RR
-041. Retrieved January 11, 2004, from www.cpre.org/Publications/
rr41 .pdfMavlone. N. 2002. The relationship o f socioeconomic factors and
district score on the Michigan educational assessment program tests: An
analysis. Ypsilanti, MI.
Massell, D. (2000, September). The District Role in Building Capacity: Four
Strategies. Consortium for Policy Research in Education: Policy Briefs, RB
-32.Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive Theory for Education: What Teachers Need
to Know. How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered
education. N. M. Lambert and B. L. McCombs. Washington, D.C., American
Psychological Association.
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/Nadler. R.
(1998). Failing grade. National Review, Inc. New York, NY: Sirs Researcher.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy
implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
MRDC (2002, September). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban
school systems improve student achievement [Electronic Version]. Urban
Educator, 11(5), 2. Retrieved November 6, 2002, from www.cgcs.org/
urbaneducator/2002/sept2 vol 1 1 no 6 article 2/
sept2 vol 11 no 6 article_2.html
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (2001). Leadership for school
improvement [Electronic version]. Aurora, CO: McREL. Retrieved May 28,
2002, from www.mcrel.org
Muir, M. (2001, Fall). When the stakes are high [Electronic Version] from MWREL
High standards for all. Retrieved November 1, 2002, from www.nwrel.org/
nwedu/2001 fall/stakes.html
National Center for Accelerated Schools. (2004). Accelerated Schools History.
[Report posted on the World Wide Web]. Retrieved June 22, 2004, from the
World Wide Web: http://web.uconn.edu/asp/Accelerated Schools Plus/
Historv.htm
National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education. (2003,
November). The Nation’ s Report Card: Mathematics Highlights 2003^
Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2003,
November). The Nation’ s Report Card: Reading Highlights 2003± Washington
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (2000).
Highlights from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study-
Repeat (TIMSS-R)._ Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. (1998,
July). Linking the National Assessment o f Educational Progress (NAEP) and
the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS): Eighth-
Grade Results. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: the
Imperative for Education Reform. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
National Commission on Educational Excellence (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform [Electronic Version]. United States
Department of Education. Retrieved June 21, 2004, from www.ed.gov/pubs/
NatAtRisk/
NCCSR (2001, September). The district’ s capacity to improve student achievement
[Electronic Version]. NCCST Research Brief. Retrieved April 26, 2004, from
http://www.goodschools.gwu.edu/pubs/research/rbsep01.pdf
Necochea, J. & Cline, Z. (1999). Maple High School’s Systems Approach to Reform.
The Educational Forum, 63(4), 330-340.
Noble, S. (1960). History of American Education. New York: Rinehart and Company.
Willis, S. (2002). Creating a Knowledge Base for Teaching. Educational
Leadership, 59(6), 6-11.
Office of Policy and Evaluation (1998). State intervention for academic turnaround.
Sacramento: CDE.
PACE (2003, September). California’s Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA):
Evaluation findings and implications [Electronic Version]. Retrieved
September 30, 2003, from www.air.org/publications/elemsec education.htm.
Padron, Y. The effect o f strategy instruction on bilingual student’ s cognitive strategy
use in reading. University of Houston-Clear Lake.
Palincsar, A, David, Y, Brown, A. (1989). Using reciprocal teaching in the classroom:
A guide fo r teachers. Revised Periodically By Palincsar, David, and Brown,
Brown/Champion Research Group, 1992.
Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent. New York, Grossman.
Pipho, C. (1999, March). High-stakes accountability [Electronic Version]. Phi Delta
Kappan, 80, 7, 485. Retrieved November 1, 2003, from www.umich.edu/
~psvcours/561/account7.htm
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
Poliakoff, A. and T. D. Schwartzbeck, Eds. (2001). Eve of the Storm: Promising
Practices for Improving Instruction. Wingspread Series. Washington, D.C.,
Council for Basic Education.
Price, H. (2004, March 11). Scientific evidence in education: A report card on policy
and practice [Electronic Version]. Paper presented at a National Academies/
Center for Education Progressive Policy forum in Washington, D.C. Retrieved
April 13, 2004, from http://www.ppionline.org/ppi _ci.cfm?
knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900023&contentID=252341
Reeves, D. (2000) The 90-90-90 schools: A case study [Electronic version].
Accountability in Action (chap. 19). Retrieved March 10, 2002, from
www.makingstandardswork.com/ Downloads/AinA%20Chl 9.pdf
Reeves, D. B. (1998). Making Standards Work: How to Implement Standards-Based
Assessments in the Classroom. School, and District. Denver, CO, Center for
Performance Assessment.
Regional Educational Laboratory Network. (2000, November). Implementing
education reform: Strategies used by states, districts, and schools. Aurora,
CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
Reigeluth, 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 10715a.PDF
Resnick, L. B. (1980). The role of invention in the development of mathematical
competence. Developmental models of thinking. R. H. Kluwe and H. Spada.
New York, Academic Press: 213-244.
Resnick, L. B. (1999). "Making America Smarter." Education Week Century Series
18(40): 38-40.
