University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF CONTENT STANDARDS IN
SELECTED UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF CALIFORNIA
by
Joel B. Carter
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2006
Copyright 2006 Joel B. Carter
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3236484
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 3236484
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
To my best friend, Maureen. You have brought meaning to my life. And to
Dr. William B. Michael, a true gentleman and mentor. You will be missed by the
students who were fortunate to have known you as a friend, teacher, mentor, and
colleague.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
iii
First, I am deeply indebted to Dr. Hocevar who graciously stepped in as my
Dissertation Chair after the passing of Dr. Michael and who provided valuable
support, feedback, and understanding.
Second, I am indebted to committee member and mentor Dr. Stuart Gothold,
who served as my cohort adviser, for his continued support even though a majority
of our cohort have been awarded their Ed.D.; and to committee member Dr.
Lawrence Picus, whose support and feedback are greatly appreciated.
Third, I thank my friends and brothers Dr. Thomas Brown and Dr. Doug
Sears, whose on-going support and friendship during the dissertation journey kept
me going.
Fourth, I thank my editor, Dr. Bear and Typist Sue dam age and Sarah York
for preparing this dissertation for print.
Fifth, I thank my babies, Daquiri, Jake, Mooshi B, Storm, Soni, Mei M ei,
Baretta, and Booker who kept me company while maneuvering through the
coursework requirements and preparing for and writing the dissertation.
Sixth, finally, to the one person in my life who I will be eternally grateful to
and who constantly reminds me that I adore her, m y wife Maureen. I adore you and
I always will.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Background 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 6
Importance of the Study 7
Research Questions 7
Overview of the Methodology 8
Methodological Assumptions 11
Delimitations of the Study 11
Limitations of the Study 12
Organization of the Remainder of the Study 12
2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 13
Historical Perspective of Standards-Based
Reform at the Federal Level 13
A Multi-State Perspective 17
Standards-Based Reform in California 21
Standards-Based Reform at the District Level 24
District Implementation of Standards-Based
Reform Through Professional Development 32
Summary 35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
CHAPTER
3 METHODOLOGY 37
Research Design 37
The Sample 37
Development of the Survey Instrument 39
Pilot Study 40
Data Collection 41
Data Analysis 43
Summary 44
4 RESULTS 45
District and Respondent Characteristics 45
Findings Related to Research Questions 49
Research Question 1 49
Research Question 2 51
Research Question 3 56
Research Question 4 60
Additional Findings: Administrators’ Comments 69
5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS 72
Summary 72
Purpose of the Study 72
Research Questions 72
Overview of the Methodology 73
Selected Findings 75
Discussion and Conclusions 76
Recommendations for Further Research 77
REFERENCES 79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDICES 83
A LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENT OF
EDUCATION 84
B PERMISSION TO DISTRIBUTE FORM 85
C LETTER TO DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS 86
D INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH FOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS 87
E SURVEY INSTRUMENT 89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8 .
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Years Served in Current Position. 46
Current District Enrollment. 47
District Location. 48
Participation in State/District Educational
Reform Efforts. 49
Extent to Which State Standards Influence Educational
Programs. 50
Types of Standards-Based Models of Implementation. 53
District Adopted Academic Content Standards
Before State Content Standards. 54
How Long Current Standards-Based Educational
Process Has Been in Place in Districts. 55
Levels of Cooperation and Collaboration in
Implementing Educational Reforms. 57
Levels of Participation in Implementing Educational
Reforms. 59
Addressing Student Achievement Prior to Standards-
Based Educational Reform. 60
Addressing Student Achievement After Standards-
Based Education Reform. 61
Time Spent on State or District Standards
Implementation in 2000-2001. 62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
TABLE
14. Time Spent on State or District Standards
Implementation in 2001-2002.
15. Time Spent on State or District Standards
Implementation in 2002-2003.
16. Potential Advantages and Benefits of Standards-Based
Educational Reform.
17. Potential Drawbacks or Disadvantages of
Standards-Based Educational Reform.
18. Overall Satisfaction with Standards-Based Educational
Reform Efforts to Improve Student Achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
ix
Standards-based education has been and continues to be the driving force
behind public education in the United States as it relates to the No Child Left
Behind(NCLB) Act of 2001. NCLB represents significant change in federal
education policy based upon four basic principles: (1) increased accountability for
states, school districts and schools; (2) expanded options for parents, particularly
those with children attending low-performing schools; (3) increased flexibility for
states and districts in the use of federal education dollars; and (4) emphasis on
teaching methods that have been proven to work. Standards-based education and the
requirements of NCLB has resulted in states, local school districts and their school to
review and revise past practices related to student achievement.
The purpose of the study was to obtain data to determine district-wide efforts
to implement and sustain standards-based reform in the areas of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment at the district and the school level based upon
perceptions of central office administrators. The collected data will provide a basis
for evaluating standards-based reform and its effectiveness as perceived by district
level office personnel in charge of implementing and sustaining standards-based
education at the school level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an introduction to and overview of the dissertation.
The chapter begins with the background of the problem, followed by the statement of
the problem, purpose of the study, importance of the study, research questions,
overview of the methodology, methodological assumptions, delimitations, and
limitations. The chapter concludes with the organization of the remainder of the
study.
Background
Improving America’s School Act (I AS A) required states to set high academic
content and performance standards for all students. One major element of the law is
the section that requires “standards-based” accountability for local school districts
and schools receiving Title I (previously Chapter I) funds (EdSource, 2001). To
implement standards-based accountability, the California State Department of
Education (CDE) developed statewide standards in the content areas of
English/Language Arts, Mathematics, History/Social Science, and Science. In 1998,
California mandated that students participate in a state developed assessment system
that established an accountability system for local school districts and schools in
California (EdSource, 2001).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In January 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB), the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). According to the California School Boards Association
(2002), this new law represents significant change in federal education policy based
upon four basic principles: (1) increased accountability for states, school districts
and schools; (2) expanded options for parents, particularly those with children
attending low-performing schools; (3) increased flexibility for states and districts in
the use of federal education dollars; and (4) an emphasis on teaching methods that
has been proven to work.
This legislation at the federal level revised IAS A and will affect the lives of
many children and educators. Provisions from NCLB deal concern formulas for
defining failing schools, block grants, which may result in funding shifts for existing
state and district programs, changes at the state level concerning bilingual programs,
changes in funding for special education programs, and the use of outside tests to
verify the validity of state assessments. NCLB also will affect accountability. States
are required to determine the types of annual reading and math tests that districts and
schools will use to determine student progress. In addition, states and districts must
ensure that all students score at a state-defined “proficient” level that will determine
district interventions for failing schools and other remedial measures. For example,
states may receive more flexibility in implementing funding for teacher programs,
and states and districts will receive funding to establish research based reading
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
programs, as well as competitive grants for special programs in high poverty areas
(California School Board Association, 2002).
For students to meet the requirements that are stipulated in NCLB, local
school districts must provide the necessary support and training, through the revision
of district policies related to NCLB, and provide support for school-based personnel.
School districts are critical agents in the function and operation of public schools
and, as such, are directly involved in creating local teacher policies controlling
recruitment, hiring, compensation, assignment, professional development, and
evaluation and supervision. In addition, school districts influence instruction
through policies directing curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Finally, they are
in charge of the physical plant, busing and feeding of students, and the allocation of
funds to schools and programs. According to Spillane (2001), in addition to creating
their own local policies, districts translate and enact policies stemming from state
and federal governments. In reality, school districts are directly involved in nearly
all aspects of education in public schools.
Despite playing a critical role in the operation of the local school, according
to Galvan (2000), “one striking feature of the reform literature from the past 20 years
is the absence of references, with few exceptions, to the school district” (45). In
addition, Fullan (1992) stated that research is especially limited in regard to the role
played by district administrators other than the superintendent. Goertz (2000) stated
that less attention has been paid to the role of districts and schools in terms of
monitoring policy, practice, and student achievement. Goertz added that the district
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
has become almost invisible in recent literature on school reform, and both federal
and state legislation focus on schools as the most important unit in the change
process.
In the research on school reform, although there is a lack of an emphasis on
the school district and the personnel who work in these districts, according there is a
general perception that school district organization and bureaucracy have not only
failed to improve the quality of education, but have actually contributed to the
problems associated with low-performing schools (Galvan, 2000). Huberman and
Miles (1984) stated that change-bearing innovations live or die by the amount and
quality of assistance that their users receive once the change process is under way.
Massell (2000) asserted that districts remain the legal and fiscal agents that oversee
and guide schools. Massell further stated that in many ways, districts are the major
source of capacity building for schools — structuring, providing, and controlling
access to professional development, curriculum, and instruction ideas.
Clearly, school districts play an important role in developing, designing, and
implementing school reform. McGlaughlin and Marsh (1978) stated teachers gauged
how seriously to take a special project based on the attitudes of the district
administration regarding a planned change effort. Fullen (1992) asserted that the
district administrator is the single most important individual for setting the
expectations for and the tone of change within a local district and that the role of the
district is critical for establishing the conditions for continuous improvement.
Overall, the district must focus on instruction, teaching, and learning, create the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
conditions at the classroom and school level for collaborative teacher and principal
professionalism, mobilize parents and communities, and use district resources to
hire, promote and support the right people and to orchestrate the pressure and
support necessary for continuous classroom and school improvement. Districts, by
helping schools select and implement effective practice, also help them overcome
one of the greatest problems they face — the fragmentation, overload, and
incoherence resulting from uncritical and uncoordinated acceptance of too many
innovations (Fullan, 1992).
Bodily (1998) found that schools with higher levels of implementation of
standards-based reform were located in districts that supported their efforts through
professional development and resource allocation, trusted the schools, provided a
certain level of school autonomy, had assessment systems that were compatible with
the reform design, and had leaders who consistently supported their efforts and were
not sidetracked by political crisis. Further, despite the emphasis on schools as the
most important unit in the change process, districts continue to play a large role in
the life of public schools, acting as gatekeepers for accountability policies by
translating, interpreting, supporting, or blocking action on their behalf (Massell,
2000). Given the critical and fundamental role of the school district, it is necessary
to understand how school districts are supporting schools in their efforts to
implement and sustain standards-based reform, which is the focus of this
dissertation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
Statement of the Problem
The State Board of Education in California adopted a set of content standards
to measure student learning in the areas of English/Language Arts, Mathematics,
History/Social Science, and Science. The state defines its expectations through
levels of student performance through the implementation of standardized
assessments and, with these standards in place, a layer of accountability, on an
annual basis, was added. The challenge school districts face is their ability to
implement and sustain a systemic process of revising and realigning past practices to
meet the requirements of standards-based reform, as required by state and federal
legislation.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to obtain data to determine district-wide efforts
to implement and sustain standards-based reform in the areas of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment at the district and the school levels, based upon
perceptions of central office administrators. The collected data provide a basis for
evaluating standards-based reform and its effectiveness, as perceived by district level
office personnel in charge of implementing and sustaining standards-based education
at the school level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
Importance of the Study
Implications for the implementation of an educational system that is based on
standards are far reaching. Standards are built on the premise that all students will
be expected to meet or exceed the standards. Assessing students using multiple
measures to determine whether students have met those standards is a key
component of California’s efforts to improve student achievement (EdSource, 2001).
For all students in the state of California to meet the expectations of the
content standards, it is essential that school districts provide a standards-aligned
curriculum, use instructional practices that support the attainment of the standards,
have going multiple assessment measures, and design professional development
opportunities to serve as the foundation of standards-based reform. Due to the direct
involvement of the state of California in determining the program needs of students
and the training needs of educators, it is even more essential that school district and
central office personnel develop clear expectations for standards-based reform.
Research Questions
The study investigated whether there are differences in the perceptions of
superintendents, superintendents of instruction, and other district level administrators
involved in standards-based reform as set forth in the following research questions:
1. To what extent do state standards influence educational programs in California
school districts, with reference to implementation strategies and modes of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
implementation, as perceived by district level personnel (superintendents of
schools, assistant superintendents, directors, and coordinators)?
2. What types of standards-based reform implementation processes are being used
in California school districts?
3. In what ways have individual schools districts worked together to support
standards-based education, involving cooperative, collaborative, and
participatory activities?
4. How are educational practices perceived by district level personnel
(superintends of schools, assistant superintendents, directors, and coordinators)
to have changed in the district as a result of standards implementation?
Overview of the Methodology
The study used a quantitative methodology that involved a survey format.
The California Public School Directory, 2002 (California Department of Education,
2002) was used to identify unified school districts from each county in the state of
California The number of districts selected was based on having a representative
sample of unified school districts. Additionally, the number of unified school
districts found in each county and student population in the largest unified school
determined final selection. Unified school districts were selected because such
districts have the potential for increased articulation between all educational levels
(elementary, middle, and high) and because the kindergarten through grade 12
organizational structure has the potential for creating a seamless standards-based
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
educational reform program. This selection process provided a comprehensive view
of standards-based offerings at various levels in the school districts and helped to
determine the effect of such offerings on classroom practices throughout each level
within the district.
A purposeful sampling process was used to allow for the selection of cases
that were likely to be information rich with respect to purpose of the study, and a
maximum variation sampling process was used to illustrate the range of variation in
the phenomenon studied (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). Gall et al. (1996) stated that
this strategy serves three purposes: to document the range of variation in various
projects and to determine whether common themes, patterns, and outcomes cut
across the variation and to select districts that vary widely in size and community.
An Introduction Letter to the Superintendent (See Appendix A), Permission
to Distribute Form (See Appendix B), Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research
(See Appendix D), and Survey Instrument (See Appendix E) were sent to the
superintendents of schools of each selected unified school district. The Permission
to Distribute Form asked the superintendent to identify and list district level
administrators who were involved in implementing and sustaining standards-based
