University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Mandated privatization through program improvement: a case study of the relationship between Action Learning Systems and the Buena Park School District

(USC Thesis Other)

Mandated privatization through program improvement: a case study of the relationship between Action Learning Systems and the Buena Park School District

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION 1

“MANDATED PRIVATIZATION THROUGH PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT”:
A CASE STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACTION LEARNING
SYSTEMS AND THE BUENA PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT

by

Jason Kuncewicki

__________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2014

Copyright 2014 Jason Kuncewicki

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the following individuals and groups for the part that they
have played, whether they know it or not, in the creation and completion of this dissertation.
I would like to thank Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, my dissertation chair, for making this
process manageable, purposeful, and a true culmination to this journey. Dr. Hentschke, you are a
true model of intelligence, understanding and humor. Thank you as well to Dr. Katharine Strunk
and Dr. Patricia Burch for joining the committee and giving amazing feedback to ensure quality
work.
To the teachers and administration of the Buena Park School District, I am indebted to all
of you for not only contributing to the study, but having the integrity and diligence to serve all
students in the city of Buena Park with tireless commitment and energy. A special thanks to the
staff at Carl E. Gilbert staff for putting up with me for the past three years during this process
and being the best staff any administrator can ask for. A special thanks to the staff at Action
Learning Systems for giving me information and access that has allowed me to construct this
case study.
I could not have done any of this without my family. To my wife Eva, you are the person
that has encouraged me to be the best I can possibly be. Like we have said, this is not the end of
the journey, just the beginning, I love you! To my parents and sister, your constant support and
love has been a cornerstone to the man that I have become.
Lastly, to all educators that might possibly pick up this dissertation and stumble upon this
last sentence, there is nothing like the light in a child’s eyes when they learn something new. I
wake up every day and I continue to strive to better myself for those students.

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments 2
Abstract 4
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 5
Chapter 2: Literature Review 20
Chapter 3: Research Design and Methodology 35
Chapter 4: Analysis of Data and Findings 47
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications 69
References 81
Appendices 86
Appendix A: Interview Guide For BPSD Teachers 86
Appendix B: Respondent Survey for District Leadership Team within the 89
Buena Park School District
Appendix C: Interview Guide for Action Learning Systems Staff 93
Appendix D: Focus Group Guide for Action Learning Systems Executors 96
of DAIT Contract
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

4
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate aspects of the federal No Child Left Behind Act,
more specifically the sanctions that accompany year 3 of program improvement. The study
worked to identify any conditions, factors, processes, transactions or elements that may have
contributed to a Title I federally funded California public urban elementary school district’s
ability to successfully exit and move beyond their program improvement status through an aspect
of mandated privatization through Title I federal funding. This researcher sought to better
understand which incentives and behavior created by outsourcing technical assistance services
contributed to exiting program improvement through the lens of Transaction Cost Economics. In
order to capture the relationship between school districts and outside providers for technical
assistance, a qualitative case study took place. The case study involved one school district
(Buena Park), and one outside provider (Action Learning Systems). Through semi-structured
interviews and a focus group of teachers and administrators in the district, a focus group of
outside providers along with interviews of those providers, data was collected to answer research
questions that pertain to perceptions of a partnership between firm and vendor, it’s effect on
teaching and learning, and if that partnership created new growth opportunities for both parties.
Through these protocols, it was found that the basis of success or failure through these
partnerships was based on the strength of the relationship established between the stakeholders
of the firm and vendor. The more trust the school district had in the vendor, the more the district
took the tools delivered and implemented them into practice for instructional improvement for
student achievement.

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

5
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
During the last several years, and especially leading up to the potential reauthorization of
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), federal accountability measures have been a
catalyst for policymakers to identify schools as “failing and underperforming” (Brady, 2003). K-
12 schools, more specifically, teachers in California, continue to serve a myriad of students,
regardless of their less than desirable distinction of not making “Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP),” a term coined by the federal government (Brady, 2003).
The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that California schools and Local
Educational Agencies (LEA) receiving Title I funds meet or exceed a series of annual academic
performance goals, or AYP. A portion of Title I federal dollars are set aside for schools and
districts that are identified as needing outside technical assistance if they are underperforming,
or not meeting AYP, after two consecutive years and have been identified as Program
Improvement (PI) within that time span (EdSource, 2010). A School or district could have
potentially 46 different criteria to meet in order to make AYP (EdSource, 2010; California
Department of Education [CDE], 2011). Districts are not given a choice in the matter when
deciding if they are going to select to contract out with a provider for technical assistance, it is a
mandate by the federal government (EdSource, 2010). They are, however, given discretion and
autonomy to spend those monies on a state-approved outside vendors of their choice to provide
technical assistance to all stakeholders in the district to improve the governance of the
organization, as well as the teaching and learning process to exit program improvement.
In order for schools or districts to exit program improvement they must meet federal
accountability benchmarks, or “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP), outlined by NCLB for two
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

6
consecutive years (CDE, 2011). Title I federal funds are and have been able to successfully exit
and move some schools and districts beyond their Program Improvement (PI) status (CDE,
2011). Conversely, other public schools in California receiving Title I federal funds maintain
their program improvement status for several years even with technical assistance. They exhibit
little hope of ever exiting program improvement status and entering the “promise land;” a land
without labels, interventions, sanctions, and consequences.
Statement of the Problem
The traditional approach to program improvement for any organization or individual is to
look for the problem, apply a diagnosis, and find a solution. Public schools were legislatively
mandated to adhere to solutions through a form of compliance to exit program improvement, and
many times schools were not meeting the desired results laid out to leave program improvement
(CDE, 2011). The problem that surfaced throughout the state of California is that technical
assistance from outside providers was not eliciting the desired outcomes; schools and districts
were not moving out of program improvement and were gravitating to further corrective action
outlined by the state and NCLB.
Many problem solving models are traced back to Dewey (1910), who claimed five stages
to problem solving: perceiving a difficulty, defining the problem, suggesting possible solutions,
analyzing implications of solutions and testing validity of solutions (Benitas, 2012). Problem-
solving research was revolutionized in the 1960s when researchers turned from studying the
conditions under which solutions are reached to the process of problem solving (Chi, Glaser, &
Rees, 1982). This approach focuses primarily on the identification of organizational needs and
the external inputs necessary to meet those needs or to solve a problem. The external inputs from
the outside market that were necessary for schools to exit program improvement were unclear
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

7
and inconsistent as the amounts of schools that entered year 3 and beyond of program
improvement continued to grow year by year (Benitas, 2012). As of 2010, more than 60% of
schools that were in program improvement were at the corrective action stage. This stage is
entered after schools were given Title I federal funding for improvement (EdSource, 2010).
Schools were not exiting program improvement status as the federal government has intended
with financial assistance. The transaction between the outside market (governmental approved
providers) and organizational hierarchies (school districts) has not elicited the output that was
originally desired from policymakers. Most program improvement activities that were mandated
to take place with Title I federal dollars involved extensive professional development activities
(technical assistance) for teachers and administrators. Many schools and districts actually have
the capacity to develop these teacher support activities that are currently being outsourced but
due to time constraints were unable to exercise this ability to plan and deliver professional
development. More is mentioned in this study about capacity and time.
Background
In 2002, the idea and definition of educational accountability measures changed with the
implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation (Brady, 2003). High stakes
accountability measures for student outcomes in all communities, but especially communities
that are home to low-income families, have charged all school stakeholders to improve
performance on formative and summative assessments (Brady, 2003). Of particular challenge
was the NCLB requirement to advance student achievement each year according to designated
achievement goals known as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The ultimate goal was to have
100% of all students achieving proficiency by the year 2014 (CDE, 2011). For those schools not
making these goals, NCLB designated them as underperforming and placed them in a category
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

8
requiring considerable oversight and termed the schools in program improvement (CDE, 2011).
More and more schools were being identified as program improvement due to the higher
accountability requirements put forth by NCLB (Benitas, 2012).
Program improvement (PI) involved a succession of interventions, sanctions, and
consequences that became more severe with each year that a school did not make Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP). Once a school enters PI, there were various program components that
were required to be implemented over the span of five years. The program components to be
implemented were determined by the year of program improvement identification. If a school
does not make AYP on the same indicator for two years within a “significant subgroup” (CDE,
2011), the school enters Year 1 of PI. A “significant subgroup” was defined by the state as a
group of tested students that is either 15% of the population or makes up 100 students in the
school’s average daily attendance (CDE, 2011). Schools identified for PI Year 3 must comply
with implementing one or more critical changes or corrective actions including replacing
members of the school staff, adopting and implementing new curriculum, relieving members of
job responsibilities, or extending the day or school year. The main thrust of PI Year 3 was to
employ an outside “expert,” using Title I federal dollars, to give the district technical assistance
with achieving performance benchmarks in accordance with its school plan (Wong & Wang,
2002). This process and the monies that accompanied the process was known as technical
assistance through a District Assistance Intervention Team (DAIT) (Strunk, McEachin, &
Westover, 2012).
Many stakeholders that believed in traditional means of intervention see DAIT providers
as educational entrepreneurs (Smith & Peterson, 2006). The State Board of Education, at the
time of this study, had approved 56 DAIT providers (CDE, 2011). In order to be placed on the
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

9
state-approved list of providers, DAIT providers must have shown expertise in leadership,
academic subject areas, meeting the needs of English language learners (ELLs) and students with
disabilities (SWDs), and building district capacity (Strunk, McEachin, & Westover, 2012).
These providers ranged in type from county office of educations to private educational centers
that were found throughout California. The California Department of Education (CDE) has also
developed and adopted seven standards of practice that DAIT providers must have met to ensure
that they remained a desirable vendor for firms (schools or districts) to contract services through.
These standards included (a) governance (b) alignment of curriculum, instruction, and
assessments to state standards (c) fiscal operations (d) parent and community involvement (e)
human resource development (f) data systems and achievement monitoring (g) professional
development (CDE, 2011).
These entrepreneurs or providers used these standards as an outline and develop a vision
for solving the accountability problems many districts faced and helped create a new
organization or structure within public schools to carry out their vision and redefine what was
possible (Smith & Peterson, 2006). Many of these providers called this outline their “blueprint
for success” and will be mentioned as such throughout this study. These accountability policies
have introduced opportunities that many vendors addressed through supplemental services and
provided services mandated by the government. An underlying issue surrounding these
opportunities could be that organizations have failed to make AYP due to a lack of promoting
human capital within their organization and the “transaction cost” to hire outside providers was
seen as a benefit by the federal government (Williamson, 2008). Districts must have developed
mechanisms to acquire goods and technical assistance from these outside vendors. Districts that
were in Year 3 PI status many times contained schools that were not in PI status Year 1. When
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

10
districts made decisions to contract for technical assistance they must be cognizant of all
stakeholders in the district and the perception of the role that they played in the technical
assistance acquisition process. The team put together to make decisions about the vendor must
take into account views on PI, what corrective action and technical assistance would look like,
and how it could change or alter their role in the district.
Conceptual Underpinnings for the Study
Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) poses this question to organizations: When and why
should we as a firm or organization acquire a good or service in the market by outsourcing or
contracting rather than producing it within our hierarchy? While program improvement did not
allow school districts to decide when and why they outsource, they were allowed the autonomy
to decide who to contract out with for technical assistance. Some organizations must decide
when they need to adapt within their hierarchy to better achieve goals set out by their
organization. By investigating the tradeoffs between developing human capital and operating
systems within their hierarchy and outsourcing production to the market for private assistance,
TCE allows organizations to make more of an educated and calculated choice to buy vs. make
whatever good or service their organization needs to attain their desired level of success
(Williamson, 2008). There should be a degree of adaptation in the organization to build capacity
for change over time to mitigate negative transaction costs. If a company decides to contract out
into the market, there needs to be (a) asset specificity in order to delineate with the greatest
degree possible what are the terms of the contract, so the organization, in this case school
districts, have clarity in what is being purchased and provided, (b) order preserving mechanisms
to provide for hazards, that are governed in the contract or plans for negative externalities, such
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

11
as a plan of action to lead school districts forward after PI has been exited, and, (c) the capacity
to be forward thinking to avoid maladaptation within the market (Williamson, 2008).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to pursue further investigation into program improvement
in order to assist in identifying any conditions, factors, processes, transactions or elements that
may have contributed to a Title I federally funded California public urban elementary school
district’s ability to successfully exit and move beyond their program improvement status through
an aspect of privatization through Title I federal funding. More specifically, this researcher
sought to better understand the benefits and pitfalls of this particular form of partnership,
including the degree to which the incentives and behavior created by outsourcing technical
assistance services contribute to exiting program improvement. Secondarily, further investigation
took place to find out if the outside market provided goods and services that were not available
without assistance.
In 2009-2010 there were 9,917 public schools in California and 6,065 of those schools
received Title 1 federal funding (EdSource, 2010). Of the 6,065 public schools in California
receiving Title I federal funding during the 2009-2010 school year, 2,783 were designated as
program improvement schools. Thus, in 2009-2010, nearly one third or 28% of all California
schools were in program improvement status, and 62% of those schools were facing corrective
action (Year 3) or restructuring (Years 4-5) (EdSource, 2010; Benitas, 2012).
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

12
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. In what ways do teachers and administration in the Buena Park School District
believe the outside market in general will or will not assist the district in exiting
Program Improvement? What reasons do they provide to justify their conclusions?
2. How, if at all did those beliefs contribute specifically to the selection of one specific
firm, Action Learning Systems for technical assistance through the DAIT process?
3. How did teachers and administrators see the DAIT contract with Action Learning
Systems affecting the teaching and learning in their classrooms?
4. What future benefits, risks, or anticipated gains did Action Learning Systems see after
completion of the DAIT contract with Buena Park School District?
Hypothesis
Based on a review of the literature, historical context of PI, and non-relenting federal
accountability mandates for schools to exit program improvement, the main hypothesis of this
case study was that the ability for a school or district to exit year 3 of PI relied heavily on the
attitudes and capacity of the teachers and administration of the district as well as perceptions of
the role they play in the DAIT technical assistance process. The willingness to accept the
assistance of an outside provider and the strategies outlined in the contract do contribute to
school improvement and an eventual exit from PI. The federal dollars that are allocated for
schools in Year 2 and beyond of PI to contract with outside providers will allow new and
different staff development and the formulation of a “blueprint of success,” or new direction.
The outside provider will bring forth research-based staff development and human capital
building programs. It is incumbent upon the instructional stakeholders of the district to
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