Resnick, L. B. and M. W. Hall (1998). "Learning organizations for sustainable
education reform." Daedalus 127: 89-118.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
Resnick, L. B. and M. W. Hall (2000). Principles of Learning for Effort-based
Education. Pittsburg, PA, Learning Research and Development Center,
University of Pittsburg: Paper.
Rudi, Z. (2001). Corrective action in low-performing schools and school districts
[Electronic Version]. SEDL Special Report. Retrieved November 1,2003,
from www.sedl.org/pubs/policv91 /policv91 .pdf
Resnik, H. (1999). Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools.
Sacramento, CA, California Department of Education.
Rosenshine, B. (1996). Advances in research on instruction .J.W. Lloyd, E.J.
Kameanui, and D. Chard. Issues in Educating Students with Disabilities.
Manwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rosenhine, B. & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review o f the research.
Urbana, IL
Sadowski, M. (1998). Time and learning. Harvard Education Letter: Sirs Researcher.
Scherer, M. (1996). A Nation at Risk: The imperative for educational reform, 1983. 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/nati onrs .html
Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work: An action plan fo r teachers, principals,
and superintendents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement, 2n d Edition.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (2004, February). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive
instructional improvement [Electronic Version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424.
Retrieved April 13, 2004, from http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0402sch.htm
Schmoker, M. and R. B. Wilson (1993). "Transforming schools through total quality
education." Phi Delta Kappa 74(5): 389-395.
Sizer, T. (1992). School reform: What’ s missing?. World Monitor: Sirs Researcher.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
Shanker, A. (1997). "Where we stand: ninety two hours." American Educator 21(1'):
33-34.
Sizer, T. (1992). Horace's School. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
Sizer, T. R. (1999). No Two Are Quite Alike. Educational Leadership, 57(1), 6-11.
Sizer, T. R. (1991). "No pain, no gain." Educational Leadership 32-34.
Snipes, J., Doolittle, F., & Herlihy, C. (2002). Foundations for Success: Case Studies
of How Urban School Systems Improve Student Achievement. MDRC for the
Council o f the Great City Schools.
Southwest Educational Development Library (1990). Creating a context for change
[Electronic version]. Issues...about Change, 2, 2. Retrieved March 10, 2002,
from www.sedl.org/change/issues/issues22.html
Spillane, J. R, B. J. Reiser, et al. (2002). "Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation." Review of Educational Research
72(3): 387-431.
Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local
capacity: The local education agency's capacity for ambitious instructional
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185-203.
Spiri, M. (1991). School Leadership and Reform: Case Studies o f Philadelphia
Principals. Retrieved July 6, 2004, from Consortium for Policy Research in
Education: http://www.cpre.org/
Stein, M. (2003). Making sense o f the data: Overview o f the K-12 data management
and analysis market [Electronic Version]. Boston, MA: Eduventures.
Retrieved November 1, 2003, from www.nasbe.org/Membership/
Headline Review/Data.pdf
Supovitz, J. (Ed.). (2004, April 13). States demand outcomes - do high schools and
districts respond? [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_ 1013 1037Oa.PDF
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
Technical Design Group (2000). Construction o f California’ s 1999 school
characteristics index and similar schools rank. Report from the Advisory
Committee for the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Sacramento:
CDE, Accountability Branch, Policy and Evaluation Division.
Tucker, M. S. & Codding, J. B. (1998/ Standards for Our Schools. How to set them,
measure them, and reach therm San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
U.S. Department of Education (2000). The class size reduction program. Boosting
Student Achievement in Schools Across the Nation. Jessup, MD; U.S.
Department of Education
Valenzuela, A. (2000, November). The significance of the TAAS test for Mexican
immigrant and Mexican American adolescents: A case study [Electronic
Version]. Hispanic Journal o f Behavioral Sciences, 22(4), 524. Retrieved
November 1,2003, from www. firstsearch. org
VanderArk, T. (2000). Attributes of high achievement school and districts [Electronic
version]. Retrieved March 10, 2002, from www.gatesfoundation.org/
education/ evaluation/default.htm
Vgotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Wagner, T. (1993, September). Systemic change: Rethinking the purpose of school.
Educational Leadership, 24.
Walberg, H.J. (1997). Uncompetitive American schools: Causes and cues. Brookings
Papers on Educational Policy. Washington, DC. Brooking Institute.
Walker, S. (2000). High-stakes testing: Too much? Too soon? [Electronic version].
State Education Leader, 18, 1. Retrieved March 10, 2002, from www.ecs.org/
clearinghouse/16/23/1623 .htm
Wayne, J. (1997). "The unavoidable intervention of educational research: A framework
for reconsidering researcher-practioner cooperation." Educational Researcher
26(7): 13-22.
Whitmire, R. (1997). The education gap: Why minority test scores lag. Gannett News
Service, Inc. USA Today.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
Wiggins, G. and J. McTighe (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria. VA,
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Williams, B. (2003). Closing the achievement gap. Alexandria, VA: ASCD
Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational Psychology. Needlam Heights, MA, Allyn and
Bacon.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDICES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
Appendix A: Case Study Guide
Overview of 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)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
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.
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
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
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.
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.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
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 al., 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.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
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 eclectic
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.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
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
x 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 of 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
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
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 E
o Balancing effectiveness with efficiency A 'R
o Reflection of how students learn (district’s theory of instruction)T
o Research-based strategies & professional judgmentL _ 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
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
• 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
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B: School District Profile
District Teachers 2003-04
Number of Teachers 606 1s t Year Teachers 7%
Full Credential 88%
Intern or Pre-Intern 1 %
Emergency Waiver 9%
District Students 2003-04
2n d Year Teachers 8%
Avg. Yrs. Teaching 13.
Avg. Yrs. In District 13
Total Students
ELL
Free & Reduced
16,295 Student Ethnicity:
31%
6%
Hispanic 47%
White 27%
Cal Works
4%
Asian 16%
Special Education 6.7% African-American 2%
District Accountability Measure
District Base API 2002
District Base API 2003
Other 4%
678
710
District Growth API 2004 730
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
174
Characteristics o f District Schools:
# Comprehensive
High Schools
Smallest
Largest
# Alternative
High Schools
# Middle Schools
# Elementary
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Highest 2004 Growth
6 API
1,9 686
Lowest 2004 Growth
85 API I
2,2
95
30.
2 Average Class Size 5
0
0
School District Profile (continued)
District Revenue ($ in mils) 2003-04
Apportionment______ 34.9
10th Gr.
Counseling_______.11
Economic Impact
Aid______ 1.15
Instructional
Materials .41
Lottery
1.72
School Safety
SIP
Title I—Acad Disadvant
Title II—Tchr Quality
Title V—Innovative
PAR
.05
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
176
Appendix C: Document Review Guide
Document Title: Author & Date:
Description and Purpose:
Research
Questions
Bolman &
Deal Frames
R
Q
1
R
Q
2
S
3
R
Q
4
Q
DOMAINS OF
DISTRICT ACTION
Researcher Notes
St HR Pol Sy
Defining
Teaching
and
Learning
I
Developing
the
Profession
Responding &
Contending w /
Exogenous Policy
j
Communicating
Externally
& Internally
I
Acquiring &
Allocating Human,
Fiscal, Physical
Resources
Creating Local
Systems of
Accountability
V-’ I
Partnering
with Non-System Actors
RQl:Design RQ2:Factors Shaping Design RQ3:Change Process & Implementation
RQ4:Extent of Implementation RQ5:Impact
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix D: Researcher Rater Form
177
Component Fully Im p le m e n te d Partially Implemented Just Getting Started
Defining
Teaching and
Learning
Ail district staff articulates a
vision,. and develop a common
understanding of instructional
improvement that includes hlgf
expectations for all students..
Some district staff can
articulate the vision of 1
nsiructional improvement that j
indudes high expectations for
i t students.
There is minimal articulation of
a vision for instructional
tapravemefrt.
Acquiring &
Allocating
Resources
< V I district decisions regarding
use physical, fiscal and human
H u m s are linked to
implementation of the
strategies. Good use of
xofessional expertise
[internally aid extemaly) to
neel goals for instructional
improvement.
dost district decisions that use
Physical, fiscal and human !
•esources are tanked to i
mpie«*enlalion of the
strategies. Some use of
KOfessional expertise ;
[internally aid external/) to |
meet goals for instructional
improvement. 1
There has been some attempt
to see that decisions that use
physical, fiscal and human
resources are linked to
implementation of the
strategies. Limited use of
professional expertise
(internally & externally) to meet
goals for instructional
improvement.
Developing the
Profession
There is clear evidence of
ongoing professional leaning
st all levels of the organization
with a clear link to the
nstracSonal design.
Some evidence exists that, the ,
district is involved in ongoing
xofessional learning at all !
evils of the organization with 1
i clear link to the instructional 1
design. ;
Evidence of ongoing
professional learning al all
levels of the organization with
a dear link to the instructional
design was not found.
Contending with
Exogenous
Policies
The district design devotes
sufficient effort to aligning
cfetrict strategies that respond
to state & federal mandates.
Most of die 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
nstrucljonal design so that site
Jersonnel can articulate the
nstnicliona! strategies
addressed. Teacher is
effective al redirecting activity
to better meet the overal
nstructional objective.
District leaders articulate
aspects of the instructional
design so lhal site personnel
can articulate some of the '