reform at the district and school level. The final number of district based personnel
surveyed was based upon the information provided by each o f the superintendents.
The Survey Instrument contained questions related to demographics and the
four research questions. The survey was sent via mail to each of the selected
superintendents and followed up with a phone call and an e-mail to ascertain whether
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
the survey had been received. Additional contact was made by telephone and e-mail,
as needed, to obtain an adequate return rate for the survey.
To ensure the quality of the survey, a field test was conducted within the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the Los Angles County Office of
Education (LACOE) prior to statewide distribution. The survey was sent to district
level personnel involved in standard- based reform from central offices and from
each of the 11 local districts in Los Angeles. The information sent included a copy
of the survey, with additional space for each participant to critique each section of
the questionnaire. Additionally, the survey was sent to county office personnel from
LACOE to obtain additional feedback prior to final distribution. According to Gall
et al. (1996), researchers should carry out a thorough pretest of a questionnaire. The
pretest should include a sample of individuals from the population from which the
researcher plans to draw respondents and should provide space for respondents to
include criticisms and recommendations for improving the questionnaire.
Additionally, Schumacher and McMillan (1993) noted that pre-testing allows the
researcher to determine whether the questionnaire takes too long to complete and
whether the directions and items are clear.
Data analysis involved identification of common themes, based on the
responses to the open-ended questions. Research data from the questionnaire were
used to answer the research questions posed in the study and were made available to
interested respondents. The data from the returned questionnaires were prepared for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
computerized data processing using the Statistical Program for the Social Sciences
(SPSS).
Methodological Assumptions
The study had at least three methodological assumptions. The first
assumption is that the respondents are representative of school districts in the state of
California, including rural, suburban, and urban. The second assumption is that the
respondents to answered the questions honestly and completely. The third
assumption is that district level administrators were able to express their perceptions
relating to district level standards-based programs.
Delimitations of the Study
The study had at least four delimitations. The first delimitation was that only
district level administrators who were involved in standards-based reform completed
the questionnaire. The second delimitation was that perceptions of other district
level administrators, site-based administrators, teachers, parents, and students were
not collected. The third delimitation was that the study was restricted to unified
school district that included superintendents and other administrators involved in
standards-based programs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
Limitations of the Study
The study has one major limitation. The school districts for this study were
selected from a relatively small sample of school districts within California and, as
such, the findings may only be generalized to school districts with similar
circumstances related to district organization (unified).
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
The remainder of the study is organized as follows: Chapter 2 is a review of
the relevant literature; Chapter 3, the methodology, includes a description of the
sample, measuring instruments, and the procedures used in the obtaining and
processing the data; Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study; and Chapter 5
contains of a summary of the findings, the conclusion, and recommendations for
future research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter presents the literature on the educational significance of
implementing and sustaining educational reform as it relates to content standards and
their effect on public schools in California. The literature review begins with an
historical perspective of standards-based reform at the federal level, followed by the
literature on standards-based reform from a multi state perspective, standards-based
reform in California, and standards-based reform at the district level, and district
implementation of standards-based reform through professional development. The
chapter concludes with a summary.
Historical Perspective of Standards-Based Reform at the Federal Level
According to EdSource (2001), 1983 is the starting point for the standards-
based reform movement. That year, a national task force issued A Nation at Risk, a
report that warned against the mediocrity of public education and called for dramatic
improvement in student learning. Others would argue that the current wave of
concern and reform began in the mid-1960s as part of the Great Society, when
Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (Solomon, 1998).
According to Solomon, this was the first major federal allocation of funds for the
purpose of improving education. This funding encouraged innovation of new
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
resources and made provisions for the disadvantaged in the Title I program (later
Chapter 1).
Although, historically, the role of education in the United States has been one
of local and state control, during the 1980s, political initiatives focused on the
development of national education policy. The increased the influence of the federal
government on all states involved with the development of content and performance
standards. Many states, including California, have moved quickly towards
standards-based reform in reaction to the political climate at the federal level and to
what was happening in other states. At the state level, the push for change was
mounting due to pressure from state political leaders, business communities,
professional associations, universities, and school districts (Odden, 1995).
In 1989, President George Bush and the nation’s governors at the National
Education Summit at Charlotte, Virginia agreed to a set of national goals for
education. Federal support of content standards began with a strong bipartisan
agreement between the Governors and the President. The agreement called for
content standards to be established at the national level, with assistance from the
federal government, and was an essential first step to improving the public education
(Education Week, 1995). This effort by the President and the Governors led to
subsequent legislation in Congress that was passed by the House o f Representatives,
but was blocked in the Senate by Senator Helms and five other Republicans
(Ambach, 1995).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
In 1991, President Bush again attempted to advance another legislative
program, America 2000, which called for establishing the National Education Goals
Panel. America 2000 also supported the development of standards and assessments,
provided flexibility and deregulation in federal education programs, and supported
$1 million in one-time grants to public and private schools. Again, legislation failed
in Congress due to lack of support for changes made in the Democratic controlled
Congress by President Bush.
The catalyst for policy change for standards-based reform at the national
level was a direct result of federal legislation during the Clinton Administration,
namely Goals 2000 [Educate America Act (1994), and the Improving America’s Act
(1994)], which renewed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965 and provided for the reauthorization of Title I. The new guidelines for Title I
stipulated that states receiving funding for targeted students in high poverty areas
would be required to participate in academic programs that would enable students to
meet state content and performance standards. States receiving Title I funds were
required to submit a plan demonstrating that the states would draft and implement
rigorous and challenging content and performance standards for all students by the
beginning of the 1997-1998 school year. Hannaway and Kimball (1997) indicated
that ESEA also introduced new accountability provisions, requiring states to develop
high content and performance standards for students in federal programs and an
assessment system that tracks the progress of students in federal programs, which
should be the same as the system used by states. This federal requirement
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
demonstrated the continued federal influence over state policies related to standards
development and implementation.
Ravitch’s (1993) Goals 2000 encouraged states to improve educational
standards by providing funds for states to develop academic content and performance
standards as a means then assess whether students meet these standards. The
objectives were as follows:
1. All children will start school ready to learn.
2. The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90%.
3. Students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency in
challenging subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, history,
and geography, and every school will ensure that all students be prepared for
responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our
modem economy.
4. U.S. students will be the first in the world in science and mathematics
achievement.
5. Every adult will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary
to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of
citizenship.
6. Every school w ill be free o f drugs and violence and w ill offer a disciplined
environment conducive to learning
According to Ravitch (1993), The America 2000 plan had three fundamental
objectives:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
1. To encourage every community to adopt national goals, develop its own
strategy, and prepare an annual community report card on its progress towards
the goals.
2. To stimulate the creation of thousands of “break-the-mold-schools” that would
approach education in totally new ways to meet the needs of today’s children
and families.
3. To develop voluntary “world class” standards and American Achievement
Tests.
In addition, President Clinton, in the 1997 State of the Union Address, made
it clear that education was his number one priority. Included in the address was a
ten-point plan calling for action for American education in the 21st century. The call
to action enlisted parents, teacher, students, business leaders, and local and state
officials in the effort to improve public education (Clinton, 1997).
In January 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB), the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). According to the California School Boards Association
(2002), this new law represents significant change in federal education policy based
upon four basic principles.
A Multi-State Perspective
Since the introduction of Educate America Act: Goals 2000, there has been a
focus on content, performance, and opportunity to learn standards from across the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
nation. Gandal (1996) reported the following findings concerning the quality and
level of effort initiated by selected states setting content standards:
1. Every state except Iowa is engaged in developing academic standards. Iowa
has not set standards, opting for standards to be set by local districts and
schools.
2. Thirteen states have standards that are clear and specific enough to form the
basis of core curriculum. The states with the clearest standards are California,
Colorado, Georgia, and Virginia.
3. Thirty-one states have or will have student assessments linked to standards, but
many of these standards are too vague.
4. Seven states have taken steps to evaluate their standards against those of other
countries with high achieving students.
Olson (2001) reported the following findings concerning the quality and level
of effort initiated by selected states:
1. Forty-nine states had academic standards in at least some subject areas.
2. Fifty states tested how their students are learning.
3. Forty-five states published annual report cards on individual schools.
4. Twenty-seven held schools accountable for results, either by rating the
performance o f all school or by identifying low-performing ones.
5. Eighteen required students to pass state tests to graduate.
6. Some states judged schools by test scores over time, while others held all
schools to the same absolute standard.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
7. Fourteen states have given their education departments the power to close,
takeover, or overhaul chronically low-performing schools.
8. Twenty states provided monetary rewards for individual schools based on
performance.
9. Six states offered student incentives in the form of scholarships.
10. Only one state evaluated individual teachers in part on the ratings their schools
received, while two states were planning to use student achievement data to
evaluate teachers in the future.
On a statewide basis, Kentucky was one of the first states to mount a
standards-based educational reform effort, with the passage of the Kentucky
Educational Reform Act (KERA) in 1990 (Borko, Elliot, & Uchiyama, 1999).
KERA was designed to change the state’s entire educational system. It addressed
curriculum frameworks, performance based assessments aligned with those
frameworks, school-based decision making, and ungraded primary programs, as well
as provisions for reform in governance and finance (Borko et al., 1999). Kentucky
trained a large cadre of teachers in standards-based curriculum and assessment as a
means to pilot the state’s curriculum frameworks and develop related lessons,
assessments, and scoring rubrics (Massell, 1998).
Minnesota developed high content standards and assessments that provided
local school districts with the means to interpret and align the standards to its
curriculum, tied state education funding to school performance, and created a
statewide testing and reporting system aligned with Title I requirements (Ingram &
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
Colby, 1998). According to Ingram and Colby, the Minnesota system also required
the development of teacher capacity because teachers were required to do things that
had not been previously done, including teach and assess different skills that are
embedded in the standards, develop instruction aligned to the standards, and modify
instruction as needed to prepare each student for success on the assessments.
Oregon approved its Oregon Education Act for the 21st Century in 1991 and
modified it in 1995 to focus on standards (Oregon Governor’s Office, 1997). The
Oregon Education Act provided a new curriculum framework and required statewide
assessment of content standard for the Certificate of Initial and Advanced Mastery
(Oregon Governor’s Office, 1997). According to the Oregon Governor’s Office
(1997), the implementation of statewide legislative mandates for a standards-based
system required changes in virtually everything from teaching strategies to the
assessment of students’ academic achievement. In addition, Oregon required
comprehensive professional development, as well as retooled facilities, additional
technology, appropriate types of classroom space, and better communication,
understanding, and teamwork among school staff, parents, employers, and the
community.
Due to pressure from political leaders, business leaders, professional
associations, universities, and school districts, other states from the across the nation
also have been involved in standards-based reform since Goals 2000. The support of
and pressure from these interest groups and policymakers continue to be a crucial
influence on the continuation of standards-based educational reform.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
Approaches to balancing those pressures with providing policymakers,
educators, and business and local communities a hand in standards-based reform
have differed significantly across various states. Some states place a greater
emphasis on grassroots involvement and some stress professional participation,
while others rely on a blend of strategies at different stages of the process.
California, in particular, has seen its efforts to align its public education system to
standards influenced by many of the pressures that other states have faced.
Standards-Based Reform in California
In California, the movement to develop concise academic content standard in
core curricular areas grew out of the comprehensive and bipartisan support of
Assembly Bill 265. The bipartisan group, known as the Commission for the
Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards, was responsible for
the task of carrying out the mandates of AB 265 and was represented by policy
makers, educators, and business leaders. The bill specially called for the
development and implementation of a statewide assessment program and the
development of challenging, concisely articulated, and rigorous content and
performance standards in the curricular areas of reading, writing, mathematics,
science, and history/social science (Wright, 1997).
A key component of this legislation made participation in state funded
assessments process mandatory, even though state K-12 academic content standards
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
could be voluntary adopted by school districts. The final development and adoption
of state content standards was completed fall 1998 (EdSource, 2001).
Other state initiatives included Senate Bill (SB) 376, which created the
Standardized Testing and Reporting Program that called for the immediate adoption
of a commercially produced, off-the-shelf, nationally normed basic skills test that all
public school students in grade 2-11 would take. The senate bill also called for the
creation of a second assessment that would align with the academic standards
(EdSource, 2001).
Further state initiatives included increased funding for the Beginning Teacher
Support and Assessment (BTSA) program, developing and adopting California
Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). The initiative recommended that any
candidate recommended for a teaching credential demonstrate a satisfactory ability
to help students achieve the state’s academic and performance standards. The
initiative also recommended the elimination of school district-run professional
development days within the school year. Finally, an accountability measure was
developed and later vetoed by the governor (EdSource, 2001).
The gubernatorial election of 1998 led to additional state reform initiatives
for education (EdSource, 2001). The Public Schools Accountability Act (PSSA) of
1999, or SB lx , contained the following components:
1. The Academic Performance Index (API) provided each school with a single
number score based on multiple measures of performance (at the time of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
inception only one measure existed, the Stanford 9), including at least 60% test
scores and 40% other measures, with an annual growth target for improvement.
2. The High Performance/Improving School Program awarded monetary bonuses
to schools and staff for meeting or exceeding API growth targets.
3. The Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program established an
intervention program for schools that do not meet growth targets.
In addition to enacted state legislation in regard to standards-based education
reform were the state requirements set forth in NCLB. Components of NCLB
interacted with virtually every area of California education policy. Further, to
qualify for federal funding under NCLB, the state must meet certain requirements
and follow certain procedures (EdSource, 2001).
In January and February 2003, California submitted to the federal
government the state’s plan to meet NCLB requirements (EdSource, 2001). NCLB