13
implement the “blueprint.” Without ownership of programs and procedures brought about by
technical assistance given by the outside provider, this process will end up “on the shelf” with
other programs that were given to teachers and administrators.
Limitations and Assumptions of Study
Limitations
It is important to be clear through the findings of this study that only one school district,
Buena Park School District (BPSD) in California and one outside vendor, Action Learning
Systems (ALS), was examined. In confining the sample size to one of each, it was not intended
that the results and conclusions be used as a blueprint or formula for other schools to follow, but
serve as suggestions to be considered for use by other schools and districts in program
improvement and looking to contract with outside vendors. As Maxwell (2013) stated, case
studies “are not concerned with generalization, but with the adequate description, interpretation,
and explanation of a case” (p. 79).
Although the literature that was examined used many themes of program improvement,
the actual study focused on one school district in California that, at the time of the study, was in
process of working towards exiting and moving beyond its program improvement status in 2012-
2013. While the demographics of the sampling of students, parents and educators from BPSD
may be emblematic of other program improvement districts, each district and community has its
own characteristics, which may affect the impact of the findings.
Assumptions
One of the main assumptions of this case study was the non-bias honesty of the
participants in providing truthful feedback regarding their participation in the program
improvement process and their perceptions of the relationship of the outside provider and the
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

14
school district. Non-bias feedback on the instruments and surveys used was critical to
determining findings. Teachers and administration in BPSD have been involved in the program
improvement process for over five years and varying levels of responsibility for lack of meeting
federal accountability expectations are present.
Moreover, the focus on the contract that was used in the study is critical to valid findings.
Multiple contracts exist between BPSD and ALS, and focus on this aspect of the relationship is
vital to the findings. Lastly, the final assumption of this study was that both parties valued
exiting program improvement and wish to see a gain in the teaching and learning process based
on the professional development given within the terms of the contract of technical assistance
through the DAIT process.
Definition of Key Terms
In initiating the development of this topic, this researcher came to the realization that the
field of education and transaction cost economics utilized a bevy of acronyms and buzz words
that could limit understanding without clear definition of key terms. A significant aspect of this
research project was to provide clear and concise information for educators, researchers and
practitioners. Therefore, it was this researcher’s belief that it was important to establish key
definitions for the reader as to what is meant by the terms utilized throughout the remainder of
this study.
At Risk of Being Identified As A Program Improvement School. A Title I school is at risk
of being identified for program improvement when, for each of two consecutive years, the Title I
school does not make AYP in the same content area (English-Language Arts or Mathematics)
school-wide or for any numerically significant subgroup, or on the same indicator (API or high
school graduation rate) school-wide (CDE, 2011).
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

15
API. Academic Performance Index (API) is part of California’s Public School
Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA). The purpose of the API is to measure the academic
performance and growth of schools. It is a numeric index (scale) that ranges from a low 200 to a
high 1,000. A school’s score on the API is an indicator of a school’s performance level. The
statewide API performance target for all schools is 800. A school’s growth is measured by how
well it is moving towards or past that goal. A school’s base year API is subtracted from its
growth API to determine how much the school improved in a year (CDE, 2011).
Asset Specificity. Delineation to the greatest degree possible what terms of a contract are.
Assets within the contract that are being exchanged have only limited use or can be used in
specific ways (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012).
AYP. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is a federal accountability requirement mandated
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which requires each state to ensure that all schools and
districts make AYP. AYP is a series of annual academic performance goals established for
schools and districts. Schools and districts are required to meet or exceed criteria in the following
four areas: Participation Rate, Percent Proficient, API, and Graduation Rate in order to make
AYP (United States Department of Education [USDE], 2007).
AYP Growth Targets. The NCLB Act of 2001, mandates that all schools receiving Title I
funds meet or exceed all establish AYP Growth Targets. Growth Targets exist in four areas:
participation rate, percentage proficient (also referred to as Annual Measurable Objectives or
AMOs). API and graduation rate are additional indicators (USDE, 2007).
Contract. Basic unit of measurement in Transaction Cost Economics. When you enter
into a contract, the contract delineates what the two members within the contract can and cannot
do (sets rules) (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012).
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

16
CDE. California Department of Education (CDE) oversees the state’s dynamic public
school system that is responsible for the education of more than seven million children and
young adults in more than 9,000 schools. The CDE and the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction are responsible for enforcing educational law and regulations, and for continuing to
reform and improve public educational school programs (CDE, 2011).
Corrective Action. Under program improvement, if a school fails to make AYP for three
consecutive years they are identified for “Corrective Action.” After a school has been targeted
for “Corrective Action” they are required to select one or more of the following Corrective
Actions: (1) replace the school staff; (2) institute and fully implement a new curriculum and
provide appropriate professional development; (3) significantly decrease management authority
at the school level; (4) appoint an outside expert to advise the school; (5) extend the school year
or the school day; or (6) restructure the internal organizational structure of the school (CDE,
2011).
CST. The California Standards Tests (CST) are individual subject tests in English-
Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, and History-Social Science that are administrated to
students in California as part of the STAR testing program. These tests are used in calculating
AYP. Except for a writing component that is administered as part of the grades four and seven
English-language arts tests, all questions are multiple choice. These tests were developed
specifically to assess students’ knowledge of the California academic content standards. The
State Board of Education adopted these standards that specify what all California children are
expected to know and be able to do in each grade or course. CST scores are reported as one of
five performance levels from advanced to far below basic. Only the results of the California
English-Language Arts and Mathematics Standards Tests are used to determine the progress
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

17
elementary and middle schools are making toward meeting the federal No Child Left Behind
adequate yearly progress requirement of having all students score at proficient or above on these
tests (CDE, 2011).
Entering Program Improvement. The NCLB Act of 2001 requires that all school meet
AYP criteria annually. Schools that receive Title I funds will enter program improvement, if they
do not meet AYP criteria for two consecutive years in specific areas. A School or district could
have potentially 46 different criteria to meet in order to make AYP (USDE, 2007).
Exiting Program Improvement. A school will exit program improvement if it makes AYP
for two consecutive years. A school exiting program improvement will not be subject to Title I
corrective actions or other NCLB sanctions (CDE, 2011).
Growth Targets. The NCLB Act of 2001, mandates that all schools receiving Title I
funds meet or exceed all establish AYP Growth Targets. Growth Targets exist in four areas:
participation rate, percentage proficient (also referred to as Annual Measurable Objectives or
AMOs). API and graduation rate are additional indicators (USDE, 2007).
Incentives. Elements of transaction within the contract that make the contract more
attractive to the firm and the market that enter into the contract (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012).
NCLB. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 is the largest federal program for
promoting equity and excellence in education and it reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary
Educational Act of 1965.
Program Improvement (PI). Program improvement is a formal designation for Title I
funded schools and LEAs. The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that California
schools and LEA’s receiving Title I funds meet or exceed a series of annual academic
performance goals. Schools that receive Title I funds will be identified for program
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

18
improvement, if they do not meet AYP criteria for two consecutive years in specific areas. A
School or district could have potentially 46 different criteria to meet in order to make AYP
(CDE, 2011).
Technical Assistance. Federal funds will be available to states and districts to augment
their efforts to provide capacity building and technical assistance to schools identified as needing
improvement. State technical assistance provided with these funds must be grounded in
scientifically-based research (CDE, 2011).
Title I. Is a program under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 20001 that provides
funding to help educate low-income children. The primary goal of Title I is for all students to be
100 proficient in English Language Arts and Mathematics by 2014 (CDE, 2011).
Transaction Cost Economics. The origins of TCE come from the Coase; puzzle what
efficiency factors determine when a firm produces a good or service to its own need rather than
outsource. The ultimate unit of activity must include conflict, mutuality and order (Tadelis &
Williamson, 2012).
Summary
Under the NCLB Act of 2001, AYP growth targets continued to increase until 2014.
NCLB requires 100% of students nationwide become proficient in English-Language Arts and
Mathematics by 2013-2014 (CDE, 2011). As AYP growth targets continued to increase there
were fewer and fewer schools that were able to escape identification for program improvement,
and the continued increase of AYP growth targets make it nearly impossible for schools
currently in program improvement to successfully exit and move beyond their status (Brady,
2003). Under NCLB, all schools that receive Title I funding and do not make AYP growth
targets can be identified for program improvement (CDE, 2011). These funds from the federal
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

19
government were earmarked to hire outside providers to assist in formulating a plan and
eventually exit program improvement. The ability or lack of ability of Buena Park School
District to exit program improvement with assistance from the outside provider was studied
throughout this paper. Through the frame of Transaction Cost Economics (TCE), the
relationship of the vendor (ALS) and firm (BPSD) was studied, the terms of the contract were
outlined, and potential reasons why BPSD and other schools in California were not exiting PI
were identified.

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

20
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
In order to establish a foundation to implement a design focused on answering the
research questions, a review of current and prior literature must be performed to set a basis or
guideline for further study (Merriam, 2009). The main focus of this case study was directed
towards the program improvement process and its year 3 contract requirements for technical
assistance. Other components of the literature review focused upon the concept of transaction
cost economics, markets and hierarchies, and how the relationship between vendor and firm were
perceived to influence exiting program improvement and incentives or hazards towards future
contracts with a specific vendor. This literature review provided an overview by topic of the
research and overlaps as themes and terms became common throughout the study.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001
The NCLB Act of 2001 is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) of 1965, and it is the largest federal program for promoting equity and excellence
for students with special needs. The need for results-based accountability did not start up again
with NCLB. Its beginnings can be found in the 1983 A Nation at Risk report and the
establishment of national education goals in 1990 (Gardner, 1983). These moved states to
establish curriculum standards and testing and accountability systems to ensure that schools
teach to these standards. This process was further encouraged by the 1994 amendments to the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the “Goals 2000” program, both of which
provided targeted financial support to improve low-performing schools (Schwartz & Robinson,
2000). On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the NCLB Act into law; which
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

21
not only reauthorized the ESEA, but also sought to increase the levels of performance by
students by raising the standards of accountability for states. While some states have been vocal
in their protest of NCLB, failure to comply with the requirements established by NCLB could
result in a loss of funding from the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, NCLB requires
states to establish an accountability system to measure student growth in areas such as English
Language Arts and Mathematics as well as create a set of benchmarks measured by the AYP
measurement tool that would compel school districts and individual sites to reach the increasing
standards with complete compliance by 2014 (USDE, 2007).
Additionally, the state benchmarks established by the states must be reached not only by
districts and individual schools, but also by any sub-group of students considered to be
significant, which in California equates to any sub-group comprised of over fifty students or 15
percent of the total student enrollment at a particular site. Examples of sub-group categories
include groupings made up by ethnicity, low socio-economic status, English language
proficiency levels and designation as special education. Therefore, it is possible, and in some
cases indeed likely, that one particular student could be included in multiple sub-groupings.
Currently, the NCLB Act of 2001 has been a significant push from the federal government in its
attempt to guarantee academic achievement for all students (USDE, 2007).
NCLB has reversed the blame for students’ lack of success, as indicated by standardized
tests, from the students themselves to their teachers and schools (Finnigan & Gross, 2007;
EdSource, 2010). This has continued to be asserted without recognizing the need to change the
entire education system (Giroux, 2009). The intention of NCLB was to create equal educational
opportunities for all students by drawing attention to the achievement gap between students of
the dominant culture and those from traditionally underserved cultures (Thompson, Warren, &
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

22
Carter, 2004). Thus, the law focused on inequality but has not addressed the systemic problem of
the model of education itself. Thus, there have tended to be simplistic and politically expedient
solutions such as the demand that punitive measures be taken against schools whose students
failed to make adequate yearly progress as measured by state tests (EdSource, 2010) rather than
dealing with the inherited model of education itself. For example, a solution for low test scores
has been the provision of NCLB that students be allowed to transfer to better performing schools
and receive outside tutoring at the expense their local school. When schools have failed to make
adequate yearly progress for two years, they have been subject to Program Improvement. This
has involved bringing in outside experts to conduct staff development and requiring strict
adherence to curriculum chosen by the state (EdSource, 2010). This practice has been in conflict
with the research on positive school culture that emphasizes collaboration among teachers
instead of outside intervention (Hayes, 2007; Wagner, 2008).
Given the emphasis on test scores and the inherited model of education, NCLB has
reinforced the curriculum-centered model of education with more content to cover (Darling-
Hammond & Friedlaender, 2008). Growing numbers of hard working teachers have been finding
themselves frustrated in the attempt to cover all the standards (Marzano, 2003). It has been
estimated that the time to accomplish the K-12 standards required by states would be 15,465
hours of instruction. Marzano (2003) has calculated that in grades K-12, students realistically
received approximately 9,042 hours of instruction. He made the point that even under the best
circumstances; this would severely affect the students’ opportunity to learn. Marzano (2003)
concluded, “The standards movement as currently implemented has created a situation that
violates the viability criterion” (p. 25).
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

23
Teachers in California program improvement schools have experienced humiliation
through the process of blaming them because their students have not received high enough scores
on the federally mandated standardized tests required by NCLB (Lipman, 2009). In this sense,
because the model of education itself has not been at the forefront of contemporary analysis,
teachers in poor and highly diverse schools have tended to become the scapegoats (Giroux, 2009;
Lipman, 2009; McNeil, 2009). As a result, the teachers have been subjected to deskilling
professional development that has been expected to help them increase students’ test scores
(McNeil, 2009). In addition, they have had limited or no opportunities to diversify instruction for
students by being forced to use narrowed curriculum designed to increase test scores (Bartolome,
2009; Lipman, 2009), and have been continually monitored by both administration and state
employees to make sure they have not been deviating from the required curriculum (CDE, 2009).
Mintrop and Trujillo (2007) found that the quality of teaching in demographically similar
low performing schools that were not improving and low performing schools that were
improving their California Academic Performance Index (API) was virtually the same. What
differed was how seriously the schools took the accountability system and approached the
transmission of state-assessed knowledge. The result has been that in schools that have appeared
to be improving, teachers have deemphasized diverse instructional methods and materials in
order to emphasize curricular content (Schoen & Fusarelli, 2008). Brady (2003) found that high-
performing schools in low-income communities are not only possible, but are a “phenomenon of
sufficient import to receive significant scholarly attention” (p. 7).
Academic success, as measured by NCLB, has been met and exceeded by schools within
the Buena Park School District. At the time of this study, three of the seven schools in the
district were well above the mandated API score of 800 (CDE, 2011). Accountability measures
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