instructional strategies
addressed. Teacher is able to
redirect activity to meet the
overal instructional objective.
District leaders do not provide
a dear purpose of the
■nstructional design to that site
personnel are not able to
articulate the instructional
strategies addressed.
Teacher activities are not
aligned to the instructional
objective.
Communicating
The District utilizes a two-way
nodei for communication that
wovides for the effective
delivery of information ttfrom
the district to the site and
classroom.
The District has a model for 1
Mmnwrtfcafion that provides ;
adequate delivery of [
nformation to.'from the district
to the site and classroom.
The District model for
communication that does not
provide an adequate delivery
of information toffrom the
district to the site and
classroom.
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
nstructional design.
District provides some
evidenoe that external
oarlnerships exist that are
inked to the instructional
design.
No provision for outside
partnerships to support the
district instructional design.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
Appendix E: Conceptual Framework A
Domains of District Action
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.
Q ilbot. S., Hightower, M „ H u r tm * . J. M u r* . J., McLaughlin. M „ Talbert, 1 & Young, V. (2003). Retrieved May 5, 2004, to m him j’ .'www-cQiwrb-rM
6
Domains of District Action
\rt|in rin |
mid nlluculing
liumtm. flvcal,
uml plivsiciil
resources
IH-llniag
leacliin
and learning
Rtwiy
Ki'spimdini
In iirid contending
n illi exogenous
policy
D eveloping
the profession
( renting
local system s o f
accountability
L tw m Ju p UM dtraup
Commuiiicatmj*
externally and
internal!*
ParHicriny uitli
nun-svstem actors
Quality: Coherence, Professionalism /L earning Com munity,
System -w ide Equity, Sustainability
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
Elaboration of Conceptual Framework A:
Districts as Change Agents: Levers for System-Wide Instructional Improvement
Defining Teaching and Learning - Reforming districts:
Clearly articulate a vision of quality teaching and learning
* 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:
v Allocate funds flexibly to focus on student learning needs
‘ p Build capacity to obtain additional resources for district goals/priorities
‘ P Deploy professional expertise to meet goals of instructional improvement and
equity
Developing the Profession - Reforming districts:
< p Attend to professional learning needs all levels of the system
'P Make explicit connections between professional development and the vision of
teaching and learning
* p Nurture a culture of continuous learning and collaborative professional
community at all system levels
Responding to/Contending with Exogenous Policies - Reforming districts:
• p Are strategic in their responses to externally imposed mandates
‘ p Work to align state and federal policies with their own articulated vision of
teaching and learning
< 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:
< p Articulate clear expectations for schools, principals, teachers, and students
'p Collect and use multiple sources of relevant data to assess progress
< p Foster shared understanding of goals, and a culture of learning and
improvement
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180
Communicating - Reforming districts:
* p Institutionalize channels for vertical and horizontal communication, within the
system and with external stakeholders
< p Attend to critical feedback from all levels of the system and from stakeholders
* p Create opportunities for stakeholders to learn how district professional
practices improve student learning
Partnering with Actors External to Formal District Organization -
Reforming districts:
c p Seek external partners that provide expertise, resources, and knowledge to
further instructional improvement
< p Partner with citizens, businesses, city agencies, local education foundations,
community-based organizations, educational reform organizations, IHEs, and
unions
‘ P Pursue ongoing, meaningful work
Cross-cutting Levers for District Reform: Leadership, Equity, and Data
* p Leadership focuses all domains of district action on enhancing quality and
equity of student outcomes
• p Equity standards and data inform action in each domain
< p Data in each domain signal capacity issues and build coherence in system
reform
District Quality: Desired System Outcomes
< p Policy and action across domains is coherent
< p Professionalism and learning community are pervasive at all system levels
'P Equitable and enhanced student learning outcomes across and within district
schools
‘ P Strategic district action is sustainable
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181
Appendix F: 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
H U N A N
RESOURCE
P O L I T I C A L SV M B O L IC
Disciplinary Roots Sociology Social S Organizational
Psychology
Poitical Science 1 Social & Cilural
Anthropology
Frame Emphasis Rationality; formal roles &
relations
Fit between people &
org
Allocation of power &
scarce resources
Org as theater, trlse, or
carnival
Metaphor for
Organization
Factory or machine Famly Jungle !Carnival, temple, theater
Kay Concepts Rules, roles, pofides,
p als, technology,
BffVirDMlt
Meeds, skills,
relationships
Power, conflict,
competition, positive
entities
Culture, ritual,
ceremony, stories,
heroes & heroines,
myths, symbols,
metaphors, dtarisma
Key Frame
Processes
Division of labor &
mordtaatien of hdivkfcial
activities
Tailoring the eng to me*
ndwidual needs
Bargaining, negotiation,
coalition building
Creating & promoting a
common vision;
attending to the
meaning of events;
devising relevant rituals:
ceremonies & symbols
Key Words Goals, task, technology
rationally. rcties, roles,