requirements affected five areas: standards, assessment, accountability, teacher
quality, and choice.
For all students in the state of California to meet the expectations of the
content standards, it is essential that school districts provide plan that includes clear
expectations supported by curriculum materials, instructional practices, multiple
assessments, and professional development. Due to the direct involvem ent o f the
state of California and federal government in determining program needs for students
and the training needs of educators, it is even more essential that school district
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
develop a clear vision for standards-based reform that addresses the educational
needs of the students it serves.
Standards-Based Reform at the District Level
School districts are critical agents in the function and operation of public
schools. According to Massell and Goertz (2000), school districts act as gatekeepers
for federal and state policy by translating, interpreting, supporting, or blocking
actions on their schools’ behalf.
Despite playing a central role in the operation of the local school, Galvan
(2000) stated that one striking feature of the reform literature from the past 20 years
is the absence of references, with few exceptions, to the school district. In addition,
Fullan (1992) further stated that research is especially limited on the role played by
the district administrators other than the superintendent. Goertz (2000) additionally
stated that less attention has been paid to the role of districts and schools in
monitoring policy, practice, and student achievement, the district has become almost
invisible in recent literature on school reform, and both federal and state legislation
focuses on schools as the most important unit in the change process.
Although there is a lack of emphasis on the school district in the research
about school reform, according to Galvan (2000), there is a general perception that
school district organization and bureaucracy have not only failed to improve the
quality of education, but have actually contributed to the problems associated with
low-performing schools. Huberman and Miles (1984) stated that change-bearing
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
innovations live or die by the amount and quality of assistance that their users
receive once the change process is under way. The RAND Corporation Change
Agent Study found that district efforts to provide professional learning related to
ongoing classroom and staff development activities, undertaken in isolation from
teachers’ day to day responsibilities, seldom had much impact (McLaughlin &
Marsh, 1976)
Clearly, school districts play an important role in developing, designing, and
implementing school reform. McGlaughlin and Marsh (1978) stated teachers gauged
how seriously to take a special project based on the attitudes of the district
administration regarding a planned change effort. Fullen (1992) asserted that school
districts, by helping schools select and implement effective practice, also help them
overcome one of the greatest problems they face — the fragmentation, overload, and
incoherence resulting from uncritical and uncoordinated acceptance of too many
innovations.
Bodily (1998) found that schools with higher levels of implementation of
standards-based reform were located in districts that supported their efforts through
professional development and resource allocation, trusted the schools, provided a
certain level of school autonomy, had assessment systems that were compatible with
the reform design, and had leaders who consistently supported their efforts and were
not sidetracked by political crisis. Massell and Goertz (2000) indicated that, despite
the emphasis on schools as the most important unit in the change process, districts
have continued to play a large role in the life of public schools in terms of acting as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
gatekeepers for accountability policies by translating, interpreting, supporting, or
blocking action on their behalf.
Standards-based reform at the local district level has major implications for
school districts in California. The RAND Change Agent Study (McGlaughlin &
Marsh, 1976) reviewed four types of project planning and implementation, including
top-down, grass roots, unplanning, and collaborative, with various results
(McGlaughlin & Marsh, 1978). The RAND study found that the most effective
method for implementation was the collaborative planning strategy. This involved
all participants in the process and was most successful in both the short term and
long run in regard to the success of a planned change effort. Other strategies,
including top-down, grass roots, and unplanning, often resulted in failure because
teachers or district staff were not involved in the development of the program or the
needs of individual schools, classrooms, and teachers were not taken into
consideration as crucial part of the planning process (McGlaughlin & Marsh, 1978).
Cohen and Hickman (1998), in their five-year study of standards-based reform
implementation, found three models of implementation:
1. Districts were unable to sustain the implementation beyond the first year due to
the presence of conditions that created a serious gap between particular
curriculum program features and the local conditions or district.
2. District implementation was sustained over time, but remained at the level of
mechanical implementation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
3. District implementation was sustained though a benign central office. All that
stands between continuation and abandonment is a leader. The climate in these
districts is a mix of anxiety, frustration, elation, and action, all of which suggest
a deep engagement with and commitment to the implementation process. It is
reasonable to call this model dynamic.
Applebaum and Schwartzbeck (2002) indicated that it is critical for districts
and schools engaged in comprehensive school reform to develop a district-wide or
school-wide strategy. They stated that there are two different implementation
models. The first is a process model that focuses more on the processes of the
school, such as how teachers interact. The second are content or prescriptive models
that come with a specific curriculum and a plan for what teaching and learning in a
school should look like.
The Council for Basic Education (CBE; 2000) stated that there are barriers
that prevent full fledged implementation and may cause different districts to fall
within one of the implementation models for standards-driven reform. According to
CBE, these barriers are:
1. High-stakes, state level standardized tests that are being implemented in many
states to measure student achievement of the standards. It is wise to have
assessments that are linked to standards, rather than holding students
accountable for achievement on some off-the-shelf, norm referenced test that
has little to do with standards. Another challenge is ensuring that students have
been adequately taught the material on which the district/state is testing them.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
2. Lack of a coherent professional development to give teachers the capacity to
teach to new higher standards. Many states admit that they have not been able
to provide the resources their teaching staffs need to provide adequate learning
opportunities for their students.
3. Equity or how do we ensure that all students can meet these high standards?
The concern here is the resources that certain groups of children are less likely
to have, including a qualified teacher, adequate materials, and extra help. This
is worrisome to those who envisioned standards as a way to get past the
excuses that are made for our poor and minority children receiving a sub-par
educational experience.
In regard to barriers, Elmore (2000) asserted that public schools, as they
presently exist, are simply not led in ways that enable them to respond to the
increasing demands that they face under standards-based reform. Further, if schools,
school systems, and their leaders respond to standards-based reform the way they
have responded to other attempts at broad scale reform of public education over the
past century, they will fail massively and visibly, with an attendant loss of public
confidence and serious consequences for public education.
Eisner (1993) provided additional criticism of the standards movement, based
on its emphasis on content standards and that it w ill not provide a cure-all for
education. However, researchers such as Cohen and Hickman and Philips indicated
that standards can help to focus the curriculum on what is important, raise
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
achievement by making expectations clear to students, and provide a common
language for talking about teaching and learning.
Cohen and Hickman (1998) stated that selecting and implementing standards-
based reform is an intensive learning experience for district staff. The experience
requires extensive support, counseling, and coaching to assist in problem solving and
the strategizing needed to overcome the obstacles to success. In addition, these
researchers stated that district administrators who commit funds, staff, and support
for materials management make it possible for teachers to concentrate on using
materials with students and remove significant barriers to implementing materials-
based curriculum programs. School districts in which administrators provide funds
for ongoing professional development, substitutes for classroom teachers to
participate in learning experience related to the implementation, and stipends for
additional time for both planning and training contribute significantly to teachers’
morale and commitment to sustain the implementation. Further, school districts that
implement standards-based reform in the areas of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment show that the same level of commitment will ultimately see positive
results at the school level.
Phillips (2000) provided further support for the idea of commitment to
standards-based reform. Philips, a Superintendent of Schools in Lancaster
Pennsylvania, found that teachers were reluctant to embrace standards-based
assessments and accountability if they did not believe that they would be given the
support to do what was being asked of them and their students. He added that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
commitment to reform at the district level sends a clear message to teachers in regard
to commitment to reform at all levels of the school system and that previous reforms
in Lancaster never reached as deep as educators must now reach to bring about
lasting change in public education. Philips recommends:
1. Providing professional development that is teacher-centered and school-based.
This includes full-time instructional facilitators in each school and a
partnership with Education Trust. Using Education Trust’s Standards in
Practice model, teachers are trained to analyze their lessons and units in light of
the work that is produced by students. Instructional facilitators provide onsite
coaching and feedback for teachers and serve as a crucial communications link
across the district.
2. Designing content institutes and helping schools use standards as the basis for
selecting curriculum materials and instructional strategies.
3. Creating teacher-led networks in which participants can continuously enhance
their knowledge base, share standards-based instructional practices, and raise
and resolve problems.
4. Developing and providing access to reliable ways to measure and track student
progress and assisting teachers to enhance their knowledge and use of those
tools.
5. Turning a relatively traditional Office of Curriculum Support into a flexible,
service orientated Office of Teaching and Learning.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Schmoker (1999) believes that the primary responsibility for ensuring
effective, ongoing instructional implementation dialogue is the responsibility of
district leadership and stated that it is the responsibility of district administration to
coordinate the optimal use of funding and time, including summer and intersession
breaks, towards continuous learning and improvement. Schmoker further stated that
district staff must ensure that staff development, follow-up, school improvement
planning, and the effective use of early release time are not left to chance, but are
strategically planned to promote better results.
To move towards a standards-based educational system at the district level, it
is critical to find ways in which teachers are trained and supported over time.
According to McLaughlin and Shepard (1995), accomplishing significant change
will not happen simply by adding new techniques to teachers’ current ideas about
teaching and learning. More and different opportunities are needed for teachers and
administrators to learn the skills and perspectives fundamental to the success of
standards-based reform.
CBE (2000) stated that there is a great need for improving educator capacity
through professional development — the kind that emphasized what McLaughlin
and Marsh had identified in their research on professional development. They found
that the attitudes of district administrator about a planned change effort served as a
signal to teachers as to how seriously they should take a special project. In the
absence of explicit district support for their efforts, many teachers indicated that it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
was not in their professional self-interest and was unlikely to make a difference in
the long run.
The attitude of teachers in regard to district support has major implications
for school district personnel. If reform in professional development is to take place,
it is essential that it be incorporated into school district’s strategic plan for school
improvement. Fullan (1993) believes that “top down” and “bottom up” strategies are
necessary for reform to work. It is a mistake for local units, even operating under a
decentralized scheme, to ignore the center, and school and district development must
be coordinated to implement reform.
District Implementation of Standards-Based Reform
Through Professional Development
McLaughlin and Marsh (1978) concluded that teacher training and staff
development is an area of major concern for education. Professional development
and the training of teachers continue to follow a pattern of providing information that
is not related to classroom activities or to day-to-day instructional activities. They
further indicated that often, staff development is presented through a one-shot
presentation by guest speakers or staff development personnel, without direct links
or usefulness for the classroom teacher. Professional development or district
projects were planned and developed without the knowledge and consent of the
teachers in the schools or the staff development providers had not visited the school
prior to the training. Lieberman and Miller (1999) stated that professional
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
development is delivered in episodic fashion, as if a teacher could take what he or
she hears in a short workshop or two and go back to the classroom and implement it.
Sparks and Hirsh (1997) believe that, too often, the central office and school
site administrators have expected dramatic changes in schools based solely on staff
development programs intended to help individual teachers and administrators do
their jobs more effectively. They feel that school improvement too often has been
based on fads, rather than on a clear, compelling vision of the school’s systems
future. They felt that this approach has led to one-shot staff development workshops,
with no thought given to follow up or how a technique fits in with those that were
taught in previous years.
Lieberman and Miller (1999) believe that current professional development
practices are ineffective in promoting change. They stated that conventional in-
service is not sufficient for the task of providing support for teachers involved in the
change process and added that professional development is based upon a deficit
model that assumes that teaching is technical work, professional development can be
packaged, and teachers are the passive recipients of someone else’s knowledge.
The movement towards standards-based accountability means that current
practices in professional development need to be reassessed. In this regard,
Lieberman and Miller (1999) stated that education needs another model of
professional development, one that is based on the idea of growth in practice.
Growth in practice assumes that teaching is intellectual work and that professional
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
development occurs when teachers have the opportunity to learn from theory and
practice as part of their job.
According to Sparks and Hirsh (1997), district provided professional
development needs to shift away from a district focus to a focus on school and
children, driven by a clear, coherent strategic plan for the school district, each
school, and each teacher. This shift would require the school district and the schools
to develop a clear mission statement, along with measurable objectives expressed in
student outcomes, to guide the type of professional development activities that would
best serve district and school goals. This shift has major implications for school
districts because it would require district offices to become service providers for the
schools.
Odden and Kelley (1997) stated that good execution of these goals at the
school level depends on individuals, mainly teachers. They believe that teachers
need to understand that students must be educated to much higher levels and that
teachers must determine how best to organize the jobs of teaching and the condition
of learning in their school. As a result, the overall standards-based education reform
strategy must be augmented with an intensive capacity development focus.
Lieberman and Miller (1999) stated that professional development has
become concerned with results. In California, there is an emphasis on performance
goals and assessments for measuring progress towards meeting content standards.
According to Sparks and Hirsh (1997), results-driven education begins when school
systems or schools clarify their educational purposes. Results-driven standards-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
based education is based on the simple principle that decisions about curriculum and
instruction should be driven by outcomes that children should display at the end of
their educational experience. Results-driven education represents a dramatic shift in
thinking regarding the purpose of schools and what society expects of students.
Further, in a logical progression, results-driven education for students requires
results-driven staff development for educators.
Odden (1997) stated that, as a result of higher performance standards for
students, teachers are expected to have certain skills. To develop these skills,
teachers must improve content and pedagogical knowledge, as well as leadership,
management, and decision-making skills. Due to the high stakes attached to
standards, professional development must be designed to meet the training needs of
teachers.
Summary
The purpose of this chapter was to present a review of literature relating to
standards-based education and its effect on improving student achievement in
California public schools. The literature review traced the history of standards-based
education at the federal and state levels with a focus on the state of California.
Standards-based education has been and continues to be the driving force behind
public education in the United States. In many instances, standards-based education
has resulted in school districts reviewing and revising past practices related to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
student achievement. This study will contribute to the research regarding the impact