24
also drive perceptions of teachers around the idea of achievement and levels of performance for
their students. Subgroup growth was viewed by all members of the BPSD staff, including site
and district administration, and human resource and funding decisions are made based on the
data. At the time of this study, four of the seven schools, and the district itself, were in program
improvement. BPSD was now in year 3 of program improvement due to multiple subgroups
(English Learners, Student with Disabilities) not making federal growth indicators (CDE, 2011).
The lack of ability to move the overall achievement data in a positive direction as measured by
API and AYP, in conjunction with the state mandate of technical assistance, qualified the district
for outside assistance.
Program Improvement Under the NCLB Act of 2001
Under the federal NCLB Act of 2001, all schools and LEAs that do not make AYP for
two consecutive years are identified for program improvement (CDE, 2011). In California,
Program Improvement (PI) is the formal designation for Title I funded schools and local
educational agencies (LEAs) that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years.
Both schools and LEAs receiving Title I federal funding can be identified for program
improvement and corrective action measures. A Title I school will be identified for PI when, for
each of two consecutive years, the Title I school does not make AYP in the same content area
(English-language arts (ELA) or mathematics) school wide or for any numerically significant
subgroup, or on the same indicator (Academic Performance Index (API) or high school
graduation rate) school wide (CDE, 2011). A numerically significant subgroup is 15 percent of a
school’s tested population or 100 students, whichever is reached first. Program improvement
schools and LEA’s must implement required program improvement components and
interventions.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

25
Schools identified for Program Improvement Year one must comply with the following
program components: revise their school plan within three months (their plan must cover a two
year period); and use 10 percent of their Title I school funds for staff professional development.
Districts are required to provide technical assistance to the school; to set aside a minimum of five
percent for professional development to meet highly qualified staff requirements; to establish a
peer review process to review revised school plan; to notify parents of the program improvement
status of school and to offer parents the opportunity to send their child to a higher performing
public school of their choice within the district’s boundaries with the district covering the cost of
transportation (CDE, 2011).
Schools identified for Program Improvement Year 2 must comply with the following
program components: they must continue to implement its revised Title I plan and provide
professional development. The district must continue to provide technical assistance and
professional development to the school, as well as “Supplemental Educational Services” to low
performing students from low income families (CDE, 2011; Benitas, 2012). Typical services
consist of state approved tutors, before and after school programs, weekend programs, and other
out of school academic assistance.
Schools identified for Program Improvement Year 3 must comply with implementing one
or more critical changes or corrective actions: replacing members of the school staff; adopting
and implementing new curriculum; relieving members of some responsibilities; extending the
school day or school year; employing an outside expert to assist the school with achieving
performance benchmarks in accordance with its school plan; or restructuring of the internal
organizational structure of the school (USDE, 2007; CDE, 2011). If a school reaches Year 4 of
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

26
Program Improvement, it must work with its district to prepare a plan for restructuring the
governance of the school.
If a school does not make AYP for six consecutive years, the school enters year 5 of
Program Improvement and must implement the restructuring plan, which includes at least one of
the following: reopen the school as a charter; replace the staff and principal; enlist the assistance
of a private management company; allow the state to take over control of the school; or
implement some other major restructuring (USDE, 2007; CDE, 2011).
At the time of this study, Buena Park School District was in Year 3 of program
improvement. Students with Special Needs and English Language Learners were not meeting
AYP criteria outlined by the federal government for five consecutive years (CDE, 2011). BPSD
contracted with an outside resource (ALS) as an outside expert for technical assistance to assist
exiting program improvement. This process included building a district leadership team (DLT)
to investigate state approved providers for assistance, interviewing the providers using a district
adopted rubric, and building a contract around the A-G standards developed by the state for
outside providers (CDE, 2011).
Professional Development
The authorization of the NCLB Act of 2001, which reauthorized the ESEA of 1965, has
created new direction for states by creating rigid expectations for students, staff and schooling
organizations. These requirements establish prerequisite criteria for staff to be considered
“highly qualified,” raising benchmarks for students to be considered “proficient” and the
implementation of sanctions for schools lacking progress in reaching those goals. The NCLB Act
combines the historical tradition of students being responsible for their own actions, with the
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

27
more recent trend of holding educators and educational institutions accountable for the failure of
students who do not test proficient in English and Math and meet AYP targets.
The NCLB Act mandates that all teachers be “highly qualified” and demonstrate specific
competencies related to their subject matter areas. Many studies have been conducted (Hunter,
1982; Portner, 2005) investigating the positive impacts that highly trained teachers have on the
achievement of students. The 1980s witnessed attempts at reforming the instructional methods
with which students were educated (Becker & Epstein, 1982; Hunter, 1982). Madeline Hunter
popularized a method of utilizing direct instruction to better serve the needs of students during a
time when the nation was focusing upon a report published by the National Commission on
Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk (1983). In some cases, the focus of student
achievement began to shift from the individual’s success or failure to that of the schooling
system (Felice, 1981; Stager, Chassin, & Young, 1983). Teacher preparation programs, types of
professional development and the reliance of outdated methods of instruction were targeted as
the reasons for students failing to succeed at rates comparable to their international peers.
Nevertheless, many times whether a teacher is successful in the classroom or not depends more
on the amount of support that they receive from colleagues than on the amount of training that
they have undergone (Portner, 2005). Through mentoring and support networks, new teachers
are able to develop skills that are not only directed towards their particular assignment areas, but
towards developing as mentors within the classroom. While it is essential that teachers have a
sound understanding of the curriculum, it is also important that they be able to relate to their
colleagues. Through the lens of NCLB and PI components, that professional development can
also take place through an outside provider when schools are in Year 3 of PI and beyond.
Through that relationship with an outside provider, the federal and state governments feel as
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

28
though the teaching and learning process can be enhanced and student achievement can be
improved through technical assistance. Brady (2003) considers this an appropriate intervention
and one that has been successful throughout the nation.
Transaction Cost Economics
Given that economists study how individuals, organizations, and societies employ time,
money and effort (Brewer & Hentschke, 2010), the thrust of the economic literature studied in
this paper focused on organizational relationships, both within and among firms, and especially
between market and hierarchical relationships through the lens of Transaction Cost Economics.
Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) is used as a way of looking at the transaction as the unit of
analysis rather than simply exchanges of goods or services for monetary gain (Tadelis &
Williamson, 2012). The underlying notion is that markets and hierarchies are alternatives to
each other and firms tend to pick a form that works “best” for their situation.
For Buena Park School District (BPSD), their district hierarchy had only a choice to pick
which vendor would allocate services that met the criteria outlined by the federal government.
Multiple hierarchies are at play in this study due to the federal government allocating money to
the state, and the state giving BPSD choice of vendor to interview for technical assistance. This
is not a classical version of the buy vs. make decision that is one of the central themes in TCE,
but the choice of vendors and the perception of how the choice was made to multiple
stakeholders will be an essential theme throughout the study. There was not a classical choice to
work within their hierarchy to better their organization without technical assistance from the
outside provider. That choice was taken from them when BPSD entered Year 3 of PI.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

29
Markets and Hierarchies
Markets and hierarchies play the key role in determining the efficiency of a good or
service (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012). Markets represent the ‘buy’ and hierarchies represent the
‘make’ factors involved in determining whether or not to pursue a transaction with another party.
Larger organizations that are more vertically organized tend to choose to keep goods and
services internal like Standard Oil in the time of great monopolies, while smaller organizations
tend not to, in order to compete and get the same services that they cannot provide themselves
(Lamoureaux, Raff, & Temin, 2002; Williamson, 2010). The scale of the operation, as
mentioned above, tends to guide the decision making process, but not in the case of program
improvement.
Publicly-funded schools are basically public sector organizations, and managers in public
sector organizations (such as school districts) exercise a fundamentally different set of rights
from their colleagues working in private not-for-profit and private for-profit organizations
(Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). School districts range in size from 400, to 4,000, to 40,000,
but the federal government still mandates that if they enter PI Year 3 they must contract out for
services to assist their professional development and human capital building, regardless of the
appropriate vertical hierarchy of the organization.
As mentioned earlier, Buena Park School District was currently in Year 3 of program
improvement and is in a contract for technical assistance with Action Learning Systems (ALS).
The market contained, at the time of this study, 56 different vendors in the market that qualified
to give technical assistance to schools in program improvement. The hierarchy within BPSD
constructed a leadership team that made the mandated choice to negotiate the contract terms with
ALS.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

30
Negotiations Process
The relationship between markets and firms are multifaceted and complex. Powell
(1990) states that organizations will tend to stay away from market transactions due to the asset
specificity of knowledge that exists within the hierarchy and inefficiency of the market to
rationalize the cost of the transaction within “bounded rationality” (p. 297). It is difficult or
irrational for the market or outside agency to make plans within the written contract for all
aspects or contingencies that might transpire within the contracted time. Powell (1990) defines
bounded rationality as the “inability of the economic actors to write contracts that cover all
possible contingencies within the firm’s structure” (p. 297). Within the hierarchy of the
organization, contingencies can be handled. This complicates the negotiations process between
market and hierarchy due to factors outside of the contract. The consequences of bounded
rationality are less severe if the transactions in question are uncomplicated and experience little
uncertainty (Williamson, 2008).
In the case of BPSD and Action Learning Systems, Powell’s (1990) concept of staying
away from the market cannot exist due to PI Year 3 requirements. The negotiation must take
place between the firm (BPSD) and a state approved vendor (ALS) for the technical assistance
process to begin. The transaction itself is simple yet complicated. It is simple in that the district
was required to acquire a contract, but complicated due to the A-G standards that the vendor
must deliver to fulfill the terms of the contract. The bounded rationality that Williamson (2008)
discussed could be simple for the organization, bounded only by their understanding of the
technical assistance process, but complicated by the vendor, as they explained all that is offered
by their organization.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

31
Anticipation of Future Gains
Williamson (2010), in his discussion of the lens of a contract, used the metaphor of trade
to correlate with the concept of future gains. He stated that “efficiency gains from trade go back
to when our ancestors traded nuts for berries on the edge of the forest, which exchanges were
both transparent and simple, akin to what we now think of as spot market exchange” (p. 5). He
went on to discuss that if mutual gain is evident and a portion of the contract can be seen as
incomplete, mechanisms are devised that enable the parties to preserve cooperation during
contract execution to set up for future gain (Williamson, 2010).
The ability of BPSD to see the technical assistance given by ALS was not transparent and
simple, as stated by Williamson. Many of the standards that are outlined by the CDE for
technical assistance to be completed are vague and intangible. What will be transparent at the
time of the study, however, were AYP and API gains since the inception and completion of the
contract. Professional development and leadership training took place; financial governance
structures were altered based on advice from ALS; teaching and learning strategies were
potentially enhanced by information outlined by providers. All of the factors within the contract
could set up ALS for future gains within BPSD. In 2014, the state of California must implement
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and use assessments to measure growth on new
performance indicators (CDE, 2011). Action Learning Systems has multiple professional
development opportunities for teachers and leaders of schools in California. If efficiency gains
are made through the current process, hazards are managed, and incentives for future projects are
clear, future gains can be made through future contracts with ALS.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

32
Institutional Loyalty within the Hierarchy
As economists like Coase and Williamson have emphasized, the problems of efficient
economic institutions need to be examined in a “comparative institutional way” (Williamson,
2008). Concerns with market (whether public or private) failures could be expanded to include
what is going on within the institution and how loyal the hierarchy is being to the constituents
within the organization before they contract out to the market. Are the hierarchies being too
loyal before seeking outside assistance for issues that need technical assistance from the market?
When there is a selection process through the market for an outside provider, as there is when
schools are in Year 3 of PI, loyalty within hierarchy is replaced by “adverse selection problems”
(Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). These problems include a lack of capacity and divergent
objectives within the hierarchy itself (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). When districts are
making a choice to adopt a specific provider for technical assistance, it is imperative that
multiple values and opinions are taken into account to avoid adverse selection problems to
ensure appropriate selection.
Incentives to Grow
One of the main purposes of any contractual relationship is satisfaction with the product
provided to a point of maximization of efficiency (Williamson, 2008). Through the original
transaction, the firm has grown due to efficiency models that were an aspect of the original
contract (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012). A strong incentive for the vendor to complete the
contract as defined throughout the negotiation is future contracts with the firm. The incentive for
the firm to grow is clear; without maximization of outputs potential conflicts within the
organization can occur (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012). In the case of BPSD, a mandated conflict
can occur within the organization if they did not exit program improvement within a certain time
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

33
span. The federal government has the potential to take over governance of the school district and
potentially fire all current staff members.
Summary
The literature reviewed herein set a foundation for further research as outlined in the
research questions for this study. The review began with an overview of the No Child Left
Behind Policy enacted early in the 21
st
century and its overall effect on public schooling. The
review continued with requirement set out by the federal government if a school does not make
growth metrics set out through No Child Left Behind. Research around professional
development strategies in the past was outlined to give credence to the relationship between
teachers and effective staff development and intervention strategies set forth for failing schools
as outlined in No Child Left Behind.
The second portion of the literature review outlined the theoretical framework of
Transaction Cost Economics, specifically, the effect of the relationship between a particular firm
and vendor. The ability to delineate between a market and hierarchy was discussed and the
importance of the negotiation between the two was outlined. Lastly, an incentive to grow future
relationships between both parties was important to mention due to new federal mandates that
invite new relationships between firm and vendor.
My review of the literature served as a basis for examining ways in which the current
governmental system (NCLB & program improvement) fosters the relationship between outside
providers and school districts and the perceptions of all stakeholders within that relationship.
Through the research questions that have been delineated throughout, the goal was to prove the
main hypothesis of this case study, which is the ability for a school or district to exit year 3 of PI
will rely heavily on the attitudes and capacity of the teachers and administration of the district as
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

34
well as perceptions of the role they play in the technical assistance process. The willingness to
accept the intervention of an outside provider and the strategies outlined in the contract
contribute to school improvement and an eventual exit from PI.