M a p s , differentiation,
integration
Meads, skills, feelings,
motivation, satisfaction,
iorms, interpersonal
nteractions, fit
(between parson & org]
Power, conflict,
coalitions, scarcity,
snduring differences,
potties, bargaining,
negotiation
Symbols, meaning,
beief, faith, culture,
ceremonies, rituals,
myths, stories, play
Organization ElMe Excellence Daring justice Faith
Strategic Planning Strategies to set
objectives & coordinate
resources
Gatherings to promote
narfdpatfon
Arenas to air conflicts S
■eatign power
Ritual to signal
responsibity, produce
symbols, negotiate
meanings
Seal Setting Keep oig headed in right
Section
Keep people involved &
communication open
Provide opportunity for
fjdi& group to make
nterests known
Develop symbols &
shared values
Decision Making Rational sequence to
produce right decision
Open processes to
produce comrnilimnt
Opportunity to p in or
sxertise power
Ritual to confirm values
1 provide opportunities
for bonding
Motivation Economic incentives Growth & self-
adndzrion
Coercion, manipulation,1
& . seduction
Symbols & celebrations
Meetings Formal occasions for
making decisions
Informal occasions for
nvolverwmt & sharing
M ings
Competitive occasions
to win points
Sacred occasions to
celebrate & transform
culture
Evaluating Ways to distribute
rewards or penalties &
control performance
Process for helping
ndrviduate grow &
mprove
Opportunity to exercise
power
Occasion to play roles in
shared ritual
Communication Transmit facte &
information
Exchange info, needs,
S i feelings
MuenoB or manipulate
others
T ell stories
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182
STRUCTURAL
H U M A N
R E S O U R C E
P O L I T I C R L S Y M B O L I C
hnage o f Leader Catena Rute-Maker w ifi
Aidhortty
H arsher*
a p a n b liy 1 ctor%
acoounlablfty; fa ik tp s
s h wed sensa at
ireakniAcDmrrttmerl;
SerBlthe to bath task 4
m wss ftm g ntrp l or
u rd n ta to n ’leads to
n v b im m m m rm m rm 1
rusMon i
naffecllverBsa
AU a to access scarce
naourcBB for da trenefll
el ■» org; :Ha^s to fnd
com mon idenete 4
unite coal tons In org;
Judjp sd by style 4
coping state,; Dramatic
jerfbrmanras
empiiasEhg hails
assumed wttr
eadershp >;fnrceiyress
raspms trlty crxrage 4
decency) wil improve
m age
Leadership
Contributor!
Autarah^ tote Power SgnifcaiKa
Effective LeaSw Anaiysl or Architect who
araipfls 4 designs
OatalpistDr Serantwto
suppcrte 4 empowers
Advocate or N epbator
wtra advocates 4 tudda
o tIBmis
Prophet or Paetwfto
uses inspiration 4
frames expenerce
h e fe tw i Leader Pedy tyrant who manages
byrtoiatl lis t
WeaKIrg a Pushover
rim marscps by
abdcslton
D on Artist or Thug who
znamffJates and us®
laud
Fanatic or Fool who
uses m liB p4 smoke)n
mirrors
Qualities of
Eff«tive LeadHJ
D o tinmewcrt;
ftetelonatilp of structure,
strategy, 4 mvtronnait;
Foous on rrp eneim iiai
ExpaitnefA, ewaliale, &
adapt
ieli?veim ps|ia4
soiHHjrarate their
adlef;
tflabta & acoessde:
Empower olwrs
Canfywral Iheyw arii
riiatlhey can get;
A c rase oislntiulton of
sower 4 interaate; WW
images to toy
ilakeholder-s;
^rsuatle’? 1 , negotiate
2 », 4 u se orarcian onty
Man necessary
U se symbols to rapture
•arrbon;
Fiana opeitanra;
Db raver 4
corrmmeate a vision;
Tel ston es-
fob or Leader Focus on t o * , fa te 4
bgtc jratrar ta r
w s m a iy or emotion^
M o t rtgk% ar#attoitan 4
don't nacBsaarttf whra al
wobtams irrougti orders;
T ry to design 4 Hffemart
a process or stnstiuri
appropriate to
ctaimstanras
C o m muni rale
efeiuve.yA care abrul
I w people; Worto on
aeM ofM aaatiaf
M l org 4 people;
Supports through
Istering, earw ig, 4
com murncating persona
warrth 4 openness;
E m pow ers, through
sariltipfltlon 4
soteboratton, making
sura tray haw
autonomy 4 resources
reeded
RecogrtEB major
GonstJluani*, develop
ies to their leadersftp,
4 manage omiftat; BuM
a power base 4 use
carefuiy;
Siate arenas where
croups can negotiate
dffiferwoes 4 come up
Mth compromises;
Articulate commonaitfes
so you can fight
axtental oremy
She prapte something
to bdieve In, inspires;
She org an iQMity 4
mate it special;
Passionate about
m a rk in g org the best 4
zcrrrrun cates passoti
toolars; U see
zkamatic, visible
symbols to fflodle people
4 p w sanse of praf s
mission: Create Vlagars,
:eil tozm es. raltes,
gw awards, appear
riven least m p& m si ;
( V a l» . around to m anage
Specific Challenges
brLeadm
fwg sla ty )
iasp on top of larp,
cot^ptex BStnf acWttes
Set goals 4 potties jnder
D o ra d tto n a ofunrarteinty;
Attain Intetaetual yaEp of
pdky Issues
ItoiffltB, COOKlfBte, 1
icrLral large, dhww
group of euitordinatea;
U se M r pensonaffes
to best advantage
Achieve 'delkale
bolBtice* m aloratng
scarce resources:
Set support fran
cossbs;
Set support from
corporate ate" 4 after
coratttoants;
Expktf a1 oppcrtunltes
to achieve srtrateg ic
gars
Develop cradfcle
strategic premtses;
toarr% 4 focus o n rare
activities tnat grre
meorr^i to Bmpioyeas
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
183
STRUCTURAL
H U M A N
R E S O U R C E
P O L IT IC A L S Y M B O L I C
IpsetHc
Characteristics of
ExceUsnl
Companies
AiiormmyA
enHBpraneurahlp; Was for
action; ample fann; lam
staff; Ctock-bmtdng, not
Tme-telmg; truss a lot.
keeps w bn worts
Q sse bs OBtamer;
productivity throq^i
jeopftc Home-grown
management
Hands-on veluB-drtyen;
slrmilaneouB toose-tight
mperties; stick to the
nth; Bg, hairy
ajdaaouB goals; -alt-
Ifce-cultures; goad
enough forever
aioiigh; preserve the
ewe, s i mutate progress
Leader's O rg
IteipcindiilK ti
Pfeofjle are d or a ta J
re ppon abides. & their
eonirtbutar to mission;
PoildBB, Irtkagee. ft Ines
d autiority Bre sfralglrt-
tonmrd A widely
Develop long-tarm HR
prtloBf^tty--Bull Into
corpora® sfrvdtm,
nosnttve®, A ra a a siis
ol HR management
tweet In people - Mm
.-ixii oecpla A reward
t a n ; provlda job
security; promote from
Mtrtr: i;an A educate;