of standards-based education as a major influence on public schools in California.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter concerns the methodology used in the study. The chapter begins
with the research design, followed by a description of the sample, development of
the survey instrument, pilot study, data collection, and data analysis. The chapter
concludes with a summary.
Research Design
The study used a descriptive research methodology, which, according Isaac
and Michael (1990), is used when the researcher wants to systematically describe the
facts and characteristics of a given population or area of interest, factually and
accurately. Additionally, McMillan and Schumacher (1993) noted that descriptive
research is concerned with the current status of something, and this type of research
describes existing achievement, attitudes, behaviors, or other characteristics of a
group of subjects. The descriptive research used in this study concerned the
characteristics of a sample at one point in time.
The Sample
California currently is divided into 58 county offices of education that
provide services to the state’s school districts (CDE, 2002). There is a total of 1,056
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
school districts, with a student population of 6,147,375, located in the 58 counties
(CDE, 2003). In addition, there are a total of 327 unified or joint unified school
districts in the state of California (CDE, 2003). Unified school districts were
selected because these districts have the potential for increased articulation between
all educational levels (elementary, middle, and high) found in the school district.
Further, the kindergarten through grade 12 organizational structure has the potential
for creating a seamless standards-based educational reform program.
The total sample consisted of 100 unified school districts across the 58
counties, with 93 (40%) of 230 district/central office administrators participating in
the study. Superintendents were asked whether the questionnaires could be
distributed to the district/central office administrators prior to the questionnaire being
sent
The California Public School Directory, 2002 (CDE, 2002) was used to
select a list of unified school districts for this study from each county in the state of
California, and the districts selected were proportionally representative. School
districts with a larger population of kindergarten through grade 12 students were
selected from counties with multiple unified school districts.
A representative sample of 100 (30.06%) of the 327 unified school district
superintendents was sent a letter o f introduction, a copy o f the survey, and a return
stamped envelope. A total of 60 (60%) of the 100 superintendents returned the
permission to distribute the questionnaire form; thus, allowing district level
administrators to receive the questionnaire. A total of 230 district level
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
administrators were expected to participate in the research project, but only 93 (40%)
of the 230 district level administrators returned the completed surveys. Overall, 60
school districts of various populations and locations submitted the completed surveys
from a total of 105 district level administrators.
Development of the Survey Instrument
To answer the research questions in this study, the researcher developed a
questionnaire for distribution to selected school districts in California. The
questionnaire was designed to gather reliable and viable data from selected
respondents. According to Isaac and Michael (1990), instrumentation is the process
of selecting or developing measuring devices and methods appropriate to a given
evaluation problem. In developing an instrument, Isaac and Michael (1990) raised
two issues: (1) Is it reliable; is it an accurate, consistent, and stable measuring
instrument?; (2) Is it valid; is it measuring what it claims to measure?
McMillan and Schumacher (1993) noted that the questionnaire has been the
most widely used technique for obtaining information. The questionnaire is
relatively economical, has standardized items, and ensures anonymity. Finally, it
contains items that can be written for a specific purpose.
The 12-page researcher-developed questionnaire (See Appendix E) was
divided into five main categories: (a) general district information; (b) district
characteristics; (c) implementation process; (d) advantages and disadvantages of
standards-based education; and (e) general comments. The questionnaire used a 4-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
point Likert-type scale for objectively stated items. For each of the five areas, space
was provided for open-ended responses, as needed, and single-answer questions
designed to measure district level administrators’ perceptions of their district’s
efforts to implement and sustain standards-based education at the district level.
Questions were specifically developed to answer the research questions posed in
Chapter 1, as follows:
1. To what extent do state standards influence educational programs in California
school districts, with reference to implementation strategies and modes of
implementation, as perceived by district level personnel (superintendents of
schools, assistant superintendents, directors, and coordinators)?
2. What types of standards-based reform implementation processes are being used
in California school districts?
3. In what ways have individual schools districts worked together to support
standards-based education, involving cooperative, collaborative, and
participatory activities?
4. How are educational practices perceived by district level personnel
(superintends of schools, assistant superintendents, directors, and coordinators)
to have changed in the district as a result of standards implementation?
Pilot Study
Based on the recommendations of McMillan and Schumacher (1993) and
Gall et al. (1996), a pilot study was conducted to field test the questionnaire and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
accompanying materials. Gall and others stated that pre-testing the questionnaire
yields data concerning instrumentation deficiencies and suggestions for
improvement, as well as results in the identification of major problems with the
questionnaire. Based on feedback from the participants, the introductory material
was modified and questionnaire items were either modified or, if not pertinent, were
eliminated. Again, as per McMillan and Schumacher (1993), the researcher located
a sample of subjects with characteristics similar to those who would be participating
in the study.
The pilot study was administered to ten local district administrators, four
central office administrators from the LAUSD, and two county administrators from
LACOE, who were familiar with standards-based education. McMillan and
Schumacher (1993) stated that, while the size of the pretest sample may be greater
than 20, it is better to have only 10 respondents than not to have a pretest. Each
reviewer was asked to critique the cover letter and instrument and to provide
suggestions for improvement. The information gathered was used to make changes
to the questionnaire.
Data Collection
A purposeful sampling process, using maximum variation sampling, was
used to allow for the selection of cases that are likely to be information rich with
respect to purpose of the qualitative study (Gall et al., 1996). Gall and others stated
that such a sampling method serves two purposes: to document the range of variation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
and to determine whether common themes, patterns, and outcomes cut across the
variation. Their sampling strategy was applied to unified school districts in
California.
As noted above, the California Public School Directory, 2002 (CDE, 2002)
was used to select the unified school districts from each county in the state of
California The number of districts selected was based on the number of unified
school districts located in each of the 58 counties. In addition, in counties with
multiple unified school districts, selection was based on student population in each of
the districts, with the exception of LAUSD, who was involved in the pilot study. As
noted above, a representative sample of 100 unified school district superintendents
was sent a letter of introduction, a copy of the questionnaire, a request for permission
to distribute the survey forms, and a return stamped envelope. After two weeks, all
superintendents who had not returned the request by the deadline were sent a letter
with an additional copy of the forms reminding them to submit the information. One
week after the letter was sent, any superintendent who had not forwarded the
information was e-mailed a reminder to submit the questionnaire on or before the
due date.
From the list that was forward by individual superintendents of education
from the selected school districts, district level administrators were sent a letter o f
introduction and asked to complete the questionnaire anonymously. The identified
administrators were asked to complete the form within three weeks and were
requested to return the questionnaire in the stamped envelope provided. After three
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
weeks, a letter was sent to district level administrators reminding them to submit the
questionnaire on or before the deadline to submit. One week after the letter was sent,
any district level administrators who had not forwarded the information were e-
mailed a reminder to submit the questionnaire on or before the due date to maximize
the return of the questionnaires.
Data Analysis
Data analysis involved both quantitative and qualitative methods.
Questionnaire responses were analyzed through inferential statistics (Gall et al.,
1996). The responses to open-ended questionnaires were analyzed through content
analysis. The researcher sought to identify common themes, based both on the
responses to the questions and on the open-ended items. The data were used to
answer the research questions posed in the study and were made available to
interested respondents.
The data from the returned questionnaires were prepared for computerized
data processing using SPSS. The following analyses were conducted:
(a) frequencies; (b) means and standard deviations; (c) rank order of importance of
strategies for standards-based education implementation; and (d) Pearson product
correlations and chi squares.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary
The study sample consisted of district level administrators from various
school districts in California. The researcher-developed questionnaire was pilot
tested, validated, and administered to gather the data needed to answer the research
questions. The results of the data analysis, as well as the answering of the research
questions, are presented in the following chapter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
This chapter presents the results of the data analysis. The chapter begins with
the district and respondent characteristics, followed by the findings related to the
research questions. The chapter concludes with additional findings.
District and Respondent Characteristics
As seen in Table 1, 38.7% of respondents were new to their current position,
while 32.3% of respondents had 4-6 years, and 29.0% had 7+ years of experience.
At each specific position, superintendents were close to evenly distributed across the
three levels (1-3 years, 37.5 %), (4-6 years, 31.3 %), and (7+ years, 5, 31, 3%), with
the largest group (37.5 %) found at the 1-3 years of experience level. For assistant or
associate superintendents, 40% were relatively new, while 40% had 7+ years of
experience. For directors or coordinators, 42.5% were relatively new to their
position. Finally, for those in “other” positions, 41.2% had e served in their current
position for 4-6 years.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
TABLE 1. Years Served in Current Position.
Supt
District Level Position
Asst/Assoc Director/
Supt Coord
Other Total
Years in 1-3 years n 6 8 17 5 36
current
position % 37.5% 40.0% 42.5% 29.4% 38.7%
4-6 years n 5 4 14 7 30
% 31.3% 20.0% 35.0% 41.2% 32.3%
7+ years n 5 8 9 5 27
% 31.3% 40.0% 22.5% 29.4% 29.0%
Total n 16 20 40 17 93
% 17.2% 21.5% 43.0% 18.3% 100%
School district enrollment is presented in Table 2. Nearly half (48.9%) of
district level respondents were located in school districts with a student population
between 10,000 and 29,000. Additionally, 28.9% of the respondents were found in
districts with less than 10,000 students, and 22.2% were located in school districts
with more than 30,000 students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
TABLE 2. Current District Enrollment.
District Level Position
Supt Asst/Assoc
Supt
Director/
Coord
Other Total
Districts Under n 6 7 6 7 26
current 10,000
enrollment % 37.5% 35.0% 15.8% 43.8% 28.9%
10,G O O -
29,000
n 6 10 24 4 44
% 37.5% 50.0% 63.2% 25.0% 48.9%
30,000
+
n 4 3 8 5 20
% 25.0% 15.0% 21.1% 31.3% 22.2%
Total n 16 20 38 16 90
% 17.8% 22.2% 42.2% 17.8% 100%
Table 3 presents school district location and shows that, at the district level,
respondents held district level positions across all three locations (rural, suburban,
and urban), with 41.2% of respondents from suburban, 32.9% from urban districts,
and 25.9% from rural school districts.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
TABLE 3. District Location.
District Level Position
Supt. Asst/Ass Director/
oc Supt Coord
Other Total
District Rural n 7 8 6 1 22
location
% 50% 42.1% 16.7% 6.3% 25.9%
Suburban n 1 7 22 5 35
% 7.1% 36.8% 61.1% 31.3% 41.2%
Urban n 6 4 8 10 28
% 42.9% 21.1% 22.2% 62.5% 32.9%
Total n 14 19 36 16 85
% 16.5% 22.4% 42.4% 18.8% 100%
Nearly three-quarters (74.7%) of the respondents reported they had
participated in other state and district education reform efforts prior to the
implementation of standards-based education in their school district. More
specifically, the participation rate for the superintendents was 80%,
assistant/associate superintendents was 95%, director/coordinators was 72%, and
“other” was 53%.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
TABLE 4. Participation in State/District Educational Reform Efforts.
Supt
District Level Position
Asst/Assoc Director/
Supt Coord
Other Total
Participated in Yes n 12 19 28 9 68
other
state/district % 17.6% 27.9% 41.2% 13.2% 100%
reform efforts
No n 3 1 11 8 23
% 20.0% 5.0% 28.2% 47.1% 25.3%
Total n 15 20 39 17 91
% 16.5% 22.0% 42.9% 18.7% 100%
Findings Related to the Research Questions
Research Question 1.
To what extent do state standards influence educational programs in
California school districts, with reference to implementation strategies and modes of
implementation, as perceived by district level personnel (superintendents of schools,
assistant superintendents, directors, and coordinators)?
Overall, all groups of respondents (superintendents, assistant/associate
superintendents, director/coordinators, and “others”) were consistent in their
perceptions that certain strategies were utilized, to a moderate or great extent, at the
district level for implementing and supporting standards-based education in the
district and at individual school sites. Thus, separate means are not given for each of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
these four groups. In order of their perceived degree implementation, the strategies
are: (a) standards-aligned instructional materials; (b) professional development;
(c) enable students to achieve at high levels; (d) performance assessment;
(e) accountability assessment; and (f) staff professional development.
Again, all groups of respondents were consistent in their perceptions that
certain strategies were utilized, not at all or to a limited extent, at the district level for
implementing and supporting standards-based education in the district and at
individual school sites. In order of their perceived degree implementation, the
strategies are: (a) restructuring the school year; (b) parent involvement;
(c) extending the school day; and (d) extending the school year.
TABLE 5. Extent to Which State Standards Influence Educational Programs.
n Mean
Standard
Deviation
Enable student to achieve high levels 92 3.34 .802
Professional development 92 3.52 .564
Standards-aligned instructional
materials
93 3.52 .746
Assessment that measure performance 92 3.22 .708
Assessment for accountability & CQI 93 3.27 .678
Parent involvement activities 90 2.17 .768
Restructuring the school year 92 2.25 .921
Extending the school day 92 2.13 .986
Extending the school year 93 1.77 .898
Staff participation in professional
development
91 2.73 .844
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
In summary, the two most often used strategies were standards-aligned
instructional materials and professional development. Specifically, more than one-
half of the respondents reported that these strategies were used to a great extent. The
least used strategies were extending the school day or the school year. Most
respondents reported using these strategies to a limited extent.
Research Question 2.
What types of standards-based reform implementation processes are being
used in California school districts?
As seen in Table 6, of the 93 respondents, 49.5% indicated that they were
currently utilizing a district-developed process for implementing content standards in
the school districts, and 37.6% indicated that they were utilizing a blended model of
implementation. The blended model may include assistance at the district and school
levels from the California State Department of Education, local county Offices of
Education, or an outside educational company, or a combination of all or some of the
fore mentioned methods of implementation. Additionally, 12.9% indicated that they
were involved in other forms of content standards implementation, which may
include relying on individual schools or teachers to plan and implement their own
standards-based educational reform process.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
Overall, respondent groups were similar in their perceptions of which
implementation model was being utilized at the district level for standards-based
reform. The two groups of respondents who are closer in the organizational structure
to the schools and probably oversee the implementation of content standards at the
school level indicated that the model of implementation was district-developed (60%
for director/coordinators and 41.2% for “others”). In contrast, the other respondent
groups (superintendent and assistant/associate superintendents) split their responses
evenly between two models (district developed and blended model). This could be
attributed to a more global and less focused perception of how content standards are
being implemented at individual schools in their districts. Generally, assistant/
associate superintendents oversee multiple instructional programs and are not
directly involved in implementation at the local school. Further, the superintendent
of schools is responsible for the entire school district and has the ultimate
responsibility for multiple programs that may or may not be instructionally focused.
Finally, the size of individual schools districts may determine how what role each
group plays in the planning, implementation, and overseeing of standards-based
educational reform in each individual school district.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
TABLE 6. Types of Standards-Based Models of Implementation.
Supt
District Level Position
Asst/Assoc Director/ Other
Supt Coord.
Total
Type o f SBER
model or
implementation
process
District
Developed
n
%
7
43.8%
8
40.0%
24
60.0%
7
41.2%
46
49.5%
Blended
Model
n
%
7
43.8%
8
40.0%
14
35.0%
6
35.3%
35
37.6%
All others n
%
2
12.5%
4
20.0%
2
5.0%
4
23.5%
12
12.9%
Total n 16 20 40 17 93
% 17.2% 21.5% 43.0% 18.3% 100%
As presented in Table 7, 52.7% of respondents indicated that their school
district adopted academic content standards before the State of California adopted
state content standards. In contrast, 37.4% indicated that their individual school
district adopted content standards after state adoption. In addition, 9.9% did not
know when their district adopted content standards. Two respondents did not