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

35
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This case study of the relationship between firm (BPSD) and vendor (ALS), and the
possible hazards, future gains, and the terms of the contract, can give potential insight to other
school districts in search of technical assistance through the DAIT process. The specific firm
and vendor examined in the case study were Buena Park School District (BPSD) and Action
Learning Systems (ALS). Buena Park School District engaged in a selection process to allocate
resources towards a state-approved provider that met the requirements of the federal government
mandates, goals of the district and culture of its stakeholders. Three providers: Action Learning
Systems (ALS), Orange County Department of Education (OCDE), and Pivot Learning Systems
were all invited to participate in the selection process for BPSD. The three providers outlined
their company’s mission and vision to an audience of school board members, teachers, site and
district administration, and parents. The goal of the selection group was to listen intently around
the area of technical assistance, which is defined as staff development in the area of direct
instruction, building leadership capacity through team building, and formative/summative
assessment design. These areas were critical for selection criteria due to an overwhelming
response to a survey that teachers were given before the process began. In the survey, questions
were posed around what was needed to further their craft, how the district can support
assessment development, and what the district can do to support site leaders at each individual
campus.
After various meetings with all three vendors, the group voted unanimously to enter into
a contractual relationship with ALS. By entering into this contract, BPSD and ALS entered into
a transaction for mutual gain, as well as a principal-agent relationship (Miller, 2008). One of the
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

36
main reasons ALS was chosen as the agent in this relationship was that they have an advantage
in the area of expertise or information around BPSD’s needs at this moment (personal
Communication, 2013). Multiple contracts were already in existence with ALS that pertained to
benchmark development and instructional delivery through direct interactive instruction (DII).
There was also an institutional loyalty (Williamson, 2008) already built into the relationship with
the principal (BPSD) in this case due to the prior relationship that BPSD and ALS have shared in
areas of prior staff development and assessment construction. Over the past four years, ALS
helped BPSD develop their primary assessment program for Kindergarten through third grade,
assisted BPSD’s administration to develop consistent expectations in their observation and
evaluation program, and guided district administration through early program improvement
expectations.
Problem and Purposes Overview
The traditional approach to program improvement for any organization or individual is to
look for the problem, apply a diagnosis, and find a solution. Public schools were legislatively
mandated to adhere to a form of compliance to exit program improvement, and many times
schools were not meeting those mandates sufficiently. The external inputs necessary for schools
to exit program improvement were unclear and inconsistent as the amounts of schools that
entered program improvement continued to grow year by year (Benitas, 2012). As of last year,
more than 60% of schools that were in program improvement are at the corrective action stage;
this stage is entered after schools are given extra federal funding for improvement (EdSource,
2010). Schools are not exiting program improvement status as the federal government has
outlined with financial assistance.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

37
The purpose of this study was to pursue further investigation into program improvement;
it was hoped that this study will assist in identifying any conditions, factors, processes,
transactions or elements that may have contributed to a Title I federally funded California public
urban elementary school’s ability to successfully exit and move beyond their program
improvement status through an aspect of privatization of federal funding. More specifically, this
researcher sought to find out if outside providers provided goods and services that allowed
schools to exit program improvement through a series of staff development and human capital
building activities that were not available without outside assistance.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. In what ways did teachers and administration in the Buena Park School District
believe the outside market in general would or would not assist the district in exiting
Program Improvement? What reasons did they provide to justify their conclusions?
2. How, if at all did those beliefs contribute specifically to the selection of one specific
firm, Action Learning Systems for technical assistance through the DAIT process?
3. How did teachers and administrators see the DAIT contract with Action Learning
Systems affecting the teaching and learning in their classrooms?
4. What future benefits, risks, or anticipated gains did Action Learning Systems see after
completion of the DAIT contract with Buena Park School District?
Hypothesis
Based on a review of the literature, historical context of program improvement, and non-
relenting federal accountability mandates for schools to exit program improvement, the main
hypothesis of this case study was that the ability for a school or district to exit year 3 of program
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

38
improvement will rely heavily on the attitudes and capacity of the teachers and administration of
the district as well as perceptions of the role they play in the technical assistance process. The
willingness to accept the assistance of an outside provider and the strategies outlined in the
contract do contribute to school improvement and an eventual exit from program improvement.
The federal dollars that are allocated for schools in Year 2 and beyond of program improvement
to contract with outside providers will allow new and different staff development and the
formulation of a “blueprint of success” or new direction. The outside provider will bring forth
research-based staff development and human capital building programs. It is incumbent upon
the instructional stakeholders of the district to implement the blueprint. Without ownership of
programs and procedures brought about by professional development given by the outside
provider, this process will end up “on the shelf” with other programs that were given to teachers
and administrators.
Population and Sample
Buena Park School District (BPSD) - Firm
Buena Park School District, a seven-school Local Educational Agency (LEA) in the
North Orange County area of southern California, at the time of this study, was now in Year 3 of
Program Improvement. The school district is small in comparison to other urban districts in the
area. The overall Average Daily Attendance (ADA) hovers at approximately 5,600 students, and
the ethnic breakdown of students at the time of the study, was as follows: 56% Hispanic/Latino,
12% Asian/Pacific Islander, 20% Caucasian, 6% African American, and 4% other (CDE, 2011).
The district routinely posts Academic Performance Index (API) scores of 800 in three of its
seven schools, and all but one school made their API growth benchmark at the time of this study.
The district-wide-wide API at the time of this study was 822; above the mandated score of 800
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

39
or above (CDE, 2011). However, for five consecutive years, BPSD has met federal AYP targets
for specific subgroups (English Language Learners, Students with Special Needs) and now they
are positioned in Year 3 of PI.
In 2012, BPSD was mandated by the federal government to begin participation in the
DAIT process due to their program improvement Year 3 status. Federal money through the Title
I section of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESEA) was designated to be spent on
providing technical assistance to the district to achieve performance benchmarks in accordance
with its school plan. The federal government required BPSD to develop a means to enter into a
contract with a provider. Buena Park School District adopted a District Leadership Team (DLT)
Model that consisted of district administration, site administration, teachers, parents, and
paraprofessional staff to interview vendors to provide technical assistance.
School Personnel for Sampling
For the purpose of this study and to answer aspects of particular research questions that
focus on the acquisition of the technical assistance contract, the sampling of school personnel
focused primarily on the District Leadership Team in the Buena Park School District during the
2011-2012 school year and the over 200 teachers and administrators that were currently
participating in the process. This was the year the contract for technical assistance was signed.
For research questions #1-3 that focused on perceptions of the entire school district, multiple
perspectives from teachers and administrators at all seven school sites in the Buena Park School
district and the district office were ascertained. During the data collection process, interviews
were conducted with various teachers at all site, administrators, however, were not interviewed
due to changes in positions within the district and unfamiliarity with perceptions at their current
sites.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

40
Action Learning Systems – Vendor
Action Learning Systems (ALS) was founded in Los Angeles in 1995 to address three
core beliefs: all students can succeed, success breeds more success, and schools must create the
conditions of success. The company’s founder, Dr. Kit Marshall, traveled the country to develop
a visionary school reform model grounded in four simple principles: clear focus, tight alignment,
high expectations, and expanded opportunities for success. Based on Dr. Marshall’s work
throughout the country in standards design and implementation, she developed a school reform
model built on the Six Effective Practices of High-Performing Schools which include standards-
based curriculum and assessment, research-based strategy instruction, data-driven decision
making, targeted professional development, and are a federally-approved program improvement
DAIT provider.
ALS continues to look at whole school reform model based on research strategies known
to have a measurable impact on student achievement. ALS employs many former classroom
teachers, administrators, and researchers who continue to look into cutting-edge teaching and
learning strategies and are currently working on building strategies to assist districts in their
transition to the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS).
Vendor Personnel for Sampling
For the purpose of this case study and to answer aspects of research questions #4, two
vice presidents of Action Learning Systems and three technical assistance providers were
interviewed. Each vice president has provided a presentation that delineated what technical
assistance through ALS will look like, product cost, and potential barriers to implementation.
The three technical assistance providers are actually working with BPSD while this case study
took place. During the interview process with the vendor, new information, such as federal
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

41
accountability requirements for program improvement, roles of the vendor, and an extra focus
group took place due to availability of the vendor and candor around the process of program
improvement and technical assistance.
Instrumentation
In this study, surveys, a focus group, and semi-structured interviews were conducted
using open ended questions that were carefully crafted in order to develop detailed descriptions
from multiple respondents (Merriam, 2009). These protocols described perceptions of technical
assistance given by Action Learning Systems, focusing primarily on the professional
development aspect of the relationship. According to Sapsford (2006), one of the main benefits
of a survey is its flexibility in dealing with different types of data. Other researchers such as
Fowler (1984) go on to state that surveys are one of the most important forms of measurement in
research. Weiss (1994) stated that interviews were the “only way of defending against mistaken
expectations” (p. 53). Interviews focused on developing detailed descriptions of the perceptions
administrators and teachers had on program improvement and contracting out for program
improvement, described the process of contract acquisition, integrated multiple perspectives on
technical assistance, and gave a holistic description of how both the firm and vendor worked
together. An aspect of the interview process that was unexpected was perceptions about the
vendor (ALS) from teacher participants regarding staff development prior to program
improvement year 3 and how it was possibly a mistake for the district to choose the same vendor
for technical assistance that provided staff development in years prior. Results from those
unexpected participant statements will be outlined throughout the analysis of the data.
In order to ascertain information regarding research questions #1 and #3, the ways
teachers and administration in the Buena Park School District believe the outside market in
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

42
general would or would not assist the district in exiting program improvement, and, reasons they
provided to justify their conclusions, a semi-structured interview with open ended questions
(Appendix A) was created to build background to their knowledge of program improvement and
the role they play. During the interview participants were asked to comment on semi-structured
questions to gain their understanding of the program improvement process and perceived
benefits or hazards created by market technical assistance given by ALS. During the interview
process, it was important for the participant to feel comfortable speaking candidly with the
researcher, due to the position, at the time of the study, of the researcher. This allowed
information to flow freely regarding perceptions of the process.
Based upon the analysis of the contract signed between firm and vendor and prior
contracts signed between ALS and BPSD, a structured survey (Appendix B) was developed to be
administered to each sample with particular attention paid to the formatting of the questionnaire,
answer choices, clarity of direction, Likert Scale and word choice for each of the sample group
(Maxwell, 2013). The sample group that was surveyed consisted of stakeholders that were
chosen to represent Buena Park School District in their District Leadership Team (DLT). The
goal of the DLT was to ascertain a provider for technical assistance through an outside vendor to
assist in the process of exiting program improvement. The DLT consisted of classroom teachers,
parents of students in schools that are in PI, site and district administrators, and
paraprofessionals. Questions on the survey (Appendix B) assisted in ascertaining information to
answer research questions #2 and #3, pertaining to how institutional loyalty, or the previous
contracted relationship for professional development with ALS, contributed to their selection as
the current provider for technical assistance. All surveys were returned to the researcher within a
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

43
month’s time with information that will be shared in the analysis section of the research in the
next chapter.
In order to answer question #4, pertaining to what future benefits, risks, or anticipated
gains Action Learning Systems saw after completion of the contract with Buena Park School
District, open ended interviews and a focus group (Appendices C, D) took place with a sample
that consists of President, Vice Presidents, and providers from ALS. The interviews (Appendix
C) focused on the execution of the staff development provided by ALS and perceptions on
quality and sustainability. The Focus Group (Appendix D) narrowed particular views on the
inception of the technical assistance contract and aspects that the executives of ALS felt were
pertinent to effective relationships and eventual exit from program improvement. During the
focus group, it was unexpectedly explained that state and federal mandates are changing through
“phases of program improvement” and accountability procedures are continuously changing for
hierarchies and vendors alike.
After summative walks are conducted at schools within BPSD to observe implementation
of staff development strategies and a final report on the process has been written, time was set
aside during summer staff development days to conduct the interviews and focus group with
representatives that completed the particular aspects of the contract. Conversations took place
between researcher and respondents from ALS to ascertain passive consent to conduct
interviews. Active consent was received through interview protocols (Appendix C, D) at the
time of the interview.
Data Collection
Prior to initiating the research study, a great deal of time was spent planning the
administration of the interviews, surveys, and focus group in order to maximize participant
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

44
response rates. The correct amount of participation and how one should participate need to be
calculated with the particulars of the study in mind (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). Prior to the
administration of the data collection protocols, varying degrees of access to members was
available within each group being interviewed or surveyed; hence, each sub-group reviewed pilot
protocols to gauge the effectiveness of both question type and format. Additional discussions
were held over coffee, lunch breaks, and recess times in order to determine which questions are
most effective and identified potential misunderstandings resulting from terminology and
question formats. Discussion formats were unscripted and free-flowing and did not include
examples of the actual protocols to be used. Potential for surveys and interviews to be taken
online were considered based on confidentiality concerns and anonymity based on answers to
questions of perception. Upon completion of the surveys and due to the limited amount of
participants on the District Leadership Team, surveys were dispersed to members of the team
and they were filled out and returned through paper and pencil format.
The surveys were constructed after a thorough analysis of the format, vocabulary and
layout of surveys previously conducted by various sources. Based upon the analysis of previous
surveys and interviewed in subject-alike studies, a questionnaire was developed to be
administered to each sample with particular attention paid to the formatting of the questionnaire,
length, clarity of direction, and word choice for each of the sample groups. Although similar in
focus, format, and style, the questions for each survey, interview, and potential focus groups
were tailored for the targeted sample group and to answer specific research questions.
Due to the fact that there are varying degrees of accessibility to the sample respondent
groups, the administration of the protocols were conducted differently for each sample group, yet
consistent within each sub-group. An introductory letter with written instructions for completing
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

45
the protocols along with informed consent documents were delivered to each sample group,
whether by email or direct delivery. Information regarding the purpose of the study, the
importance of respondent integrity in responding to the questions, confidentiality of the results,
and procedures for completing and submitting the protocols will also be provided to each sample
group as consistent with research of human subjects as outlined in the IRB process with the
University of Southern California. Each interview was taped using the “Voice Recorder”
program application through Apple, while open coding took place to ensure that all information
that was needed to answer each research question was gathered. After each interview, data was
transcribed and coded for clarity and purpose.
Data Analysis
The qualitative component of this study consisted of in-depth, semi-structured open-
ended response questions within the staff within the Buena Park School District, District
Leadership Team, and Action Learning Systems. Before any instrument was used for data
collection and analysis, pilot interviews, surveys, and focus groups were held in order to
ascertain patterns and obstacles that might have arisen due to lack of planning or focus (Merriam,
2009). After completion of the pilot process and protocols were distributed and interviews
conducted, the open-ended response questions were analyzed to identify patterns, themes, and
emergent categories of responses within the data. As Maxwell (2013) states, there is no
“cookbook” or single correct way for doing qualitative analysis” (p. 105). Rigorous data
analysis may be achieved through providing explanations about the process by which data is
transformed and organized into an overall report of findings (Tracy, 2010). Textual analysis
took place using categorizing strategies immediately after protocols are completed. Connecting
strategies (Maxwell, 2013) were used through memos to self to understand how and what to
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

46
categorize within the protocols being collected. Interview sessions were to take place with
multiple respondents more than once if new questions come up after interviews with peers reveal
new information not accessed in prior sessions to answer questions 1, 3 and 4 but were not
necessary. A scale was developed to measure content analysis and open coding will be used
within categories (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013).
Summary
The methodology, as outlined here, described the important components of this study
such as its purpose, research questions, and theoretical framework. This chapter introduced the
research design which was a qualitative case study. The context of the study described the
population and the research site that was selected to participate in the study. Protection of human
subjects and ethical issues were discussed. This chapter specifically outlined the process of the
development of the data collection instruments which included surveys, semi-structured
interviews, and a focus group. This chapter also included various stages of the data collection
process and described the components applied in data analysis as well as methods to ensure the
reliability and validity of the study.