Sharelha w saii:
Empower amp topes &
ndflsigntiBlfwark-
ftwifie autonomy &
sartldpation; focus on
ob efrietimairt A
teammri; Ensure
egattariantam 1 upward
nfluance
Agenda ssftngp
SVappng fte pctncal
terra n- data mure
channels of
conmncatkm; tdentity
:rn;ipal agents, of
political brfcjsnoa;
aralyze pnssibities for
boil internal 1 exlsrra!
Tpppjizaocr; ankfpale
strategic f a t others
are Utaly to employ
totWHlini A bufobg
OOflliCffi
5argainoq it
Tegotatcn
'.tartar, culture to
protect org against
Brgarpdfical, bwsbI A
economc trends
trough mantel rsing
eghfotacy A support r
eyes of multiple
constituencies;
Us® instrumental
struibxEs A processes
to rattea uncertainty,
pruwte basis for
xrdera landing present A
vision for future; Ubb of
garbap-can decskir-
nadng, whan
necessary
OrgProhlwriB Pta^B problems stem
t a n structural fc* K
Mtfuxt Y ttorkabtB
itrudiura «* confusion,
VustradDn, 1 conflict
hirihodtarien or
inaenatfve tenders
Mtan people feet org b
n o t reaponste to needs
or supportive of iM r
godta
torrer enough
reeourcas for all;
Excessive internal
oonfllct can lead to
great loss®;
IpomrflttDpofNghly
regulated erg, pelaca!
activity Is often farced!
xdergreund (ovsr-
bcunded)
Wfuse A looser/
am tralei system, 0
ontilot 4 power games
{under-bounded)
to common symbols or
belleFs;
Lack of culture or
denhty
Pfflbwrtlal Pm fc ttk ^p o itn g eveiyMng
(s tfe la outEde of
stomal p e d r s e n of
woe., polctes,, A org
:harli
Gm -fflwisthnate power
rfaufiorfty 1
-ndaresthnate Buftntti1 of
sowar
famantidzad mm of
human nahm h which
averycm wante-growth
1 eollsfoaration;
Can be too qpftrietb
about htegratagi Ind. 1
org needs, w M b
oaglectktg powar of
structure A stubborn
realties of onrfirt 1
scarcity
Cat became b cynical
seti-tUftllng proftttecy
f « 1 reinforces conflict A
liatiUBt, write
sa offting opportunities
lor rational dacourse,
cojfato. A tape;
May appear to be
amoral, sehamrig,
jpcoftcemd for
oarmnon rpiod
Concepts nay be vague
Aeluibe, wttt
E fe b m e s s dependant
on user's aUsfry;
Bymbcls often fluff A
E arrra Jap far those
,vl> p seer, tp manipulate
he tmsuspeedng;
May be awkward
aaemrsilB that
ifdtHtrass, not energze
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
STRUCTURAL
H U M A N
RESOURCE
P OLITICR L S Y M B O L I C
Bitonrintaij Frame
tor SMuaitoni
Technical dually of
decldm important
M nW usI aa m im atf
imotWBllon assarta!
to success
t t y to ils Qiamblguiy
& uncertainly;
Ganflct 1 scarce
iboihcbb are
sJplcant
Working from lire
M ttalT I-M p
W « fatal awmtmenl
& mohvalkin essential b o
success
levels of ambiguity
I uncertainty
Contact & acarca
iBfflircBB are sipnitcanl
Group Dilemmas H
Stritoftoi
Mfferentialbn re.
IftgtsUonc
Sapa vs. Overloads;
Undents® vs. Orerfciad;
_a:h ol ctonte va. Lack of
HBBlMlf,
Exrasshra aiitonornym
shmbsIw hi^jenderBt;
too loose m lw ty h t;
Diffuse aAffltly re. ovar-
santralzattan;
Smi\e» w. Hasl-traund;
Imsponsltalsw.
Unresponslre
Develop Skis;
kgreawitoBbaelcE;
SesnSt far Interests in
summon;
Expanmerrt;
Doubt for rfc lW ly
Treat dffererices a n
pHip rsspM m siblkby
H te rn r someone beownes
a group member ib
mpcrtanl;
Swats) ty pevfaas team
acompewua
aAarfaga;
Example, not command,
•dds team together.
Spedalzad language
Sosbers cohesion A
sorrarvtmenfc
Stories carry iitetofy&
values & reinforce gmup
-danbty;
rtumor&pi&yreduiH
tension & encourage
sreatwtfy; Risuit &
CaiHiorry lift sprss &
reinforce vatuas;
rtonral ouKutal players
ccnbtMta
iqpicpofttonare to
‘crrnat roles; Souls
sacral of Success
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
185
STRUCTURAL
H U M A N
RESOURCE
P O L I T I C A L S f M iO L IC
tea un pilous ftgsexlUMadOTe
qoa's £ objectaa
ftgsMakbeatiitisr)
atonalty prerails over
KTSffllBlpi^BnCBB
Stnufluree miatbe
defied la fk
SFgantzafearfa
staimsttncai ;n:lwsng
p f e , tech, 4 eiwlmn}
ftas increase etfaeney 1
Shanes prfarmBrtce
trough speciaizalm &
iwakin of labor
ftppraprBte terns of
somtaMon & cortral are
assantU la aim ing thal
m il & unite work icgetter
nBBnrioa dorp gate
Problems 4 padc-mance
gaps arise from sbuehiral
& can be
remeJed through
BSkuc luring
ftps eodsl to SHIM
iurian needs not tie
■wise
People 4 orpsneed
each cfmTrisBfl,
careere, salaries. &
DppBturittai
When £ between [ml 1
org Is pear, bothBuler-
axplolted vs.
ajftotlaScn.
SomI It te r e te b e ti-
meanralj work vs.
latent 4 smi®
ftps are coaltions of
ramEtindhidualB&
interests groups
Enduing dlflaencea
among ooaitlan
mambara In msuss,
beliefs, rto, cteneate, &
perceptions, of reality
Most important
tteddms in « re the
SfcKatei of scarce
■saurces -who gets
rttat
Scarce resources &
Enduring dtflerems
tfwrarrflct a central!
rate « erg cyna/ricsi
fitate power most
m portent resource
Soais & dedsfcrns
m a p iro m
tergalnbg, negebadnn,
£ jockeying for poanort
among dHtsrert
staJtahoJdteK
Whan« Important about
any event Is not tubal
happened tut what It b R
B B O T S
Acuity & meaning are
nosely couplet evert;
-lave muliple meBnlnge
oecause people
interpret eaperteiKs
iffarerrtly
Mist d i e t s
anPtguousoruncertan
- wiiat happened, why I t
nappened, orwhalwll
happen next are puzzles
rtgfi tents of ambiguity
£ uncertainty undercut
■banal analysis,
ambient saMng, 4
bedsicr! maMnp
frr ttw fBce of
jncertelnty £ amtuguhy;
people create symbols
D raaahre confuskm,
ncrease prednsat'lry,
mvm drectei.lt
anchor hope 4 lath;
Many smarts 4
procMaas are more
mpcrlant fcrwtat is
axpressea ta n tor what
B|icdK£d-1otmlnga
Spestry of saoJar
truths, rituals 4 Aortas
hat help people find
■nsarmg, purpose 4
lasfiten
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
186
STRUCTURAL
H U M A N
R E S O U R C E
PO L IT IC A L S Y M B O L I C
M w rrf Conflict Ftafllan that Interferes
vdh *j3or^lstinait of
Krpoaas;
PosadMy loner levels *ii
Ignore or subvert
managament, drecbvBB
Suneffirg to be dealt