indicate when their district adopted content standards.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
TABLE. 7. District Adopted Academic Content Standards Before State
Content Standards.
District Level Position
Supt.
Asst/Assoc Director/
Supt Coord. Other Total
District adopt Yes n 8 10 21 9 48
academic
content
standards % 53.3% 50.0% 53.8% 52.9% 52.7%
No n 6 10 13 5 34
% 40.0% 50.0% 33.3% 29.4% 37.4%
Don't
know
n 1 0 5 3 9
% 6.7% .0% 12.8% 17.6% 9.9%
Total n 15 20 39 17 91
% 16.5% 22.0% 42.9% 18.7% 100%
As shown in Table 8, 48.9% of the respondents indicated their current
standards-based educational reform process has been in place 1-3 years, while 51.1%
indicated 4 or more years. Five respondents did not indicate how long their process
has been in place.
There were some discrepancies in perception among the respondent groups
related to how long standards-based educational reform has been in place in their
district. Specifically, 62.5% of the superintendents and 63.2% of the
assistant/associate superintendents indicated their current standards-based
educational reform process has been in place in the district for 4 or more years. In
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
comparison, of the other two respondent groups, 48.8% of directors and 60.0% of
“others” indicated that their process has been in place 1-3 years. The discrepancies
appeared to arise from the number of years each of the groups had been in their
current position, which could have increased or decreased their involvement in and
awareness of district efforts to implement standards-based education at the school
level.
TABLE 8. How Long Current Standards-Based Educational Process Has
Been in Place in Districts.
Supt.
District Level Position
Asst/ Director/
Assoc Supt Coord.
Other
Total
How long
current SBER
1-3 years n 6 7 21 9 43
process in
place
% 37.5% 36.8% 55.3% 60.0% 48.9%
4+ years n 10 12 17 6 45
% 62.5% 63.2% 44.7% 40.0% 51.1%
Total n 16 19 38 15 88
% 18.2% 21.6% 43.2% 17.0% 100%
In summary, the results indicated that approximately one-half of the
respondents reported that district developed standard-based educational reform
implementation models were being used, their district had used district-developed
content standards prior to the implementation of state standards, and their district’s
implementation process had been in effect for more than four years.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
Research Question 3.
In what ways have individual schools districts worked together to support
standards-based education, involving cooperative, collaborative, and participatory
activities?
Four survey items provided the means for determining perceived levels of
cooperation, collaboration, and participation between district administrators, school-
based administrators, and teachers prior to and after the implementation of state
standards.
Table 9 presents the results for the levels of cooperation and collaboration.
In general, there was very low to low cooperation and collaboration in all four areas
prior to the implementation of state standards. Overall, all respondents
(superintendents, assistant/associate superintendents, director/coordinators, “others”)
were consistent in their perception of the levels of cooperation and collaboration,
with means ranging from 2.28 to 2.64.
In contrast, there was high to very high cooperation and collaboration in all
four areas after the implementation of state standards. Overall, all respondents were
consistent in their perception of the levels of cooperation and collaboration, with
means ranging from 3.02 to 3.37.
The order o f their perceived degree o f collaboration and cooperation prior to
the implementation of standard-based education reform is as follows: (a) district
administrators and site-based administrators; (b) site administrators and teachers;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
(c) district administrators, school administrators and teachers; and (d) district
administrators and teachers.
The order of their perceived degree of collaboration and cooperation after the
implementation of standard-based education reform is as follows: (a) district
administrators and site-based administrators; (b) district administrators, school
administrators, and teachers; (c) district administrators and teachers; and (d) district
administrators and teachers.
TABLE 9. Levels of Cooperation and Collaboration in Implementing
Educational Reforms.
n Mean
Standard
Deviation
Prior to SBER: Levels o f cooperation and collaboration-
90 2.64 .798
District Administrators and Site Based Administrators
Prior to SBER: Levels o f cooperation and collaboration-Site
Administrators & Teachers
88 2.48 .816
Prior to SBER: Levels o f cooperation and collaboration-
District Administrators & Teachers 86 2.28 .835
Prior to SBER: Levels o f cooperation and collaboration-
District & School Administrators and Teachers
88 2.36 .805
After SBER: Levels of cooperation and collaboration-
District & School Administrators
91 3.37 .608
After SBER: Levels of cooperation and collaboration-Site
Administrators & Teachers
91 3.02 .557
After SBER: Levels of cooperation and collaboration-
District Administrators & Teachers 91 3.05 .565
After SBER: Levels of cooperation and collaboration-
District & School Administrators and Teachers 91 3.08 .562
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
Table 10 presents the results for the levels of participation. In general, there
was very low to low participation in all four areas prior to the implementation of
state standards. Overall, all respondents (superintendents, assistant/associate
superintendents, director/coordinators, “others”) were consistent in their perception
of the levels of participation, with means ranging from 2.15 to 2.36.
In contrast, there was high to very high participation in all four areas after the
implementation of state standards. Overall, all respondents were consistent in their
perception of the levels of cooperation and collaboration, with means ranging from
2.99 to 3.40.
The order of their perceived degree of participation prior to the
implementation of standard-based education reform is as follows: (a) district
administrators and site-based administrators; (b) site administrators and teachers;
(c) district administrators, school administrators and teachers; and (d) district
administrators and teachers.
The order of their perceived degree of participation after the implementation
of standard-based education reform is as follows: (a) district administrators and site-
based administrators; (b) site administrators and teachers; (c) district administrators,
school administrators, and teachers; and (d) district administrators and teachers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
TABLE 10. Levels of Participation in Implementing Educational Reforms.
n Mean
Standard
Deviation.
Prior to SBER: Levels of participation-
District & School Administrators
88 2.36 .873
Prior to SBER: Levels of participation-Site
Administrators & Teachers
87 2.18 .800
Prior to SBER: Levels of participation-
District Administrators & Teachers
87 2.15 .843
Prior to SBER: Levels of participation-
District & School Admin and Teachers 86 2.17 .870
After SBER: Levels of participation-District
& School Administrators 89 3.40 .598
After SBER: Levels of participation-Site
Administrators & Teachers
89 3.12 .518
After SBER: Levels of participation-District
Administrators & Teachers
89 2.99 .612
After SBER: Levels of participation-District
& School Admin and Teachers
89 3.11 .532
In summary, when indicating levels of cooperation, collaboration, and
participation, prior to and after the implementation of standards-based educational
reform, the group that indicated the highest levels were district administrators and
site-based administrators. In contrast, the group that indicated the low est levels was
district administrators and teachers, with the other two groups falling in between.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
Research Question 4.
How are educational practices perceived by district level personnel
(superintends of schools, assistant superintendents, directors, and coordinators) to
have changed in the district as a result of standards implementation?
Respondents were asked at what point improving student achievement was
addressed during the school year prior to the implementation of standards-based
educational reform at the district level. Of the respondents, 56% indicated during the
first month or beginning of the school year, 19% indicated during the last month or
end of the school year, and 25% indicated throughout the school year (Table 11).
TABLE 11. Addressing Student Achievement Prior to Standards-Based
Educational Reform.
Supt
Asst/Assoc
Supt
District Position
Director/
Coord Other Total
Prior to 1st month/ n 7 7 24 9 47
SBER,
student
achieve
ment
addressed
beginning of
year
50.0% 38.9% 66.7% 56.3% 56.0%
last month/ n
end o f year
3 4 6 3 16
% 21.4% 22.2% 16.7% 18.8% 19.0%
Throughout n
year
4 7 6 4 21
% 19.0% 33.3% 28.6% 19.0% 100%
Total n 14 18 36 16 84
% 16.7% 21.4% 42.9% 19.0% 100%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Following the implementation of standards-based educational reform, a shift
occurred to addressing student achievement throughout the school year. Of the
respondents, 70.8% indicated that student achievement was addressed throughout the
school year, 27% indicated at the beginning of the school, and 2.2% indicated during
the end of the school year (Table 12).
TABLE 12. Addressing Student Achievement After Standards-Based
Educational Reform.
District Level Position
Supt
Asst/
Assoc Supt
Director/
Coord Other Total
Following
SBER, student
achievement
addressed
1st month/
beginning of
year
n
%
3
18.8%
6
35.3%
8
20.0%
7
43.8%
24
27.0%
last month/
end of year
n 0 0 2 0 2
% 0% 0% 5.0% 0% 2.2%
Through-out
year
n 13 11 30 9 63
%
81.3% 64.7% 75.0% 56.3% 70.8%
Total n 16 17 40 16 89
% 18.0% 19.1% 44.9% 18.0% 100%
With state the adoption of content standards in 1999, respondents were asked
how must time was devoted to standards-based educational reform implementation
in the 2000-2001 school year. As shown in Table 13, 39.3% of the respondents
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
indicated that their school district spent 20 hours or less on implementation efforts,
while 60.7% indicated that 21 or more hours were directed toward such reform.
TABLE 13. Time Spent on State or District Standards Implementation
in 2000-2001.
District Position
Supt
Asst/Assoc
Supt
Director/
Coord
Other Total
2000-01 time 20 hrs n 4 6 15 8 33
spent on state or
district SBER
or less
% 26.7% 33.3% 41.7% 53.3% 39.3%
implementation
21+
hours
n 11 12 21 7 51
% 73.3% 66.7% 58.3% 46.7% 60.7%
Total n 15 18 36 15 84
% 17.9% 21.4% 42.9% 17.9% 100%
Table 14 presents the findings for changes that occurred during the 2001-
2002 school year. During the 2001-2002 school year, 89.8% of respondents
indicated that time spent on district standards-based educational reform
implementation increased, 1.1% indicated that it decreased, and 9.1% indicated that
it remained the same.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
TABLE 14. Time Spent on State or District Standards Implementation
in 2001-2002.
Supt
District Position
Asst/ Director/
Assoc Supt Coord
Other Total
2001-02 time Increased n 13 18 33 15 79
spent on state or
district SBER % 16.5% 22.8% 41.8% 9.0% 100%
implementation
% o f Total 14.8% 20.5% 37.5% 17.0% 89.8%
Decreased n 0 0 0 1 1
% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
% o f Total 0% 0% 0% 1.1% 1.1%
Remained n 2 1 5 0 8
about the
same
% 25.0% 12.5% 62.5% .0% 100%
% o f Total 2.3% 1.1% 5.7% .0% 9.1%
Total n 15 19 38 16 88
% 17.0% 21.6% 43.2% 18.2% 100%
Table 15 presents the findings for changes that occurred during the 2002-
2003 school year. During the 2002-2003 school year, 77.8% of respondents
indicated that time spent on district standards-based educational reform
implementation increased, 2.2% indicated that it decreased, and 20% indicated that it
remained the same.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
TABLE 15. Time Spent on State or District Standards Implementation
in 2002-2003.
Supt
District Position
Asst/ Director/
Assoc Coord
Supt
Other Total
2002-03 time Increased n 12 19 26 13 70
spent on state or
district SBR % 17.1% 27.1% 37.1% 18.6% 100%
implementation
% o f Total 13.3% 21.1% 28.9% 14.4% 77.8%
Decreased n 0 0 0 2 2
% 0% 0% 0% 12.5% 2.2%
% o f Total 0% 0% 0% 2.2% 2.2%
Remained n 3 0 14 1 18
about the
same 16.7% 0% 77.8% 5.6% 100%
% o f Total 3.3% 0% 15.6% 1.1% 20.0%
Total n 15 19 40 16 90
% 16.7% 21.1% 44.4% 17.8% 100%
Respondents were asked to rate a list of possible advantages and benefits of
standards-based educational reform. Overall, all respondents (superintendents,
assistant/associate superintendents, director/coordinators, “others”) were consistent
in their relatively high level of perception of advantages and benefits, with means
ranging from 3.23 to 3.57. The order of their perceived advantages and benefits is as
follows: (a) more focused professional development programs; (b) better standards-
aligned curriculum and instructional programs; (c) improved student achievement on
state and district assessments; (d) increased expectations for student learning;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
(e) increased accountability for student learning; and (f) improved quality of
instruction.
Again, all respondents (superintendents, assistant/associate superintendents,
director/coordinators, “others”) were consistent in their relatively low level of
perception of advantages and benefits, with means ranging from 2.30 to 2.32. The
order of their perceived advantages and benefits is as follows: (a) improved
cooperation and collaboration between teachers and district administrators;
(b) higher morale among district employees; (c) teacher and school rewards and
incentives; and (d) improved parent participation (Table 16).
TABLE 16. Potential Advantages and Benefits of Standards-Based
Educational Reform.
n Mean Standard
Deviation
Improved student achievement on state and
district assessments
92 3.41 .495
Improved quality of instruction 91 3.23 .598
Improved parent participation 91 2.32 .630
Teacher and school rewards and incentives 92 2.32 .811
Higher morale among district employees 92 2.30 .737
Improved cooperation and collaboration
between teachers & district administration
92 2.30 .542
More focused professional development
programs
91 3.57 .498
Better standards-aligned curriculum and
instructional programs
90 3.53 .502
Increased expectations for student learning 91 3.51 .584
Increased accountability for student
learning
91 3.42 .651
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
Respondents were asked to rate a list of possible drawbacks or disadvantages
of standards-based educational reform. Overall, all respondents (superintendents,
assistant/associate superintendents, director/coordinators, “others”) were consistent
in their relatively high level of perception of drawbacks or disadvantages, with
means ranging from 2.90 to 3.00. The order of their perceived drawbacks or
disadvantages is as follows: (a) lack of teacher awareness regarding ways to
integrate standards into curriculum; (b) use of assessments not aligned with
standards; (c) lack of time to implement reform model; (d) lack of or inadequately
trained staff; (e) use of instructional materials and texts not aligned with standards;
and (f) less teacher acceptance of the process.
Again, all respondents (superintendents, assistant/associate superintendents,
director/coordinators, “others”) were consistent in their relatively low level of
perception of drawbacks or disadvantages, with means ranging from 2.00 to 2.53.
The order of their perceived advantages and benefits is as follows: (a) less local
board of education acceptance of the process; (b) less administrative acceptance of
the process; (c) greater administrative control and power; and (d) less public
acceptance of the process (Table 17).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
TABLE 17. Potential Drawbacks or Disadvantages of Standards-Based
Educational Reform.
N Mean Standard
Deviation
Lack of time to implement reform
model
91 2.93 .800
Lack of or inadequately trained staff 91 2.90 .775
Use of instructional materials & texts
not aligned with standards
90 2.57 .822
Lack of teacher awareness regarding
ways to integrate standards into
curriculum
91 3.00 .715
Use of assessments not aligned with
standards
91 2.96 .802
Greater administrative control and
power
89 2.19 .705
Less teacher acceptance of the
process
90 2.53 .737
Less administrative acceptance of the
process
89 2.07 .809
Less public acceptance of the process 90 2.20 .640
Less local board of education
acceptance of the process
16 2.00 .730
As seen in Table 18, 83.5% of the respondents were satisfied with their
district’s standards-based educational reform efforts to improve student achievement.
Specifically, 92.1% of director/coordinators were satisfied, 82.4% of “others,” 80%
of assistant/associate superintendents, and 68.8% of superintendents of schools. The
higher levels of satisfaction for the director/coordinators and “others” can be
attributed to the ability to work more closely with the schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
TABLE 18. Overall Satisfaction with Standards-Based Educational
Reform Efforts to Improve Student Achievement.
Supt.
District Position
Asst/ Director/
Assoc Coord
Supt.
Other
Total
Satisfaction
with efforts to
improve
student
achievement
Very n
Dissatisfied/
Dissatisfied
5 4 3 3 15
% 31.3% 20.0% 7.9% 17.6% 16.5%
Very n
Satisfied/
Satisfied
11 16 35 14 76
% 68.8% 80.0% 92.1% 82.4% 83.5%
Total n 16 20 38 17 91
% of Total 17.6% 22.0% 41.8% 18.7% 100%
In summary, educational practices have been changed as a result of standards
implementation. Specifically, approximately one-half of the respondents reported
that improving student achievement was addressed during the beginning of the
school prior to the implementation of standards-based educational reform, and
approximately three-fourths reported that improving student achievement was
addressed throughout the school year after implementation. Additionally,
approximately two-thirds of the respondents indicated that the total time spent on
standards-based educational reform implementation in 2000-2001 was 21 or more
hours. Further, nearly all of the respondents in 2001-2002 and over three-quarters of
the respondents in 2002-2003 indicated that the total time spent on standards-based
educational reform increased.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
Approximately two-thirds of respondents indicated more focused
professional development programs and better standards-aligned curriculum and
instructional programs as advantages and benefits of implementing standards-based
educational reform. Nearly one-half of the respondents indicated improved
cooperation and collaboration between teachers and district administration and
higher morale among district employees as advantages and benefits.
Close to half of the respondents indicated lack of teacher awareness regarding
ways to integrate standards into curriculum and the use of assessments not aligned
with standards as drawbacks or disadvantages of standards-based educational reform,
and close to one-third of respondents indicated that less local board of education
acceptance of the process and less administrative acceptance of the process were
drawbacks or disadvantages. Finally, over four-fifths of the respondents were
satisfied with their districts efforts to improve student achievement.
Additional Findings: Administrators’ Comments
The following is a representative sample of comments from district level
administrators concerning their perceived understanding of their district’s standards-
based educational reform efforts:
I have only been in the district for two years. Thus, my thoughts
are still somewhat shallow in interpreting the impact on my present
district.
District changes in positions and departmental restructuring
contributed to increased participation in standards-based reform,
not just a reaction to state activity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
Adopting standards has helped create an environment where
teachers have common expectations.