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

47
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter presents and analyzes the data collected as part of this qualitative study on
the effect of the support an outside provider gives a school district towards exiting program
improvement. As stated earlier, the purpose of this study was to assist in identifying any
conditions, factors, processes, transactions or other elements that may have contributed to a Title
I federally funded California public urban elementary school’s ability to successfully exit
program improvement and move beyond their status through an aspect of privatization of federal
funding. More specifically, this researcher sought to find out if outside providers provided goods
and services that allowed schools to exit program improvement through a series of staff
development and human capital building activities that were not otherwise available without
outside assistance.
The traditional approach to program improvement for any organization or individual is to
look for the problem, apply a diagnosis, and find a solution. Public schools are legislatively
mandated to adhere to a form of compliance to exit program improvement, and many times
schools were not meeting those mandates sufficiently. The external inputs necessary for schools
to exit program improvement were unclear and inconsistent as the amounts of schools that enter
continued to grow year by year (Benitas, 2012). As of 2013, more than 60% of schools that were
in program improvement were at the corrective action stage. This stage is entered after schools
were given extra federal funding for improvement (EdSource, 2010). Schools were not exiting
program improvement status as the federal government intended with financial assistance.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

48
At the outset of this study, the entire district of Buena Park was in program improvement.
Perceptions varied greatly in the role that all stakeholders play. The role of the district office and
the dissemination of information around the outside provider, as well as poor or unclear
messaging became a theme, not only from the district but from the provider as well.
Respondents let the researcher know that earlier staff development was just given without
explanation of why. There was concern that earlier staff development from ALS was brought
forth in an unpopular way and could potentially get in the way of technical assistance.
Buena Park School District has received professional development from only ALS for
staff development for the past five to seven years. During the research protocols it was found
there was a preliminary tension from the teaching staff when ALS was contracted for technical
assistance. What the teachers initially perceived as what they gained from the outside provider
was only a repeat of what they have heard at prior staff development. The perception that guided
their attitude is discussed more throughout the data analysis section of this study. Their attitude
changed over time with a consistent focus from the district and provider on instructional
delivery, consistent expectations from each member of the teaching staff, and collegial
relationships built with members of ALS. Each participant gave novel information around the
perceptions of the partnership between Action Learning Systems and the Buena Park School
District.
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. In what ways did teachers in the Buena Park School District believe the outside
market in general would or would not assist the district in exiting Program
Improvement? What reasons did they provide to justify their conclusions?
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

49
2. How, if at all did those beliefs contribute specifically to the selection of one specific
firm, Action Learning Systems for technical assistance through the DAIT process?
3. How did teachers see the DAIT contract with Action Learning Systems affecting the
teaching and learning in their classrooms?
4. What future benefits, risks, or anticipated gains did Action Learning Systems see after
completion of the DAIT contract with Buena Park School District?
Organization of Data Analysis
Data collected from each protocol is presented through direct quotations and textual
analysis that came about after careful textual coding of participant responses. The analysis was
paired with aspects of the hypothesis presented in the study to prove or disprove what the
researcher deemed to be perceptions of the outside provider and their role in exiting program
improvement. Research questions were used to guide the analysis. Coding for each question
took place in order to uncover clear themes to answer each research question.
Although the perceptions varied greatly regarding the privatization of technical assistance
from respondent to respondent, information gathered from each participant gave a lot of insight
into answering the research questions about perceptions of how the outside market can or cannot
assist exiting program improvement. The diversity of experiences from each of these
respondents actually added richness of the study by providing a wide variety of perspectives. The
next section will review these perspectives specifically as they pertain to each of the four
research questions.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

50
Findings Pertaining To Research Question #1: In what ways did teachers in the Buena
Park School District believe the outside market in general would or would not assist the
district in exiting Program Improvement? What reasons did they provide to justify their
conclusions?
As stated in the literature review, the relationship between markets and firms are
multifaceted and complex. Powell (1990) states that organizations will tend to stay away from
market transactions due to the asset specificity of knowledge. In educational terms, school
districts could stay away from privatization due to the vendor’s lack of knowledge of what the
school district does and how it functions. The specificity of what teachers “do” in the classroom
to deliver quality instruction to their students is of highest importance for many of the
respondents, as will be indicated below. Teachers believed anyone that was not “currently
teaching” (personal communication, 2013) or “close to kids” (personal communication) could
possibly add to their cadre of strategies.
Teachers interviewed felt very skeptical that ALS could provide support and assistance to
their students if they were not currently in the classroom. Teachers believed that the delivery of
information around PI was of high importance around the acceptance of the support. The more
teachers saw ALS as a support mechanism for improvement and not evaluative, the more they
accepted technical assistance. That statement lent itself to an aspect of the earlier hypothesis
stated, that without teacher ownership of programs and procedures brought about by professional
development given by the outside provider, this process would end up “on the shelf” with other
programs that were given to teachers and administrators.
Multiple questions within both the semi-structured interview with teachers in the Buena
Park School District and survey given to the district leadership team elicited data to answer
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

51
research question #1. In order to elicit that data, however, it was important to understand how
information about program improvement was delivered to teachers and the role they potentially
played. All teachers interviewed for this study have at least seventeen years’ service within the
Buena Park School District, which is about the average teacher tenure. The time in the district
meant that all teachers have experienced all professional development given by the outside
providers. The teachers interviewed also work at different schools within the district. This
variety will give the study an overall view of the district and not have a specific bias towards one
schools’ perceptions.
Teacher Perceptions of Program Improvement
It was made very clear through the semi-structured interview process (Appendix A) that
all teachers, based on the responses during the open ended interviews, took the idea of being
designated a PI school and district very hard, regardless of how the information was delivered.
Teachers in BPSD, especially at the schools that did not go into PI when the district entered PI,
had not taken full ownership of the status until the idea of technical assistance was addressed.
Three of the four teachers interviewed were initially unaware of the idea of technical assistance.
They did not take the idea seriously until their principal laid out plans that the support would
entail. It was made clear during the interviews that classroom visits and recalibration of
instructional delivery were two terms that teachers did not find appealing at first.
When asked the question regarding how were the teachers made aware of the
district/school’s program improvement status and initial reaction, respondent A explained that
the teachers were informed in a staff meeting about program improvement status and what that
meant to the staff as a whole; many of his peers called it a “big deal,” and there were whispers
about “outside providers” coming into help. This made it a “little scary,” for teachers around the
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

52
district, according to this respective respondent. Respondent B was also made aware of PI status
during a staff meeting. It was made clear to them through a data disaggregation meeting that
they did not make performance indicators through specific subgroups. She was shocked that
although they were seen by the district as “successful school,” she was disappointed in the status.
Respondent B stated that “she knew eventually that they as a school would get to PI status, but
stayed motivated to find a way to get out of PI.” (personal communication, September, 2013).
Respondent C was made aware of PI status at a staff meeting as well, and even though she and
her colleagues expected the status, she too was saddened and disappointed. The principal at her
site had already delineated what PI status meant and requirements that were expected year to
year. Her question to her principal was very simple, “how do we get out?” (personal
communication, 2013). Respondent D was aware of the district status first. Her school was the
last school to go into PI status. Word of mouth regarding potential outside assistance was
prevalent throughout her school. Her principal made her aware of their own school’s status. It
did not seem as though there was potential to worry about PI.
Role of Teachers in PI
Diverse reactions were found when asked about the role they play in getting into and out
of PI. Teachers interviewed were aware of the state of California’s percentages of schools and
districts in PI. It was also found that teachers used PI as a unifying message around the “why” of
change in instructional practice.
When respondents were asked in regards to their initial perceptions on the role they play
in the program improvement process, answers again varied slightly. Some respondents saw the
immediacy of action, where others waited to be guided through the process. Respondent A took
a stance around how their school was now “part of a working unit” towards a goal of exiting the
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

53
program improvement status. It was a unifying theme that a new plan was built around. An
aspect of that plan for Respondent A was to become a “teacher leader” that would attend
professional development given by an outside provider. The expectation was that he would
attend the professional development and convey overarching messages in a “palatable” way and
gain buy in from his peers. This statement lends itself once again to the hypothesis that teachers
would only participate and take from professional development if they felt as though there would
be a benefit. Respondent B saw her role as an “active member” of the process to get out of PI.
Her students were not assessed through CST’s, but she saw a direct correlation between the 2nd
grade team’s success on the standardized test and her effect on exiting program improvement.
Respondent C saw her role in program improvement as someone that “let the community down”
(personal communication, 2013).
Initial versus Lasting Perception of Outside Provider Technical Assistance
Overall, all respondents found value in the support given by ALS within the framework
of technical assistance. Each perception had varying degrees of positivity and negativity, but
aspects of teaching and learning were improved due to the support of the outside provider.
Initial skepticism gave way to a learned familiarity and then acceptance of support for teaching
and learning over time. The better the relationship with ALS each respondent had, the more they
benefitted from the technical assistance, and vice versa. It was found that compliance with the
framework given by PI was the initiator of the relationship, but new teaching and learning
practices made the relationship more valuable to the respondents. The relationships the
respondents developed with ALS can be seen as a collegial relationship, even though it was a
mandated market and firm contracted relationship.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

54
When the teachers were asked their initial perceptions of working with an outside vendor
for professional development in a program improvement school or district, Respondent A felt as
though at one of the schools he was a member of, there was “no need for anyone to help us, that
we were a high achieving school, regardless of our district PI status, and the staff was wary about
why ALS needs to come help us” (personal communication, 2013). Respondent A went on to
elaborate that although the teachers knew that “they were not being evaluated, there was a level
of nervousness not unlike when they were being formally evaluated” (personal communication,
2013). Respondent B understood that there was going to be a relationship between ALS and the
district, but did not feel as though reality was actually “coming to pass” and what was spelled out
to her was “coming to fruition” (personal communication, 2013). When ALS actually began
working with Respondent B, she felt as though initially she was “jumping through hoops and
what she was doing might not be best for kids” (personal communication, 2013). Respondent C
was very explicit in her answer around this question, and felt as though “big brother” was
coming to watch us, and fear amongst the staff was tangible. The external oversight was clearly
on her school and her job as a teacher. Respondent D took a totally different approach to the
question. She broke down ALS into the people that were hired to assist the district in exiting
program improvement, and looked at their scope of work as a teacher or staff developer and
decided in her own mind if they were worth listening to.
At this point in the interview process respondents were questioned about their overall
experiences with ALS as their outside provider for technical assistance and their perceptions
around a change in teaching behavior amongst their peers. Respondent A was very positive with
his perceptions of his experiences with ALS, even using the word “comfortable” (personal
communication, 2013). He responded that “time developed a positive relationship” (personal
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

55
communication, 2013). He was sometimes put off by their “research driven” protocol. Although
he understood that this was what drove appropriate professional development, it was not as
tangible towards teaching practice as he had hoped. His overall experience was positive. ALS
always made it clear that their job was to help the district. He felt, big picture that he had
“become a better teacher because of this experience” (personal communication, 2013). He felt
more skilled at his job. Respondent A’s experience made him more familiar with the California
State Standards, which he felt had “equaled the playing field” for all teachers in staff
development, and enabled him to keep his entire staff more focused on students and learning. In
the same breath, he also said that the stress level had been raised due to multiple new district
administration expectations that were outlined in the new blueprint of the district. He believed
the expectations were appropriate but still put a strain on his overall feel of “what it looked like
in my classroom to be a successful teacher” (personal communication, 2013). The experience
for Respondent B, after feeling as though she did “jump through all of the hoops,” was
“fabulous” (personal communication, 2013). She went as far to say that the technical assistance
she received should be interlaced into college preparatory courses for new and beginning
teachers. The strategies were powerful and increased student achievement, engagement, and
learning. She saw a change in her behavior and overall teacher behavior in the school. She was
more explicit in her objectives for learning and saw a more academic environment and ties it to
her assessments. Respondent C felt “invigorated by the positive interaction, guidance and
support given by ALS” (personal communication, 2013). Due to the relationship that was
established in the past with ALS as a professional development provider for the district,
Respondent C felt much more comfortable asking for support than if it was a “stranger to the
district” (personal communication, 2013). Her school continued to question the use of ALS. She
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

56
felt it was because people were afraid of change, not due to the technical assistance. The staff
questioned why the same company was used for technical assistance that was used for
professional development in the past. Small steps were made, in her opinion, by her staff due to
a better understanding of standards, objectives and focus on instruction. Respondent D took a lot
from all trainings given from ALS, but it was difficult for the staff members at her school to
change due to perceptions of the “outside looking in at teacher practice.” There was also a lack
of buy in to the overall technical assistance given by ALS. She felt that if everyone would have
taken part in the trainings given by ALS to the district leadership team, everyone would have
benefitted more.
Short Term Compliance Changes or Long Term School Improvement
Findings around the perception of change in BPSD are critical, because changing for the
sake of PI status or compliance to federal mandates would do little for the students and teachers
in BPSD. Professional development would end up on the “shelf,” as stated in the hypothesis,
and lasting change for student improvement would be absent. As stated earlier, initial perception
around change was to exit PI, but as teachers developed relationships with the provider, change
came through conversations around students and their needs. Teachers became more focused on
data driven decisions, standards-based practice, and collaborative practices. These practices are
now common throughout the district.
Finally, in regards to the findings pertaining to research question #1, respondents were
asked if changes they perceived in their staff were due to program improvement compliance
procedures or change for the long term good of teaching and learning. All teachers interviewed
perceived initial change for compliance and then began to see value in the change. Respondent
A saw the change being due to compliance and the politics of program improvement. With the
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

57
metaphorical educational “pendulum” swinging back and forth Respondent A was unsure of how
accountability and assessment would shape teacher behavior. He understood that with the
implementation of Common Core State Standards, new educational technology, and new
expectations and new standards of practice will be implemented. He believed “sanctions” will
still exist and be reborn, but this level of adherence to what technical assistance has provided will
dissipate. Respondent B felt the changes that she perceived in the present time have taken place
because of program improvement and compliance, but the message from the district, in her
opinion, is that “these changes in teaching and learning are not going anywhere anytime soon”
(personal communication, 2013). Respondent C saw the change for the long term in her
behavior and her peers’ behaviors. She saw the change for the positive in the district. In the past
she felt every school in the Buena Park School District was an “island amongst themselves”
(personal communication, 2013). With the changes brought about by technical assistance, there
is at the time of this study a common language and common expectations for teaching and
learning. Respondent D saw a disjointed change due to what had been communicated from
school to school. If the message regarding technical assistance from the outside provider support
was “communicated better by district officials change could be for the long term and not just for
compliance” (personal communication, 2013).
Findings Pertaining To Research Question #2: How, if at all, did those beliefs contribute
specifically to the selection of one specific firm, Action Learning Systems, for technical
assistance through the DAIT process?
Publicly-funded schools are basically public sector organizations, and managers in public
sector organizations (such as school districts) exercise a fundamentally different set of rights
from their colleagues working in private not-for-profit and private for-profit organizations
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