. v I T , Tirc o g T i hiding
raialcfrshps £
nterprsonalgrffl»ftf»
hkrl a BgncrfprcfcSm,
J i natural £ Inevitable;
RaoL of personal £
social change, creatMty,
4 innovation; Can
experience too much or
loo Idle m ricl; Can t»
horizontal, vertical, or
cultural
C o lecte bargaining: 2
sides meet to resfiape
situations
Approaching
Dimfket
W riste org goals by
rawing aufhartieB rasetra
amflict
OmeloprBlatensMpB
by having ImMduals
confront mnffct
Develop power try
oargtentng, forcing, cr
manpJatmg o tarato
Develop shared values
4 tee conflict to
negotate meaning
Reorganizing R a a lp rota m t
esp-DnatnUles to A t, te a s
lernlromrwnt
Ua rla r talarsee
oeMman lunan neecs
£ fonnal ro te a
RedBtrfiute power £
te rm rw« ooalttans
Manian Imaged
accguntab. £
•esKins.veness;
hegateia mew social
seder
Sarnere 1 0 Clunge Loss of dafty £ slatxlity
fimfuaon £ diaos
A n x ta fy , uncflitarfy,
Swings af
mampeterKe,
m a to s s
vte-emKrwerment
f»ri»« • » titct-t) * • o
conflict batman
ABiremAtaers
Loss of meaning £
curpose;
Clnglng lo pest
t a m i n g
Banters
Ctmmunlcathj,
•Baljgmng £ renagobating
fe rra te patterns I p t a s
fraknbg to dwatotp nsw
= k u s . patddpatton A
nwhiHwrt. V support
C reating arenas where
ibsuss can be
(snepcBateaAnew
coteions termed
Creating transitioni
Duals; m ourning the
cast; eetabratogite
“ Loire
Power Legitimate artmrfty -
pcwBrla imsict'w#!
EBslllan;
Palicl p a tte rn , openness,
1 co&toaraiion mate
ocmr a Bon-tssua
Pow er produces, * is
not to be viewed a s
negate; maw does
each group mcMize
sow er to p tw talt
wants?" Depends on
consttante leverage £
lattsfatAon
Attributed to ceteait
gmupe £ Mwtouels,
oian due to bethavicr:
tik s a tt,a n
comrrtttees, £ aeern
e ta s to action {m ay be
negate)
ttftfrin g a o f
P tfW W 'B
& Mltion flower
lauthHWrt1
Hbmtelon & experiw
Sonlrci of rewards?
■ nr»»w irw
Soerctve gpwert;
hllancas zfnahw«its>
Access i contract!’ "
ijandss?
rranrtng'ccniiintl d
mewirig&symjxXB^
Persona pffnir
Jchadsmal1
Im apol
Leadership
SocMArcMtflctura ErrfXMmMU A dvocacy mspiraiion
ftailc LBBdsntilp
Challenge
Ajftm a ttrudure to task,
leehrifllop; £
smlrwwwrt
A lign org £ hum an
weds
D evelo p agenda £
power base
Create iaih, beauty, £
m e aning
Leader Attention Sates & rnBaicri;
c rg a n tz a H o n 'B iiladonsf^i
w#it»«rMmnmertt;
clarity 4 a sre ia m e jo i
•o tes & sbucftne;
appropriate roles &
sdWes
People £ t a r needs;
mays to tael Mate
ndMoual produclwfy,;
nterpflnsonal
alaiorehips; p o i 4
tajuert
sornrauiESlkinB;
ndhHtlon; commitment
1 BBltslarton
Empowerment coaldon
altoing; prodding
arenas ter coriliotS
isagrasmenl: to surface
V lstcm ; charem*
nterpnrtng experience
lor org; creating ritutes s
symbols; praaldng al
ceremonies; evoking
ogteoloontdertKifor
org; playngwellto
oritteait internal £
external audiences
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
187
Appendix G; Los Coyotes High School District Goals and Objectives
Los Coyotes High School District
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The District’s six comprehensive high schools and continuation and alternative high
schools are working to meet the goals and objectives that have been adopted by the
Board of Trustees. These goals and objectives were established with input from
students, teachers, parents, community members, and administrative staff. They
reflect the District’s commitment to every student attending school in the Los Coyotes
High School District. In condensed form, they appear below:
1. Provide high quality programs of sufficient breadth and depth so that
students will have achieved or surpassed District achievement standards
and will have a satisfactory level of knowledge and skills to continue
formal education and/or enter a productive occupation upon graduation.
2. Provide the environment and program so that students will meet or exceed
District standards in attendance and personal behavior.
3. Provide adequate, secure, well-maintained physical facilities, grounds, and
equipment.
4. Provide sound management of District resources.
5. Provide effective internal and external communications.
6. Provide proper recognition of students, staff, parents, and other community
members for outstanding accomplishments and contributions to the
District.
7. Provide programs and implement decisions so that parents, staff, and
students are satisfied with the support, quality, and characteristics of the
school/District.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
188
Appendix H: Los Coyotes High School District Board Priorities
LOS COYOTES HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Superintendent
September 15,2004
TO: DISTRICT STAFF MEMBERS
FROM: THE SUPERINTENDENT
SUBJECT: BOARD OF TRUSTEES PRIORITIES FOR 2004/05
The Board of Trustees and the Superintendent annually establish priorities for
the school year. The priorities provide a most effective focus for the investment of our
time, energy, and resources throughout the school year. The clearly defined priorities
also allow us to develop a measurable annual review of all that is accomplished each
year to improve the quality of instructional programs and enhance student
performance. In the past, up to twenty-two priorities were established for a given
school year. However, for the past two years, in order to more effectively focus the
time and work of District staff members, the number of priorities was limited to three.
After extensive discussion with the Cabinet and Principals regarding proposed
priorities, the number of priorities for 2004/05 are again limited, with the recognition
of the critical need to “stay the course” and not dilute efforts to address instructional
excellence, Bond construction projects, long-range financial planning, and
Continuation High School facility needs. The following priorities for the 2004/05