Standards based instruction is good.
I feel the reform based upon standards is critically important to
help all students learn the important concepts in each area of study.
Literacy is critical!
During my career, there has been nothing that has had the impact
of standards based curriculum, instruction and assessment.
Any reform must start with training in the standards reform; it has
all come backwards — first the content standards, then the
assessments, the sanctions, the rewards, and then the training.
That’s a terrible way to implement reform if the expectation is
improved student achievement.
The whole program is very useful. I’m not sure all children are
motivated or have the IQ to attain those levels. Some of the low
scores may be due to genetics. These are kids that really try and
want to do better.
We are in the age of accountability. The process of utilizing
educational reform based upon standards to improve student
achievement is paramount in today’s standards movement. This
process is beneficial to the work being done in today’s schools. I
believe in it.
Greater focus on the recent research about student learning and the
brain. More attention given to pacing. Loss of non-assessed
subjects such as music/art. Limitations of content to only those
standards assessed.
The key factor in the California standards movement is the lack of
consistency of the involvement of the educational community. The
standards were politically, not educationally, derived, so input
from the greatest stakeholders has been limited. The CDE
implementation of content standards assessment is secretive in
nature and the feedback provided is not beneficial in improving
classroom instruction by the teacher.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Many things are becoming aligned with standards instructional
materials, staff development, teacher observations, new teacher
training, report cards, parent notification. Finally, we are focused
on what we want children to know and test what we want them to
know. My only concerns are based on setting the bar so high that
special education students are facing almost impossible
expectations.
The adoption and implementation of content standards, standards-
aligned textbooks, and assessment have all been positive steps to
reform. The state and the federal governments value these
standards by basing their accountability systems on them.
However, when accountability criteria change after certain systems
have been in place (e.g., the federal NCLB, AYP accountability
system, and the state’s public schools accountability system using
the API), it is unfair to schools and districts to be held to the
consequences of those systems until schools and districts can be
proactive in regard to the new accountability criteria. There is also
a deficit in state and federal funding to support the implementation
of standards-aligned textbooks and assessments.
District level administrators have positive perceptions of their individual
district’s efforts to implement standards-based education reform, and they stated
their concerns and ideas regarding in standards-based based reform at the district
level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter concludes the dissertation. The chapter begins with a summary
of the study, including a restatement of the purpose and research questions, an
overview of the methodology, and selected findings, followed by the discussion and
conclusions. The chapter ends with recommendations for further research.
Summary
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to obtain data to determine district-wide efforts
to implement and sustain standards-based reform in the areas of curriculum,
instruction, and assessment at the district and the school levels, based upon
perceptions of central office administrators. The collected data provide a basis for
evaluating standards-based reform and its effectiveness, as perceived by district level
office personnel in charge of implementing and sustaining standards-based education
at the school level.
Research Questions
The study investigated whether there are differences in the perceptions of
superintendents, superintendents of instruction, and other district level administrators
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
who were involved in standards-based reform as set forth in the following research
questions:
1. To what extent do state standards influence educational programs in California
school districts, with reference to implementation strategies and modes of
implementation, as perceived by district level personnel (superintendents of
schools, assistant superintendents, directors, and coordinators)?
2. What types of standards-based reform implementation processes are being used
in California school districts?
3. In what ways have individual schools districts worked together to support
standards-based education, involving cooperative, collaborative, and
participatory activities?
4. How are educational practices perceived by district level personnel
(superintends of schools, assistant superintendents, directors, and coordinators)
to have changed in the district as a result of standards implementation?
Overview of the Methodology
The study used a quantitative methodology that involved a survey format.
The California Public School Directory, 2002 (California Department of Education,
2002) was used to identify unified school districts from each county in the state of
California The number of districts selected was based on having a representative
sample of unified school districts. Unified school districts were selected because
such districts have the potential for increased articulation between all educational
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
levels (elementary, middle, and high) and because the kindergarten through grade 12
organizational structure has the potential for creating a seamless standards-based
educational reform program. This selection process provided a comprehensive view
of standards-based offerings at various levels in the school districts and helped to
determine the effect of such offerings on classroom practices throughout each level
within the district. A purposeful sampling process was used to allow for the
selection of cases that were likely to be information rich with respect to purpose of
the study, and a maximum variation sampling process was used to illustrate the range
of variation in the phenomenon studied.
An introduction letter, consent form, information sheet, and a copy of the
survey were sent to the superintendents of schools of each selected unified school
district. The enclosed information request form asked the superintendent to identify
and list district level administrators who were involved in implementing and
sustaining standards-based reform at the district and school level. The final number
of district based personnel surveyed was based upon the information provided by
each of the superintendents. The survey contained questions related to demographics
and the four research questions. To ensure the quality of the survey, a field test was
conducted within LAUSD and LACOE prior to statewide distribution.
Data analysis involved identification o f common themes, based on the
responses to the open-ended questions. Research data from the questionnaire were
used to answer the research questions posed in the study and were made available to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
interested respondents. The data from the returned questionnaires were prepared for
computerized data processing using SPSS.
Selected Findings
Within the framework of the four research questions, the major findings were
as follows:
1. Of the respondents, 74% had participated in other state or district educational
reform efforts prior to the implementation of standards-based education in their
own unified school district.
2. Approximately one-half of all respondents were using a district-developed
standards-based implementation process.
3. There were discrepancies in perceptions among respondent groups related to
how state standards influenced educational programs at the district and school
level. The respondents felt that state standards influenced areas such as
professional development, but had little or no impact on parent participation.
4. Respondent groups indicated that there were higher levels of cooperation,
collaboration, and participation after the implementation of standards-based
education.
5. There were discrepancies in perceptions among respondent related to the
potential advantages and benefits of state standards-influenced educational
programs at the district and school level. The respondents felt that state
standards influenced areas such as professional development and better aligned
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
curriculum and instructional practices, but indicated that standards had little or
no impact on parent involvement or staff morale
6. An interesting phenomenon occurred with the respondents and their
perceptions related to levels of collaboration and cooperation. Participants
indicated that there were higher levels of cooperation and collaboration after
the implementation of standards-based education, but indicated that improved
collaboration and cooperation was not a potential advantage or benefit of
standards-based education.
7. When presented as potential drawbacks or disadvantages of standards-based
education, the majority of respondents disagreed with the survey items
regarding lack of teacher awareness regarding ways to integrate standards into
curriculum, lack of or inadequately trained staff, and lack of time to implement
reform model.
8. The majority of district administrators understood, had knowledge of, and were
able to implement content standards in the district and at individual school
sites.
Discussion and Conclusions
District level administrators have positive perceptions of their individual
district’s efforts to implement standards-based education reform, and they are active
participants in standards-based based reform, satisfied with their district’s efforts,
and focused on standards implementation. Additionally, many administrators had
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
participated in other district education reform efforts before the advent of standards-
based reform. Finally, continued district level support contributes to better
implementation of standards-based reform at the school level
These results are consistent with Fullen’s (1993) finding that the district
administrator is the single most important individual for setting the expectations and
the tone for change within the local districts and that the role of the district is critical
for establishing the conditions for continuous improvement. Huberman and Miles
(1984) found that, once the change process was under way, change bearing
innovations lived or died by the amount and quality of assistance that their users
received. The findings also support McLaughlin and Marsh’s (1978) finding that the
attitudes of district administrator about a planned change effort served as a signal to
teachers regarding the seriousness of a project. In the absence of explicit district
support for their efforts, many teachers indicated that reform was not in their
professional self-interest and was unlikely to make a difference in the long run.
Finally, the results support Cohen and Hickman’s (1998) research, which indicated
that school districts that are implementing standards-based reform in the areas of
curriculum, instruction, and assessment and that commitment to reform will
ultimately see positive results at the school level.
Recommendations for Further Research
Based on the results of the study, the following are recommendations for
further research:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
1. This study needs to be replicated in a variety of other schools districts, with a
larger sample of administrators.
2. Follow-up research should be conducted with the same school districts in
future years to ascertain whether general levels of perceptions among district
level administrators were maintained.
3. Further research should be conducted at the school level in a variety of school
districts to survey the perceptions of site-based administrators and teachers.
4. School districts and schools should continue to work collaboratively to evaluate
the effectiveness of educational reform and its impact on improving instruction
and student achievement.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
REFERENCES
Ambach,G.M. (1995). Goals 2000: A New Partnership for Student Achievement-
National Issues in Education: Goals 2000 and School to Work. Washington,
D.C.: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Applebaum, D. & Schwartzbeck, T.D. (2002). Defining. Measuring and Supporting
Success: Meeting the Challenges of Comprehensive School Reform
Research. Washington, D.C.: National Clearing House for Comprehensive
School Reform. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 467 446).
Bodily, S.J. (1998). Lessons From New American Schools’ Scale Up Phase:
Prospects for Bringing Designs to Multiple Schools. Santa Monica, CA:
Rand Distribution Services (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
4255511).
Borko, H., Elliot R., & Uchiyama, K. (1999). Professional Development: A Key
Kentucky’s Reform Effort. University of California, Los Angeles, CA:
Center for the Study of Evaluation Standards and Student Testing.
California Department of Education. (2002). Fact Book 2003. Sacramento, CA:
CDE Press.
California Department of Education. (2002). California Public School Directory
2002. Sacramento, CA: CDE Press.
California School Boards Association. (2002, July). The No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001. West Sacramento, CA: Policy Implications for School Districts.
Clinton, W. (1997). A Call to Action for American Education In the 21st Century.
Washington, D.C.: Department of Education, Government Printing Office.
Cohen, S. & Hickman, P. (1998). Statewide Implementation Program (SIP):
Effective Models for Curriculum Implementation. San Diego, CA: National
Association for Research in Science Teaching (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 419 683).
Council for Basic Education. (2000). Closing the Gan. A Report on the
Wingspread Conference Beyond the Standards Horse Race: Implementation.
Assessment, and Accountability — The Key To Improving Student
Achievement. Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
EdSource. (2001). Current Readings: K-12 School Reform in California. Palo
Alto, CA: EdSource Inc.
Eisner, E. (1993, February). Why standards may not improve schools. Educational
Leadership 50(5), 22-23. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Elmore,R.F. (2000). Building a New Structure for School Leadership. Washington,
D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Fullen, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform.
London: The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M.G. & Miles, M.B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what
doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan 73. 745-746.
Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational Research: An Introduction.
White Plains, New York: Longman Publishers.
Gandal, M. (1995). Making Standards Matter. 1996: An Annual Fifty State Report
on Efforts to Raise Academic Standards. Washington, D.C.: American
Federation of Teachers.
Gandal, M. (1995, March). Not All Standards Are Created Equal. Washington,
D.C.: Educational Leadership.
Goertz, J. (2000). Creativity: An Essential Component for Effective Leadership in
Today’s Schools (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 606607).
Hannaway, J. & Kimball, K. (1997). Reports on Reform from the Field: district and
State Survey Results. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 413 660).
Huberman, M. & Miles, M. (1984). Innovation Up Close: How School
Improvement Works. Chapter 7. New York: Plenum.
Ingram, D. & Colby J. (1998). Taking Standards Beyond the Classroom Door: A
Process for Implementation. American Educational Research Association
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423 608).
Isaac & Michael W. (1990). Handbook in Research and Evaluation. 2n d Edition.
San Diego, CA: Edits Publishers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers Transforming Their World and Their
Work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Massell, D. (1998). Statewide Strategies for Building Local Capacity: Addressing
the Needs of Standards-Based Reform. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 424 697).
McGlaughlin M. & Marsh D. (1978). Staff development and school change.
Teachers College Record 80(1), 69-94.
McLaughlin, M. and Shepard, L. (1995). Improving Education Through Standards-
Based Reform. Stanford, CA: The National Academy of Education.
Mizell, G.M. (1996). Setting priorities: Principals as leaders in standards-based
reform. Schools in the Middle (November/December 19961.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The
Imperative for Education Reform. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office.
National Education Goals Panel. (1991).
Odden, A. (1995). Educational Leadership for America’s Schools. New York:
McGraw Hill, Inc.
Odden, A. & Kelly C. (1997). Paving Teachers for What They Know and Do.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Oregon Governor’s Office. (1997). Keys to a Quality Education. Salem, OR:
Oregon Association of School Executives School funding Coalition for the
Governor’s Quality Education Work Group (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 413 659).
Philips,V. (2000). Closing the Gap. Finishing the race: A districts perspective o f
standards-based reform. Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education.
Ravitch, D. (1993). Launching a revolution in standards and assessment. Phi Delta
Kappan 70(10), 767-772.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
Riley, R.W. (1995, Fall). The improving America’s School Act and Elementary and
Secondary Education Reform. Journal of Law and Education 24(4), 513-566.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: the Key to Continuous School Improvement. 2n d
Edition. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Schumacher, S. & McMillan, J. (1993). Research in Education. Harper Collins
College Publishers.
Solomon, P. (1998). The Curriculum Bridge From Standards to Classroom Practice.
Thousand Oak, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Sparks, D. and Hirsh, S. (1997). A New Vision for Staff Development. Alexandria,
VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Spillane, J.P, Halverson, R., & Diamond, J.B. (2001, April). Distributed leadership:
Toward a theory of school leadership practice. Educational Researcher
30(3), 23-28 (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 624230).
Stedman, J.B. (1994). Goals 2000: Overview and Analysis. Washington D.C.:
CRS Report to Congress, Library of Congress, Congressional Research
Service (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379791).
United States Department of Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative
of Educational Reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
United States Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An Education
Strategy. Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Education. (1994). High Standards for All Students.
Washington, D.C.
Wright, E. (1997). Academic standards for California schools. Thrust for
Educational Leadership 26(61. 12-13, 37.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
APPENDICES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
APPENDIX A
LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION
August 1,2003
Dear Superintendent:
My name is Joel Carter and I am a Teacher Adviser with the Los Angeles Unified
School District. I am also a doctoral student at the University of Southern California
majoring in Administration and Policy with a focus on Urban Education at the
Rossier School of Education. Under the supervision of my chair, Dr. William B.
Michael, we are seeking your participation by completing and returning the survey.