58
(Brewer & Hentschke, 2010). School districts range in size, but the federal government still
mandates that if they enter PI Year 3 they must contract out for services to assist their
professional development and human capital building, regardless of the appropriate vertical
hierarchy of the organization.
Buena Park School District chose to develop a District Leadership Team (DLT) to choose
a vendor for technical assistance. Action Learning Systems was one vendor that was selected to
present a proposal to provide technical assistance along with the Orange County Department of
Education and one other private educational firm. As previously discussed, Buena Park School
District had entered into multiple contracts with ALS for professional development around
instructional delivery. A survey (Appendix B) assisted in ascertaining information to answer
research question #2. The question pertained to how institutional loyalty, or the previous
contracted relationship for professional development with ALS, contributed to their selection as
the current DAIT provider for technical assistance. There were opened ended questions within
the survey pertaining to prior relationships with ALS and Likert Scale questions regarding
discussions of services delivered by ALS in the past and how that pertained to the choice of a
vendor.
Did Familiarity with ALS equal Contract from BPSD
Through the structured survey (Appendix B) it was found that trust and familiarity gave
ALS a large advantage in gaining the contract for technical assistance. All respondents stated
that familiarity with the way ALS handles their business of professional development made it
easier to accept the support. There was a bit of dissonance in the survey because members of the
DLT questioned how this support differs from support given by ALS in the past. These
questions were answered when the contract was outlined for support. Change for exiting
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

59
program improvement was change enough for BPSD. Changing an outside provider as well
would throw the staff into disarray.
One of the survey questions posed to the DLT was a Likert Scaled question. It asked if
there was a discussion around what ALS had provided to BPSD in the past. On a scale of 1-5,
with 1 being strongly agree and 5 being strongly disagree, all members of the DLT responded
with an answer of 1, that they strongly agree. When asked if ALS was the clear choice of all
members of the BPSD District Leadership Team, all responded with an answer of 1, that they
strongly agreed.
One member of the DLT stated that “there was already a relationship established” and
“we were already on the way with many aspects that ALS had to offer” (personal
communication, 2013). A second member of the DLT stated that there was a “continuity of
programming” and there was already a high level of “instructional coaching” in place for
professional development (personal communication, 2013). A third member of the DLT was
very explicit why ALS was the choice:
The staff had been working with ALS and had begun to share an understanding of best
practices through their lens and labels. The DLT felt that going with a different provider
would throw the instructional staff into a mode of change that would be an added burden
that would get in the way of real change. (personal communication, 2013).
There was also clear evidence from another respondent about what made ALS the choice. She
said that “ALS had a clear understanding of the culture and existing educational practices in
BPSD.”
Another open ended question on the survey (Appendix B) was posed in regards to past
relationships with ALS. They were asked to respond to a question regarding the type of
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

60
conversation that was had regarding past contracts with ALS. One member of the DLT
responded with a question herself regarding the buy vs. make quandary. She wondered if “we as
a school district could have done all of the professional development already given by ALS and
was worried about the overall cost” (personal communication, 2013). Another respondent stated
that “there was trust in the company for work already completed” (personal communication,
2013). A third member of the team delineated on the survey that there was discussions around
effectiveness, professionalism, and expertise. There was a small concern about using the same
company again for multiple years and confusion that it might cause, but the pros for ALS far
outweighed the cons.
Findings Pertaining To Research Question #3: How did teachers see the DAIT contract
with Action Learning Systems affecting the teaching and learning in their classrooms?
Through the lens of NCLB and PI components, professional development can take place
through an outside provider when schools are in Year 3 of PI and beyond. Through that
relationship with an outside provider, the federal and state governments feel as though the
teaching and learning process can be enhanced and student achievement can be improved
through technical assistance. Brady (2003) considers this an appropriate intervention and one
that has been successful throughout the nation.
The relationship between ALS and teachers in BPSD was a critical indicator for
improvement through technical assistance. Professional development through ALS included
instructional delivery through direct interactive instruction, data analysis and disaggregation,
using standards and measureable objectives, and developing leadership teams. Through
interview questions (Appendix A) with teachers in the Buena Park School District and the
district leadership team survey (Appendix B), information around the perception of improvement
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

61
or lack thereof in the classroom was ascertained. It was found that clear tangible changes in
teaching and learning were made. There was much more consistency around professional
development, expectations from administration around instructional delivery was much clearer,
and there was a broad sense of focus on the district’s mission and vision.
Opinions of Changes from BPSD District Leadership Team
One respondent mentioned that there was much more clarity in the field of direct
instruction, expectations were clear regarding what lesson delivery would entail, and there was
much more of an understanding of what teachers should expect when administrators walked
through their classrooms and what administrators were looking for in the teaching and learning
process. Another DLT member responded with an affirmation around the idea of a clarity in
instructional delivery, but also mentioned that the district became much more focused as a unit;
low performing schools and high performing schools had the same expectations and procedures
for student learning. A third respondent wrote that there was much more focused professional
development and increased levels of collaboration and communication of goals and vision for
student success. Lastly, based on the technical assistance given, a respondent wrote that there is
now much more consistency in student placement for intervention, there is a common language
around student performance, and there is no longer a feel of isolation and an “us vs. them”
attitude between teachers and administration. All claims made by respondents reflect a positive
move in delivery of instruction within the teaching ranks in BPSD.
Teacher Perceptions of Changes in Instructional Methods
When teachers were asked about changes they see in overall teacher behavior and if it has
changed their instructional method, all responses were characterized by positive self-reflection
and change for the benefit of students. Once again teachers in BPSD were resistant to outside
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

62
providers at the outset of technical assistance when there is a thought that the idea of
improvement is mandated by the government. Over time and after they realized that
improvements are good for students and their professional practice, attitudes and perceptions
changed. Respondent A felt more skilled at his job. He felt like he had a fresh start and
everyone is being treated “equally, and he knows his duties much better.” He was “much more
familiar with state standards and is ready to make the change to common core.” He was always
“cognizant of what standards need to be posted and reviewed, and although stressful, he saw a
tangible improvement in his professionalism and students took him much more seriously”
(personal communication, 2013).
Respondent B was resistant to the change in her instructional method but kept a positive
attitude about it and how it could affect what was “best for kids” (personal communication,
2013). What was taught to her was “fabulous” (personal communication, 2013). The strategies
were powerful and helped her to improve student engagement and learning. She said it was a
“shame this did not come earlier” (personal communication, 2013). She was much more explicit
with the academic language in her classroom, a lot more partner work and thoughtful pause and
wait time for students. The professional development gave her a “structure to work from and she
feels much more confident in her “craft” (personal communication, 2013).
Respondent C was now more aware of what is beneficial for her students. She no longer
goes on “bird walks” as a teacher and looks for the teachable moments that are driven by the
standards and objectives. It has pulled her back to the path of teaching and learning. It also
helped her administrator have a common language that made constructive criticism less personal.
Students are much more responsible for their learning and have taken more ownership of their
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

63
learning due to referring back to lesson objectives on a daily basis. They are aware of their place
in the classroom and what they need to do to be successful.
Respondent D took a lot from staff development given by the outside provider. Once
again she believed that second hand information prohibited her fellow staff members from
buying into the change wholeheartedly. Respondent D brought back the idea of “bounded
rationality.” It is difficult or irrational for the market or outside agency to make plans within the
written contract for all aspects or contingencies that might transpire within the contracted time.
Powell (1990) defines bounded rationality as the “inability of the economic actors to write
contracts that cover all possible contingencies within the firm’s structure” (p. 297). It was
impossible for ALS to respond to this respondent and her schools’ perceptions of the outside
assistance before the contract was written. It was imperative through conversations within the
hierarchy to accept assistance. Many times whether a teacher is successful in the classroom or
not depends more on the amount of support that they receive from colleagues than on the amount
of training that they have undergone (Portner, 2005). Based on the responses above, it was found
that capacity was built within BPSD through ongoing relationships over time with ALS and
support given through technical assistance.
Findings Pertaining To Research Question #4: What future benefits, risks, or anticipated
gains did Action Learning Systems see after completion of the DAIT contract with Buena
Park School District?
As stated throughout the study the contract signed for technical assistance was not the
first contract entered into between the firm (BSPD) and the vendor (ALS). Contracts have been
signed for professional development in the areas of direct interactive instruction and common
core development. Sandwiched between the two contracts above was the DAIT contract for
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

64
technical assistance. In order to ascertain information for research question #4, semi-structured
interviews (Appendix C) and a focus group of representatives from the vendor (Appendix D)
were conducted.
It was clear to the researcher that ALS does a lot of data and intelligence gathering before
they enter into a contract for technical assistance through DAIT. Through the semi-structured
interviews and focus group (Appendix C & D) data was gathered regarding meetings about
contracting, how the contract is written, and how contracts for future benefit for both parties are
ascertained. ALS works diligently to match the district’s needs with the team members that
assist in the DAIT process. This includes, but is not limited to initial meetings for contracting,
professional development and meeting with cabinet members.
Contracting for Technical Assistance
When asked how contract negotiations began and if the presentation was the same for all
districts, many of the respondents from ALS discussed how the presentation is based around
specific district needs. One vice president of ALS discussed how she and the president of the
organization go on a “fact finding” type of interview with the district. She said that
One of our beliefs is that it really has to be a match for both of us, or we don’t want the
district to spend their money and we don’t want to spend our time. That first meeting
often looks kind of almost like a two-way interview, because cabinet may be asking us
questions at the same time we’re asking them questions. It’s very different than a sales
approach. It’s really investigating, “What are your needs? What are you doing for this?”
Which is really the best way to get to, Are we really a fit with each other? (personal
communication, 2013).
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

65
The other respondents were very similar in their reply that it was a team approach based on the
district need during contract inception. The president of the organization often times restates
what the other representatives from ALS discuss in the meetings with district administration.
One respondent said “there’s also a hierarchical level within our team so we are very clear who
needs to say what. We know if a superintendent needs to hear an aspect of the contract
negotiation, the president is the one who’s going to say it” (personal communication, 2013).
Contracting and Relationships
Many of the districts that ALS contracts with grew out of individual relationships that
employees had with either district or site administration. This was not the only reason why they
were brought into present and support, but, it helped get them in the door. When working with
Buena Park, representatives from ALS stated that the relationship was the key to the inception of
the contract and the professional development that went along with the contract. All
representatives stated that without a positive relationship there was no credibility to the change.
Without this relationship, representatives from ALS stated that teachers would continue
to ask “who are you” and “what can you teach me that I don’t know.” With all of the
professional development done in Buena Park, that aspect of the relationship was already set, so
there was an opportunity to get down to the business at hand. A more global example of that
relational tie came from a response when asked about how ALS is contacted for a DAIT
presentation, one of the respondents said “most of the districts we work with before DAIT knew
that about us and so a lot of our contracts were relationships we had before hand and then the
ones that didn’t know us and then had us come in for a presentation just recognized that they
really did want to change” (personal communication, 2013). When the contract is signed and
technical assistance is being given, ALS has a certain format that is the basis of the support.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

66
ALS works from a three pronged schema, which is focus, expectations and opportunity. ALS
believes that without the schema a district will have a hard time exhibiting success. They believe
that success breeds success, all children can learn, and the adults control the conditions for
success. It was found that those three schema are the frame that assists the A – G requirements
being fulfilled. One respondent stated that
We do research in terms of the numbers in student achievement. We do research in terms
of how they got to PI, what that looks like … that whole data pathway. We have a
schema on what a district needs to be doing in order to be highly functioning, that when
we go in and start talking to them, that schema is in our head and we can immediately
see, oh this is a district with no focus” (personal communication, 2013).
As the DAIT process evolved, based on the findings of the interviews (Appendix C) and focus
group (Appendix D) ALS evolved as well. What began as an exercise with just ideas around
teaching and learning became an organizational change exercise. As stated in the review of the
literature, districts and providers must complete a compendium of A-G compliance procedures
that are mandated by PI year 3. As the evolution continued, it was found that ALS was able to
work with district office individuals on governance and organizational structure. It went beyond
just curriculum and instruction and had an effect on individual teachers to the school board as
well.
Opportunities for Future Contracts
One of the main purposes of any contractual relationship is satisfaction with the product
provided to a point of maximization of efficiency (Williamson, 2008). Through the original
transaction, the firm has grown due to efficiency models that were an aspect of the original
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

67
contract (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012). A strong incentive for the vendor to complete the
contract as defined throughout the negotiation is future contracts with the firm.
It was found that ALS continued to grow and profit after contracts for technical
assistance are completed. When asked what percentage or how many of the school districts you
worked with in the DAIT process do you continue to work with, one vice president pondered that
they continue to have contracts with about 98% of school districts. She stated that one reason
was because “you know we don’t call people clients as much as partners. We truly believe in
that. We are a partnership. We want success. I think that’s what makes us different and that’s
why I think we get called back” (personal communication, 2013).
It was illegal for providers, at the beginning of implementation of technical assistance to
sign contracts for professional development during technical assistance, according to the focus
group. At the outset of the implementation of technical assistance there was an assumption at the
state level that “what was given for support would suffice as appropriate professional
development” (personal communication, 2013). The law changed, because it became evident that
professional development was the biggest part of technical assistance. In terms of Buena Park,
another contract was entered into during the process. Common Core State Standard
implementation was of high importance to the district leadership of BPSD. ALS created a
common core unit management system called the Synced Solution, which Buena Park signed a
contract for.
Lastly, from an overall financial aspect, it was found that if contracts are not completed
or if there is an issue during contract implementation, ALS does not get paid. The vendor gets
paid quarterly by the district, and, as stated by one of the respondents, “there’s no protection for
us. If halfway through they say we hate you, they just don’t pay us. They will pay for the work
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

68
we’ve done, but they won’t pay for future work. There’s nothing written in that says you’ll have
to pay us no matter what” (personal communication, 2013).
Summary
The chapter analyzed the qualitative data that was collected as they pertained to the four
research questions. The first question pertained to the ways teachers in the Buena Park School
District believe the outside market in general will or will not assist the district in exiting Program
Improvement and what reasons do they provide to justify their conclusions. The second question
investigated how, if at all did those beliefs contribute specifically to the selection of one specific
firm, Action Learning Systems for technical assistance through the DAIT process. The third
research question pondered how teachers saw the DAIT contract with Action Learning Systems
affecting the teaching and learning in their classrooms. The final research question addressed
what future benefits, risks, or anticipated gains did Action Learning Systems see after
completion of the DAIT contract with Buena Park School District. The last chapter will provide
conclusions and recommendations that follow from the findings. The findings included clear and
tangible improvements in teaching strategies through technical assistance, a strong correlation
between relationship building and acceptance of assistance, and continued partnerships between
vendors and organizations even after technical assistance is complete.