school year provide the focal points for our work together in support of student
learning.
1. Instructional Excellence (Ongoing)
Assure learning opportunities for all students and excellence in classroom
instruction by every teacher in every school, classroom, and during each period.
Continue to:
• Implement standards-based instruction and assessment so that students meet the
standards, regardless of the students’ special needs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
189
• Use technology effectively to enhance student learning, teacher effectiveness,
parent/guardian communication and accountability; and implement methods to
assess the effective use of technology.
• Raise student achievement as evidenced by improved student performance on the
California Standards Test (CST), California English Language Development Test
(CELDT), and the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE).
• Meet or exceed the State’s annual Academic Performance Index (API) and Annual
Yearly Progress (AYP) growth targets at each school.
• Emphasize the learning of reading, writing, and computation skills across the
curriculum.
• Provide greater visibility of administrators in classrooms to support and encourage
classroom teachers through “a visit to every classroom every week” utilizing, in
part, peer coaching models in order to provide timely feedback to teachers.
• Emphasize “Time on Task” and “Bell-to-Bell Instruction.”
• Reinforce standards-based instruction and professional growth by conducting a
timely, thorough, honest, meaningful, and objective evaluation of every teacher
and classified employee as stipulated by employee agreements.
• Educate students/parents on effective test-taking strategies.
• Support staff development to ensure highly qualified professionals and
paraprofessionals by continuing to:
• Implement the Intern, Induction, and PAR programs to ensure highly qualified
teachers in every classroom.
• Implement recruiting and screening practices to meet the “No Child Left Behind
Act” requirements for paraprofessionals working in the Title I programs.
• Provide principals and assistant principals with training in effective teacher
observation and feedback strategies.
• Provide professional growth and development for managers and potential
managers.
• Provide classified employee support.
• Design and implement a “Single School Plan for Student Achievement” at each
school to determine student progress and set goals for continued student growth.
• Implement WASC action plans.
2. Facilities/Operations (1-2 years)
Effectively manage the District’s real estate assets in order to ensure
appropriate and upgraded learning and work environments and to maximize fiscal
resources.
• Establish the plan and timeline to rebuild on current site or relocate Continuation
High School (LVHS) and Endeavor in order to:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190
• Provide appropriate and upgraded facilities for the students, teachers, and staff
members.
• Better manage District property assets of current LVHS site.
* Search and select a suitable permanent District warehouse facility.
3. Long-Range Financial Management (Ongoing)
Effectively manage the District’s financial resources through periods of
increasing student enrollment, and expected slight decline in five years, by
developing, implementing, and monitoring plans to address financial needs in the
following areas:
• Replacement cycle for the District white fleet, buses, and technology.
* Classified staffing infrastructure.
• Health benefits liability fund.
• Encroachments on the General Fund (i.e., special education, Workers’
Compensation, transportation).
4. Bond Construction Projects (1-5 years)
Effectively manage bond construction projects while maximizing the use of
financial resources made available through the sale of District bonds.
* Keep District stakeholders informed of the progress of the bond construction
projects.
* Ensure the effective involvement of the District and individual school site
Citizens’ Oversight Committees.
* Work with the architects and construction management firms to ensure timely and
cost-effective completion of the projects.
* Effectively monitor project expenditures in order to maximize effective use of
bond proceeds.
5. Special Priority (1 year)
• Hold a special Board meeting in the fall, 2004, to discuss and evaluate Federal/
State/local student success measures and determine progress and modifications for
continued student achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

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 Orchard Field Unified School District

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

How effective schools use data to improve student achievement

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

PDF

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

PDF

A case study of social promotion and retention policies, strategies, and programs

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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 an elementary school in the Beach Promenade Unified School District

PDF

A case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high -achieving urban elementary school

Asset Metadata

Creator Dragos, Damon O. (author)

Core Title Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Los Coyotes High 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), Buchanan, Thomas (committee member), Gothold, Stuart (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-381117

Unique identifier UC11340904

Identifier 3180460.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-381117 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3180460.pdf

Dmrecord 381117

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Dragos, Damon O.

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