In addition, listing other central office based personnel to be surveyed who are
involved in district efforts to implement ands sustain standards-based reform for this
research entitled “An Analysis of the Implementation of Content Standards in
Selected School Districts of California” beginning September 1,2003 and ending
December 31,2003. Attached to this letter you will find a copy of a “Letter of
Permission”, the survey, “Consent Form/Information Sheet”, and a stamped
envelope.
If you choose to grant permission to have your district administrators receive the
surveys and the “Consent Form/Information Sheet”, please complete and sign the
“Letter of Permission” attached to the letter along with your completed survey and
mail it to me in the stamped envelope by September 16,2003. Your participation is
highly sought as we find ways to understand how to support schools during this
period of educational reform. If you approve, the surveys will be sent to district
personnel you have listed on the “Letter of Permission”. Thank you for your
consideration and cooperation with this research project.
Sincerely,
Joel B. Carter
Encl.: Consent Form/Information Sheet
Letter of Permission
Stamped Envelope
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
APPENDIX B
PERMISSION TO DISTRIBUTE FORM
HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH CONSENT FORM
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Letter of Permission
I (print full name)________________________________________ , superintendent
of (print name of school district)_________________________________________ ,
in signing the permission form agree to provide names and titles of central office
administrators who are directly involved in implementing and sustaining standards-
based reform to receive and complete surveys in the Graduate Studies research
project being conducted by Joel B. Carter.
I understand that the research being conducted relates to central office
administrators’ perceptions of California Content Standards along with district’s
efforts to implement and sustain standards-based reform at district and school levels.
I understand that data collected for this study will be published in a doctoral
dissertation.
I grant permission to Joel B. Carter, to distribute surveys to my central office
administrators involved in district standards-based reform efforts. I understand that
by my permission it does not mean my district/central office administrators are
coerced to participate. They must provide their voluntary consent to participate in
this research study. I understand that my name, my administrators’ name, or other
identifying information will never be disclosed or referenced in any way in any
written or verbal context. I understand that the completed surveys will be secured in
the privacy of the researcher’s home office.
I understand that participation is entirely voluntary and I and/or my administrators
may withdraw their permission to participate in this study without explanation at any
point up to and including the last day of the project (December 30, 2003).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
APPENDIX C
LETTER TO DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS
August 1,2003
Dear Central Office Administrators:
My name is Joel Carter and I am a Teacher Adviser with the Los Angeles Unified
School District. I am also a doctoral student at the University of Southern California
majoring in Administration and Policy with a focus on Urban Education at the
Rossier School of Education. Under the supervision of my chair, Dr. William B.
Michael, we are seeking your participation to complete the attached survey for this
research entitled “An Analysis of the Implementation of Content Standards in
Selected School Districts of California” beginning August 1, 2003 and ending
December 31,2003. Please read through the attached consent form and decide
whether you will volunteer to participate.
If you choose to participate, please complete the survey and return it to me in the
enclosed stamped envelope by Friday, September 26,2003. Your participation is
highly sought as we find ways to understand how to support schools during this
period of educational reform.
Sincerely,
Joel B. Carter
Enel: Consent Form/Information Sheet
Survey
Stamped envelope
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
APPENDIX D
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
FOR DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS
An Analysis of the Implementation of Content Standards in
Selected Unified School Districts of California
Your superintendent granted permission to distribute this survey to you. You are
asked to participate in a research study conducted by Joel Carter under the direction
of Dr. William B. Michael, Ph.D., Principal Investigator and Dissertation Chair from
the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. The
results of this study will be used for a doctoral dissertation.
The purpose of the study is to obtain information from district level administrators,
district level content specialist in charge of standards-based reform and any District
level personnel involved in standards-based reform in the areas of curriculum,
instruction, assessment, and professional development from school districts in the
state of California. Participants will provide information about their efforts to
implement and sustain standards-based reform to effect change at the school level
and to analyze how educational practices have changed at the district level as a result
of content standards implementation.
You will be asked to respond in writing to a questionnaire; however, you will not be
compensated. The questionnaire/survey should only take approximately 30-45
minutes to complete. Return the questionnaire in the enclosed self addressed and
stamped envelope by Friday, September 26, 2003. Completion and return of the
questionnaire will constitute consent to participate in the research project.
There will be no remuneration for your participation but you may keep the
enclosed token whether or not you choose to participate in this research project.
If you volunteer to be in this study, you may withdraw at any time without
consequences of any kind. You may also refuse to answer any question you choose
not to answer and still remain in the study. In addition, the investigator may
withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential. Neither you nor the name of your
school district will be identified by name. When the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, no information will be included that would
reveal your identity or that of your school district. Questionnaire/survey responses
will be assigned a code, known only to the investigators. The raw data gathered for
this study will be stored in locked file cabinets in the home of the student
investigator and will be destroyed after the data analysis is complete and after the
successful defense of the dissertation project.
If you should have any questions or concerns about the research contact Joel Carter,
at (310) 832-0370 or Dr. William B Michael, Professor, Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California (213) 740-2369.
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 226, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1695,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
APPENDIX E
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
An Analysis of the Implementation of Content Standards in
Selected School Districts of California
STANDARDS-BASED REFORM SURVEY
Instructions for Respondents: Your school district has been identified as one that is
currently involved in implementing or has been at the forefront of content standards
implementation at the district level in California. The questions included in this
survey are designed to provide background information in an attempt to identify
perceptions, opinions, and experiences of district level personnel involved with
standards-based educational reform. Please respond to the best of your ability. This
study guarantees strict confidentiality. Neither you nor your school district will be
identified by name. Please return the completed survey in the attached envelope by
Friday, September 26, 2003. Participants, requesting a copy of the survey results
complete items one through five. Other respondents complete items 2, 3 and 4.
For researcher only:
1. Name (optional)_____
2. School District Name
3. Position/Job Title___
4. County____________
5. E-mail (optional)_____
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
Part I: School District Characteristics
1. Please indicate the category identifying the years you have served in your current position as
(Superintendent, Superintendent o f Instruction, District-Level Core Content Specialists in
charge o f Standards-Based Reform, District-Level Standards-Based Professional Development
Specialists, or other district-level position involved in standards-based reform): (circle one)
1-3 years of service 1
4-6 years of service 2
7-10 years o f service 3
11 or more years o f service 4
2. Please indicate whether you have participated in other state or district-level reform efforts prior
to the adoption and implementation o f standards-based reform and accountability in your
school district, (circle one)
Yes, I have participated 1
No, I have not participated 2
Comments:_______________________________________________________________________
3. Which o f the following categories best describes your district’s current enrollment? (Do not
include Adult Education), (circle one)
1 - 4 9 9 1
5 0 0 -9 9 9 2
1,000-2,499 3
2,500 - 4,999 4
5,000 - 9,999 5
10,000 - 19,999 6
20,000 - 29,999 7
30,000-49,999 8
50,000 - 99,999 9
100,001 or more 10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
4. Which of the following best describes your district? (circle one)
Rural 1
Suburban 2
Urban 3
5. Please indicate the number o f schools that are currently in your district at the following levels.
Elementary ________
Middle/Junior High School ________
High School ________
Other (K-8, K-12, etc) ________
6. Did your district adopt academic content standards prior to adopting state content standards?
(circle one)
Yes 1
No 2
Don’t know 3
Levels Totals
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Part II: The Implementation Process
7. Which of the following best describes the type of standards-based reform model or
implementation process that your district is currently using to improve student achievement,
(circle one)
Individual Teacher Developed Implementation Process 1
School Developed Implementation Process 2
District Developed Implementation Process 3
County Developed Implementation Process. 4
State Developed Implementation Process 5
Outside Provider or Contractor Implementation Process 6
Blended Model, that utilizes components from each or some o f the 7
(please specify)
Other, please specify 8
Uncertain 9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
8. Various strategies are being developed or utilized by your district to support standards-based
reform. In column A, indicate the extent to which the following strategies have or are being
implemented in your district. In column B, indicate three areas where information is most
needed.
A. Extent to which your district is
implementing strategy (circle one)
B. Information
most needed
(please check)
Strategy to support
standards-based reform
Not at
all
Limited
(Small)
Extent
Moderat
e Extent
Great
Extent
A. Strategic plan for
enabling students to
achieve to high levels of
performance on state
standards
1 2 3 4
B. Professional
development to enable
staff to teach the content
standards students are
expected to learn
1 2 3 4
C. Standards-aligned
instructional materials such
as textbooks that expose
students to the content they
are expected to learn
1 2 3 4
D. Assessments that
measure performance
against the standards
students are expected to
learn
1 2 3 4
E. Assessments that are
used for school
accountability and
continuous improvement
1 2 3 4
F. Parent involvement
activities designed to help
parents work with their
children to achieve high
levels of achievement
1 2 3 4
G. Restructuring the
school day to allow for
more in depth content
standards instruction
1 2 3 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
A. Extent to which your district is
implementing strategy (circle one)
B. Information
most needed
(please check)
H. Extending the school
day to provide for more 1 2 3 4
instructional time
I. Extending the school
year to provide for more 1 2 3 4
instructional time
J. Staff participation in
professional development 1 2 3 4
networks focused on
standards-based reform
K. Other (specify)
1 2 3
Comments:
current standards-based reform process been in place in your district? (circle
1
2
3
4
9. How long has the
one)
1 year
2 - 3 years
4 - 5 years
6 or more years
10. During the 2000-2001 school year the total amount o f time spent on state or district standards-
based reform implementation was: (circle one)
Less than 10 hours 1
10-20 hours 2
21-30 hours 3
31 or more hours 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
11. During the 2001-2002 school year the total amount of time spent on standards-based reform
implementation was: (circle one)
Increased 1
Decreased 2
Remained about the same 3
12. During the 2002-2003 school year the total amount of time spent on standards-based reform
implementation was: (circle one)
Increased 1
Decreased 2
Remained about the same 3
13. During the 2000-2001 school year districtwide STAR assessment results have: (circle one)
Increased 1
Decreased 2
Remained about the same 3
14. During the 2001-2002 school year district wide STAR assessment results: (circle one)
Increased 1
Decreased 2
Remained about the same 3
15 .Prior to district adoption o f California content standards, at what time o f the school year was
improving student achievement and meeting target levels of student achievement addressed at
the school level? (circle one)
First month o f school (opening weeks of school) 1
Toward the beginning of the school year (October-January) 2
Near the end o f the school year (February -April) 3
Last months of the school year(May-June) 4
Throughout the school year 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
16. Following district adoption of California content standards, at what time of the school year was
improving student achievement and meeting target levels o f student achievement addressed at
the school level? (circle one)
First month o f school (opening weeks o f school) 1
Toward the beginning o f the school year (October-January) 2
Near the end o f the school year (February -April) 3
Last months o f the school year(May-June) 4
Throughout the school year 5
17. Overall how satisfied are you with district level standards-based efforts to improve student
achievement on state mandated assessments? Please rate your best answer using a scale from
1, very dissatisfied to 4, very satisfied, (circle one)
Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied__________ Satisfied__________Very Satisfied
1 2 3 4
Comments:_______________________________________________________________________
18. Please rate the levels of cooperation and collaboration in implementing state and district
reforms among district administrators, site administrators, and teachers prior to the
implementation of state standards. Please rate your best answer using a scale o f 1. very low
cooperation and collaboration, to 4, very high cooperation and collaboration, (circle one for
each statement)
Very Low Very High
Cooperation/Collaboration Cooperation/Collaboration
District Administrators and
School Administrators
1
Site Administrators and Teachers 1
District Administrators and 1
Teachers
2
2
4
4
District and School
Administrators and Teachers
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
19. Please rate the levels of cooperation and collaboration in implementing state and district
reforms among district administrators, site administrators, and teachers following the
implementation o f state standards. Please rate your best answer using a scale of 1, being very
low cooperation and collaboration, to 4, very high cooperation and collaboration, (circle one
for each statement)
Very Low
Cooperation/Collaboration
Very High
Cooperation/Collaboration
District Administrators and
School Administrators
1
Site Administrators and Teachers 1
District Administrators and 1
Teachers
2
2
4
4
District and School
Administrators and Teachers
1
20. Please rate the levels o f participation in implementing state and district reforms among district
administrators, site administrators, and teachers prior to the implementation of state standards.
Please rate your best answer using a scale of 1, being very low participation, to 4, very high
participation, (circle one for each statement)
District Administrators and
School Administrators
Very Low Participation Very High Participation
Site Administrators and Teachers 1
District Administrators and 1
Teachers
2
2
4
4
District and School
Administrators and Teachers
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
21. Please rate the levels of participation in implementing state and district reforms among district
administrators, site administrators, and teachers following the implementation o f state
standards. Please rate your best answer using a scale of 1, being very low participation, to 4,
very high participation, (circle one for each statement)
Very Low Participation Very High Participation
District Administrators and 1 2 3 4
School Administrators
Site Administrators and Teachers 1
1 District Administrators and
Teachers
District and School
Administrators and Teachers
2
2
1
4
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
Part III. Advantages and Disadvantages
22. The following is a list o f potential benefits of implementing state standards and accountability
measures or systems to improve student achievement. It is possible that you may have
experienced some o f the outcomes and not others. On a scale o f 1, being disagree strongly, to
4, agree strongly, please rate what you believe to be the benefit o f each, (circle one for each
statement)
Improved student achievement on state
and district assessments
Improved quality o f instruction
Improved parent participation
Teacher and school rewards and incentives
Higher morale among district employees
Improved cooperation and collaboration
between teachers and district
administrators
More focused professional development
programs
Better standards-aligned curriculum and
instructional programs
Increased expectations for student learning
Increased accountability for student
learning
Strongly Disagree
Disagree____________
Agree
2
2
Strongly
Agree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
23. The following is a list o f potential drawbacks or disadvantages o f utilizing a reform model
based on standards to improve student achievement. On a scale of 1 being disagree strongly, to
4, agree strongly, please indicate what you believe to be drawbacks, (circle one for each
statement)
Lack o f time to implement reform model
Lack of or inadequately trained staff
Use o f instructional materials and texts
that are not aligned with standards
Lack o f teacher awareness regarding ways
to integrate standards into the curriculum
Use o f assessments that are not aligned
with standards
Greater administrative control and power
Less teacher acceptance o f the process
Less administrative acceptance o f the
process
Less public acceptance of the process
Less local Board of Education acceptance
o f the process
Strongly Disagree
Disagree____________
Agree
2
2
2
2
2
Strongly
Agree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Comments
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
24. Please feel free to share any other opinions or perceptions you may have about the process of
using educational reform based upon standards to improve student achievement.
Comments:______________________________________________________________________
25. Would you like a copy o f the results o f this survey? (Please complete all items at the top of the
survey.)
Y e s____________
Not Necessary__________
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 the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