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

69
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The purpose of this study was to pursue further investigation into school districts in
program improvement, year 3 or later. More specifically it was undertaken in order to assist in
identifying any conditions, factors, processes, transactions or elements that may have contributed
to a Title I federally funded California public urban elementary school district’s ability to
successfully exit and move beyond their program improvement status through an aspect of
privatization.
Outsourcing took place through the use of Title I federal funding between Buena Park
School District (BPSD) and Action Learning Systems (ALS). Moreover, this researcher sought
to better understand the benefits and pitfalls of this particular form of partnership, including the
degree to which the incentives and behavior created by outsourcing technical assistance services
contributed to exiting program improvement. Secondarily, further investigation took place to
find out if the outside market provided goods and services that were not available within the
organization or hierarchy without assistance, which brought forth the research of Transaction
Cost Economics (TCE). The underlying notion of TCE is that markets and hierarchies are
alternatives to each other and firms tend to pick a form that works “best” for their situation. The
transaction is the unit of analysis.
While there are many quantitative factors that contribute to a school’s exit from program
improvement, such as increased standardized test scores and change in participation rates in
specific subgroups, this study sought perceptions of stakeholders in their role in exiting program
improvement status. A review of the literature pertaining to the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001, teacher perceptions around professional development, and a study of Transaction Cost
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

70
Economics guided development of research questions and survey instruments. In order to gain
clarity around stakeholder perceptions, the following research questions guided the study:
1. In what ways did teachers in the Buena Park School District believe the outside
market in general would or would not assist the district in exiting Program
Improvement? What reasons did they provide to justify their conclusions?
2. How, if at all did those beliefs contribute specifically to the selection of one specific
firm, Action Learning Systems for technical assistance through the DAIT process?
3. How did teachers see the DAIT contract with Action Learning Systems affecting the
teaching and learning in their classrooms?
4. What future benefits, risks, or anticipated gains did Action Learning Systems see after
completion of the DAIT contract with Buena Park School District?
Population for the Study
The sampling of school personnel focused primarily on the District Leadership Team in
the Buena Park School District during the 2011-2012 school year and the over 200 teachers and
administrators that were currently participating in the process. This was the year the contract for
technical assistance was signed. For research questions #1-3 that focused on perceptions of the
entire school district, multiple perspectives from teachers and administrators at all seven school
sites in the Buena Park School district and the district office were ascertained. During the data
collection process, interviews were conducted with various teachers at all sites, administrators,
however, were not interviewed due to changes in positions within the district and unfamiliarity
with perceptions at their current sites.
For the purpose of this case study and to answer aspects of research question #4, two vice
presidents of Action Learning Systems and three technical assistance providers were
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

71
interviewed. Each vice president has provided a presentation that delineated what technical
assistance through ALS will look like, product cost, and potential barriers to implementation.
The three TA providers are actually working with BPSD while this case study took place.
During the interview process with the vendor, new information, such as federal accountability
requirements for DAIT, roles of the vendor, and an extra focus group took place due to
availability of the vendor and candor around the process of program improvement and technical
assistance.
Findings
A number of key findings emerged to shed light on each of the four research questions.
In regards to the first research question, it was found that teachers felt very skeptical, at the
outset of the partnership, that Action Learning Systems could provide support and assistance to
their students if they were not currently in the working as teachers in the classroom. It was also
found that the delivery of information around program improvement was of high importance
around the acceptance of the outside support. The more their administrators, whether site or
district office, gave teachers a negative perception of technical assistance, the longer it took
teachers to accept the support. The more teachers saw ALS as a support mechanism for
improvement of teaching and learning, and not evaluative, the more they accepted the technical
assistance. The process of acceptance, based on interviews with teachers, came after at least
eight to ten months of support given by the provider. Each teacher in Buena Park interviewed
accepted the support at differing times. It was found, through the interview process, that the
relationship with the outside provider is a mechanism for exiting program improvement.
Teachers felt that the critical focus from the provider on instructional delivery methods and
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

72
assessment practices had a tangible effect on Standardized test scores and eventually would
assist the district exit program improvement.
The second research question focused on the rationale of the District Leadership Team in
Buena Park and their selection of Action Learning Systems. As stated earlier, when there is a
selection process through the market for an outside provider, as there is when schools are in Year
3 of program improvement, loyalty within hierarchy is replaced by “adverse selection problems”
(Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). These problems include a lack of capacity and divergent
objectives within the hierarchy itself (Hentschke & Wohlstetter, 2004). When districts are
making a choice to adopt a specific provider for technical assistance, it is imperative that
multiple values and opinions are taken into account to avoid adverse selection problems to
ensure appropriate selection. It was found that the selection process that Buena Park employed
followed this process by bringing together a District Leadership Team that included
representation from all stakeholder groups. It was found that trust and familiarity gave ALS a
large advantage in gaining the contract for technical assistance. Many of the respondents stated
that familiarity with the way ALS handles their business of professional development made it
easier to accept the support or technical assistance.
In regards to research question three; pertaining to changes in instructional practice for
the teachers in Buena Park, it was found that a shift had taken place in the areas of instructional
delivery and a much clearer focus on standards. When teachers were asked about changes they
see in overall teacher behavior and if it has changed their instructional method, findings revolved
around the idea of positive self-reflection and change for the benefit of students. Once again it
was found that teachers in BPSD were resistant to outside providers at the outset of technical
assistance when there is a thought that the idea of improvement is mandated by the government.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

73
Over time and after realizations were made that improvements are good for students and their
professional practice, attitudes and perceptions changed.
Question four focused on the vendor in this study, Action Learning Systems. The
question sought to ascertain how contracts for technical assistance are gained, and how future
contracts could be written with districts they are currently working with for technical assistance.
It was found that Action Learning Systems continues to grow and profit after contracts for
technical assistance are completed. It was also found that Action Learning Systems sees their
districts as partners, not just clients. Each district is treated differently based on perceived need.
This need is found based on conversations with multiple levels of stakeholders within and at the
top levels of the district. Action Learning Systems has a mandated obligation to complete the
contract for technical assistance, but, throughout the process, relationships are cultivated and
trust is built. Through those relationships, it was found that future contracts are gained with over
90 percent of their current partners for technical assistance (personal communication, 2013).
Conclusions
Program Improvement
One conclusion to this study seems to affirm, in at least one school, that the federal
government’s goal of improving instruction by mandating an outside provider for technical
assistance was largely achieved. The teachers in Buena Park, as most teachers and
administrators, are focused on what is happening in their schools and classrooms. That is not a
bad thing. Outside providers do have a focus on research proven instructional strategies and
governance models that take districts beyond their current focus. While the term program
improvement has been seen by many respondents in this study as harsh and punitive, the results
of the assistance has them feeling as they are better at servicing the students in their schools.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

74
The market for technical assistance, at the time of the study was vast. Over 50 providers
were available for district to choose from. The government set out A – G requirements for
providers to complete before they were eligible to bid on a contract and the contract with a
district for technical assistance was concluded. The research conducted in this study affirmed
that those requirements, especially in the area of professional development can cause a marked
change in instructional delivery. The research done here, however, contradicts the research of
McNeil (2009). His research found that the teachers have been subjected to deskilling
professional development through technical assistance that expected to help them increase
students’ test scores. Through interviews and surveys, teachers in Buena Park felt that the
professional development helped increase, not decrease student ability and achievement.
Professional Development
Through the lens of NCLB and program improvement components, professional
development takes place through an outside provider when schools are in Year 3 of PI and
beyond. Through that relationship with an outside provider, the federal and state governments
felt as though the teaching and learning process could be enhanced and student achievement
could be improved through technical assistance.
Many times whether a teacher is successful in the classroom or not depends more on the
amount of support that they receive from colleagues than on the amount of training that they
have undergone (Portner, 2005). This study promotes that thought, but with a caveat. The
relationship they build with an outside provider and the trust in the professional development that
is being delivered through that relationship is critical in a district exiting program improvement.
The more that the outside provider understands the culture of the district and what the district
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

75
needs to improve, the more productive the output, in this case improved instructional delivery,
will be.
Through mentoring and support networks, new teachers are able to develop skills that are
not only directed towards their particular assignment areas, but towards developing as mentors
within the classroom. This study concludes that staff development through technical assistance
has given veteran teachers these support networks as well. While it is essential that teachers
have a sound understanding of the curriculum, it is also important that they be able to relate to
their colleagues.
Transaction Cost Economics
The overall purpose of this study was to gain perspectives from multiple stakeholders in
the mandated transaction between a school district and an approved provider for technical
assistance. The primary goal of this transaction was exiting from program improvement. Given
that economists study how individuals, organizations, and societies employ time, money and
effort (Brewer & Hentschke, 2010), the thrust of the economic literature studied in this paper
focused on organizational relationships, both within and among firms, and especially between
market and hierarchical relationships through the lens of Transaction Cost Economics.
Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) is used as a way of looking at the transaction as the unit of
analysis rather than simply exchanges of goods or services for monetary gain (Tadelis &
Williamson, 2012). The underlying notion is that markets and hierarchies are alternatives to
each other and firms tend to pick a form that works “best” for their situation. In this study, the
market was saturated with providers that met the state’s A – G requirement to provide technical
assistance (CDE, 2011). Buena Park School District, in this researcher’s opinion, did not
formally go out into the market for their provider for technical assistance. The school district
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

76
instead used their current relationship with Action Learning Systems as a leverage point to
secure a new contract and strengthen the relationship. Due to that trust and confidence, this
relationship is not representative of a true contracting model and can be viewed as an alliance
that has been built over time. The trust that was built through professional development
practices and familiarity with the individuals that worked within the company brought comfort to
an otherwise unnerving process. All respondents interviewed, including Action Learning
Systems mentioned the relationship being the determining factor for success. Suggesting that, in
the absence of a relationship within the company, or alliance as previously mentioned, districts
could have a difficult time entering into a similar contract. This affirms an aspect of transaction
cost economics, which the underlying notion is that markets and hierarchies are alternatives to
each other and firms tend to pick a form that works “best” for their situation. In the situation that
exists between school districts and state approved vendors for technical assistance, what works
best is a known commodity. Written contracts cannot ever fully anticipate all uncertainties.
Contracting with ALS, as opposed to another firm entailed less risk and uncertainty. It was a
decision that had to be made, so Buena Park made the decision by choosing the known
commodity.
Bounded rationality.
The trusting relationship developed, based on the results of this study mitigated the
potential bounded rationality that could exist when the contract was written for technical
assistance. Powell (1990) defines bounded rationality as the “inability of the economic actors to
write contracts that cover all possible contingencies within the firm’s structure” (p. 297). Powell
(1990) stated that organizations will tend to stay away from market transactions due to the asset
specificity of knowledge that exists within the hierarchy and inefficiency of the market to
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

77
rationalize the cost of the transaction within “bounded rationality” (p. 297). The relationship that
was established over a five to seven year period between the school district and outside provider
made the assets, in this case, the teaching staff within the district, less of an unknown and gave
the provider the opportunity to build the contract around what was already known and needed for
improvement. For example, the employees within Action Learning Systems had a within
classroom knowledge of the skill and ability level of teachers in the Buena Park School District.
When implementing the contract then, the “within the bounds” of the bounded rationality was
more extensive that would otherwise be the case. It could be difficult or irrational for the
traditional technical assistance market or outside agency to make plans within the written
contract for all aspects or contingencies that might transpire within the contracted time without a
clear view of the hierarchy or organization. The consequences of bounded rationality are less
severe if the transactions in question are uncomplicated and experience little uncertainty
(Williamson, 2008). The relative lack of uncertainty between Buena Park School District and
Action Learning Systems allowed this contract to be fulfilled and improvement in teaching and a
clear direction for the school district to transpire.
Incentives to grow.
As stated in the findings section of this study, Action Learning Systems could potentially
continue to contract with over 90% of the organizations they originally contracted with for
technical assistance (personal communication, 2013). In his discussions around anticipation of
future gains, Williamson (2010) stated that if mutual gain is evident and a portion of the contract
can be seen as incomplete, mechanisms are devised that enable the parties to preserve
cooperation during contract execution to set up for future gain (Williamson, 2010). This study
concluded that although the contract between Action Learning Systems and Buena Park School
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

78
District is complete, future contracts have been signed due to an educational system that can be
seen as changing or almost “incomplete.” With the advent of Common Core State Standards,
providers are needed that have asset knowledge above and beyond what a school district can
provide at the time of this study. This change in educational landscape allows the market to once
again capitalize on new funding given by the federal government and a lack of Common Core
knowledge that school districts can potentially have.
Implications for Future Research
New and evolving accountability measures are likely to raise questions about the
appropriate use of voluntary or mandated contracting to improve school achievement.
Accountability measures that involve privatization actually create a market for vendors that
might not exist outside of these sanctions. During the formulation of this study, California State
Superintendent of Schools Tom Torlakson promoted, and Governor Gerry Brown signed into
law Assembly Bill 484. The bill would delete the provisions establishing the STAR Program,
and instead establish the Measurement of Academic Performance and Progress (MAPP),
commencing with the 2013–14 school year, for the assessment of certain elementary and
secondary pupils (Hill, 2013). This bill would, for the 2013–14 and 2014–15 school years, upon
approval of the state board, authorize the Superintendent to not provide an API score to a school
or school district due to a determination by the Superintendent that a transition to new standards-
based assessments would compromise comparability of results across schools or school districts.
The bill would specify that the MAPP would be composed of a consortium summative
assessment in English language arts and mathematics for grades three to eight and grade 11.
There would be science grade level assessments in grades five, eight, and 10, measuring
specified content standards. The California Alternate Performance Assessment in grades two to
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

79
11 would still be in place as before the passage of the bill. The bill would specify numerous
policies and procedures with respect to the development and the implementation of the MAPP by
the Superintendent, the state board, and affected local educational agencies. This bill would,
commencing with the 2014–15 school year and for purposes of the Early Assessment Program,
authorize the replacement of the California Standards Test and the augmented California
Standards Tests in English language arts and mathematics with the grade 11 consortium
computer-adaptive assessments in English language arts and mathematics (Hill, 2013). This bill
has yet to define, in practical terms, the accountability measures for the state of California. This
change in accountability and assessment, as well as the information gained in this study
promotes further questions and research. With any new educational accountability system, there
is the probability of sanctions and correctives if a school or district does not make adequate
progress in terms of student achievement. As of the time of this study the accountability
sanctions are yet to be determined. This poses many new questions that are not answered in this
study. Some of the questions are as follows:
• What will the correctives resemble when schools or districts are not meeting
performance criteria set out by the Measurement of Academic Performance and
Progress (MAPP) system?
• What role will the outside market play, or do they already play, in the implementation
of the new Common Core State Standards and accountability system for
achievement?
• If a relationship with an outside provider does not already exist between firm and
vendor before corrective action is taken because of sanctions, what is the best way to
establish trust and eliminate “bounded rationality?
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

80
Summary
Although limited in sample size, many of the findings in this study appear to shed light
on the findings and conclusions that relationships between firm and vendor is, or at least can be,
the determining factor in successful changes in organizations. Thus, an opportunity exists for
future researchers to utilize the findings from this study to broaden the scope of studies to the
other schools in California that have been able to successfully partner with outside agencies to
not only exit program improvement but improve their instructional delivery and vision of what a
success looks like.
As stated in the hypothesis, the ability for a school or district to exit year 3 of program
improvement relied heavily on the attitudes and capacity of the teachers and administration of
the district as well as perceptions of the role they play in the technical assistance process. The
willingness to accept the assistance of an outside provider and the strategies outlined in the
contract do contribute to school improvement and an eventual exit from program improvement.
The federal dollars that are allocated for schools in Year 2 and beyond of program improvement
to contract with outside providers allowed new and different staff development and the
formulation of a “blueprint of success,” or new direction. The outside provider brought forth
research-based staff development and human capital building programs. It was incumbent upon
the instructional stakeholders of the district to implement the “blueprint.” Without ownership of
programs and procedures brought about by technical assistance given by the outside provider,
this process could end up “on the shelf” with other programs that were given to teachers and
administrators.