Elementary administrators and teachers' perceptions of the teacher evaluation process in California's public schools

PDF

A comparative analysis of academic achievement for CalWORKs students in a K--12 public school system

PDF

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

PDF

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

An analysis of perceptions and implementation of California's teacher evaluation process in a K--5 public school and its impact on teacher practice

PDF

High school teachers' and administrators' perceptions of the teacher evaluation process in California's public schools

PDF

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

PDF

An elementary school's perceptions of the effectiveness of teacher evaluation to enhance teacher practice

PDF

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

PDF

Essential elements of superintendent training and preparation programs as indicated by practicing superintendents in the state of California

PDF

A case study of the California teacher evaluation system and its impact upon teacher practice in an alternative education high -performing urban high school

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A history of the development of the California Science Content Standards: 1990--2005

PDF

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

PDF

An analysis in the use of student performance data in schools

PDF

A case study of instructional supervision, including teacher evaluation, and the impact on teacher practice

PDF

Academic self regulation, task persistence, and completion of assignments in an e-mail-supported distance learning environment

Asset Metadata

Creator Carter, Joel B. (author)

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

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 Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Gothold, Stuart (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-577243

Unique identifier UC11336545

Identifier 3236484.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-577243 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3236484.pdf

Dmrecord 577243

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Carter, Joel B.

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