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

81
REFERENCES
Bartolome, L. (2009). Beyond the methods fetish. In A. Darder, P. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres
(Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
Becker, H. J., & Epstein, J. L. (1982). Parent involvement: A survey of teacher practices. The
Elementary School Journal, 83(2), 85-102.
Benitas, A. M. (2012). Overcoming program improvement status: A strength based approach to
school improvement. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). California State University,
Sacramento.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and methods. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brady, R. C. (2003). Can failing schools be fixed? Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham
Foundation.
Brewer, D., & Hentschke, G. (2010). Theoretical concepts in the economics of education. In P.
Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education
(Vol. 2). Oxford: Elsevier.
California Department of Education. (2009-2010). California basic educational data system.
Retrieved April 3, 2011, from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Department of Education. (2011a). 2009-2010 PI status statewide summary: Adequate
yearly progress. Retrieved January 11, 2013, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/tistatesum09.asp
California Department of Education. (2011b). 2009-2010 accountability progress reporting
(APR): Local educational agency list of schools. Retrieved January 11, 2013, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/tistatesum09.asp
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

82
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg
(Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Friedlaender, D. (2008). Creating excellent and equitable schools.
Educational Leadership, 65(8), 14-21.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. New York: Heath.
EdSource. (2010). 2010 resource cards on California education: Program improvement.
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Felice, L. G. (1981). Black student dropout behavior: Disengagement from school rejection and
racial discrimination. The Journal of Negro Education, 50(4), 415-424.
Finnigan, K. S., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountablility policy sanctions influence teacher
motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low-performing schools. American Educational
Research Journal, 44(3), 594. doi: 10.3102/0002831207306767
Fowler, F. (1984). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gardner, D. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, D.C.: The National Commission on
Excellence in Education, U.S. Department of Education.
Giroux, H. (2009). Teacher education and democratic schooling. In A. Darder, P. Baltodano, &
R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hayes, C. J. (2007). Leading a learning-centered culture: Collaboration, collegiality, teacher
efficacy, and parent engagement. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Spalding
University, Kentucky.
Hentschke, G., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability. USC Urban Ed,
Spring/Summer, 17-19.
Hill, J. (2013). The Case for Assessment Reform for California Schools. The Social Studies, 2(1).
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

83
Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching. El Segundo, CA: TIP Publications.
Lamoreaux, N., Raff, D., & Temin, P. (2002). Beyond markets and hierarchies: Toward a new
synthesis of American business history. Working Paper 9029. Cambridge, MA: National
Bureau of Economic Research.
Lipman, P. (2009). Beyond accountability: Towards schools that create new people for a new
way of life. In A. Darder, P. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy
reader. New York, NY: Routledge.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McNeil, L. (2009). Standardization, defensive teaching, and the problems of control. In A.
Darder, P. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Miller, G. (2008). Solutions to the principal-agent in firms. In C. Menard & M. Shirley (Eds.),
Handbook of new institutional economics (pp. 349-370). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school
improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 29(4), 319-352. doi:10.3102/0162373707309219
Portner, H. (2005, October). Success for new teachers. American School Board Journal.
Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

84
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336.
Sapsford, R. (2006). Survey research. London: Sage Publications.
Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L. D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of
leading 21st century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22, 181-203.
doi: 10.1177/0895904807311291
Schwartz, R. B., & Robinson, M. A. (2000). Goals 2000 and the standards movement. Brookings
Papers on Education Policy, 2000(1), 173-206.
Smith, K., & Peterson, J. (2006). What is educational entrepreneurship? In Frederick M. Hess
(Ed.), Educational entrepreneurship: Realities, challenges, possibilities. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Educational Press.
Stager, S. F., Chassin, L., & Young, R. D. (1983). Determinants of self-esteem among labeled
adolescents. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(1), 3-10.
Strunk, K. O., McEachin, A., & Westover, T. N. (2012), The use and efficacy of capacity-
building assistance for low-performing districts: The case of California’s District
Assistance and Intervention Teams. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
doi: 10.1002/pam.21658.
Tadelis, S., & Williamson, O. (2012). Transaction cost economics. In R. Gibbons & J. Roberts
(Eds.), The handbook of organizational economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Thompson, G. L., Warren, S., & Carter, L. (2004). It’s not my fault: Predicting high school
teachers who blame parents and students for students’ low achievement. High School
Journal, 87(3), 5-14.
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

85
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative
research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.
United States Department of Education. (2007). The federal role in education. Retrieved January
12, 2013, from http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html.
Wagner, C. R. (2008, Fall). A different kind of cultural renaissance. Kentucky School Leader.
Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Association of School Administrators.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: The Free Press.
Williamson, O. E. (2008). Outsourcing: Transaction cost economics and supply chain
management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(2), 5-16.
Williamson, O. E. (2010). Transaction cost economics: The natural progression. Journal of
Retailing, 86(3), 215-226.
Wong, K. K., & Wang, M. C. (Eds.). (2002). Efficiency, accountability, and equity issues in Title
I schoolwide program implementation (Vol. 2). Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

86
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR BPSD TEACHERS
Introduction

Hello, my name is Jason Kuncewicki, and I am a doctoral candidate pursuing a doctorate of
Education (Ed.D.) degree from the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of
Education. I am currently working on my dissertation and conducting a study of the
implementation of mandated technical assistance with an outside provider through the program
improvement process. Specifically, I am studying the contracted relationship with ALS and the
Buena Park School District and how that relationship can assist in exiting program improvement
status. Involvement would include participation in surveys and/or interviews with possible
follow up questions for further clarification if you are willing. Please be assured that none of
your personally identifiable information (PII) will be used, and information will only be used in
aggregate to determine and support findings for this study. Further, this study his study has been
approved by the USC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 3270 South Flower Street, CUB 301
Los Angeles, CA, 90089-0702 or (213) 821-5272 which ensures that this study will be sensitive
to your privacy and safety. Should you require further information, please contact the Rossier
School of Education at USC or my chair Dr. Guilbert Hentschke ghentsch@usc.edu, who is
advising me on this study. Thank you.

Jason Kuncewicki
kuncewic@usc.edu
714-334-8946

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

87
• Please tell me your teaching experience in terms of years and levels of grade level service
within and outside of the Buena Park School District.

• What do you perceive to be your primary responsibility or responsibilities as a teacher?

• How are those responsibilities outlined to you?

• Did you have a blueprint of what to teach and how to teach?

• Walk me through your professional development as a teacher prior to program
improvement?

• How often was the professional development revisited?

• Did you feel supported by the district in your role as a teacher in the area of professional
development?

• How were you made aware of the district/school’s program improvement status?

• What was your initial reaction?

• What were your initial perceptions on the role that you play in the program improvement
process?

• Were you aware that an aspect of exiting program improvement year 3 was working with
an outside provider?

• How did you find out?

• How were you introduced to the idea of an outside vendor for technical assistance for
program improvement?

• What does technical assistance mean to you?

• Are you aware of the specifics of the contract with ALS?

• What have been your experiences with working with outside providers?

• What were your initial perceptions of working with an outside vendor for professional
development in a program improvement school or district?

• What have been your experiences of working with an outside vendor in a program
improvement school or district?

• What changes, if at all, did you see in overall teacher behavior?
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

88
• Has it changed your instructional method?

• If yes, how?

• If no, why not?

• What changes, if at all, did you see in overall administrative behavior?

• What changes, if at all, did you see in overall student behavior?

• What advice would you give to a teacher who begins working at a program improvement
school or district while an outside vendor is present for technical assistance?

• Do you now have a blueprint of what to teach and how to teach?

• How tightly do you stick to that blueprint?

• If I asked you if these changes were due to program improvement compliance or change
for the long term, what would you say?

• Do you see a change in the district for the positive or negative after the relationship with
an outside provider?

• Could you see a potential benefit by continuing a relationship with the outside provider
after this contract is up?

• Is there anything else you would like to add?

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

89
APPENDIX B
RESPONDENT SURVEY FOR DISTRICT LEADERSHIP TEAM WITHIN THE BUENA
PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT
Introduction

Hello, my name is Jason Kuncewicki, and I am a doctoral candidate pursuing a doctorate of
Education (Ed.D.) degree from the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of
Education. I am currently working on my dissertation and conducting a study of the
implementation of mandated assistance with an outside provider through the program
improvement process. Specifically, I am studying the contracted relationship with ALS and the
Buena Park School District and how that relationship can assist in exiting program improvement
status. Involvement would include participation in surveys and/or interviews with possible
follow up questions for further clarification if you are willing. Please be assured that none of
your personally identifiable information (PII) will be used, and information will only be used in
aggregate to determine and support findings for this study. Further, this study his study has been
approved by the USC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 3270 South Flower Street, CUB
301 Los Angeles, CA, 90089-0702 or (213) 821-5272 which ensures that this study will be
sensitive to your privacy and safety. Should you require further information, please contact the
Rossier School of Education at USC or my chair Dr. Guilbert Hentschke ghentsch@usc.edu,
who is advising me on this study. Thank you.

Jason Kuncewicki
kuncewic@usc.edu
714-334-8946

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

90
1. Gender
Male Female
2. What is your age?
20-29 30-49 50-59 Over 60
3. What is your occupation?
Kindergarten Teacher 3rd grade Teacher
1st Grade Teacher 4th grade Teacher
2nd Grade Teacher 5th grade teacher
6th Grade Teacher 7/8 Grade Teacher
Parent/School Board Member
Paraprofessional _____________________(specify position)
Other (please specify)____________________________

4. Please answer the following questions: Yes No
Did you know that your district was a program improvement district?
Do you understand what it means to be a program improvement district?
Do you understand the term technical assistance for program
improvement?

Please answer the following questions using a Likert Scale using the following ratings:
1 = Strongly Agree 2 = Agree 3 = No Opinion 4 = Disagree 5 = Strongly Disagree
It was clearly explained to me why my presence was needed on the DLT. _____
BPSD explained the components of the DAIT selection process for _____
technical assistance.
My presence was valued and I felt heard throughout the selection process. _____
The vendor presentations were given equal time for questioning and discussion. _____
A trajectory of services provided was described by all vendors during _____
presentations.
A description of the monetary commitment was given during the presentation. _____
There was discussion around what ALS had provided BPSD in the past. _____
ALS was the clear choice of all members of BPSD District Leadership Team. _____

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

91
Please answer the following questions regarding participation in the DAIT process for exiting
program improvement:

How do you feel about the following statements? Place a checkmark in the box next to any
statements that pertain to you:

As a district staff we work as a Team
Members of BPSD respect each other and work together
Staff is treated equally and questions regarding PI are answered in a timely manner.
High Expectations are held for staff through the respective contracts signed by
staff members.
As staff we share the same values of “Success Breeds Success” and “We Control
the Conditions to that Success.” The same values as the outside vendor ALS.

What are the three most tangible or clear changes that have taken place in your district since the
DAIT process has started to overcome program improvement status?

1.
2.
3.

If you had not been identified for program improvement would you have made these changes?
Yes
No

What changes, if any, would you have made to the selection process for an outside provider?
1.
2.
3.

What aspects made ALS the choice for technical assistance for Program Improvement?
1.
2.
3.

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

92
What type of conversation was had regarding past contracts with ALS?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________.

If given the chance to give advice to districts entering into a contract relationship with an outside
vendor, what would you say?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

93
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ACTION LEARNING SYSTEMS STAFF
Introduction

Hello, my name is Jason Kuncewicki, and I am a doctoral candidate pursuing a doctorate of
Education (Ed.D.) degree from the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of
Education. I am currently working on my dissertation and conducting a study of the
implementation of mandated technical assistance with an outside provider through the program
improvement process. Specifically, I am studying the contracted relationship with ALS and the
Buena Park School District and how that relationship can assist in exiting program improvement
status. Involvement would include participation in surveys and/or interviews with possible
follow up questions for further clarification if you are willing. Please be assured that none of
your personally identifiable information (PII) will be used, and information will only be used in
aggregate to determine and support findings for this study. Further, this study his study has been
approved by the USC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 3270 South Flower Street, CUB 301
Los Angeles, CA, 90089-0702 or (213) 821-5272 which ensures that this study will be sensitive
to your privacy and safety. Should you require further information, please contact the Rossier
School of Education at USC or my chair Dr. Guilbert Hentschke ghentsch@usc.edu, who is
advising me on this study. Thank you.

Jason Kuncewicki
kuncewic@usc.edu
714-334-8946

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

94
Interview Protocol: Action Learning Systems-Provider of Staff Development
• Please state your name and affiliation with Action Learning Systems.

• How long have you been with Action Learning Systems?

• What did you do before you worked with ALS?

• What brought you to ALS?

• What capacity/capacities have you worked with the company and for how long?

• What type of training did you receive through ALS to prepare you to work with school
districts?

• How are you assigned to particular school districts?

• Approximately how many schools or school districts have you worked with in your time
with ALS?

• What have been your main responsibilities when working with those school districts?

• What is the initial type of meeting you have with school representatives before you begin
working in the district?

• What, in your opinion, is the initial perception of ALS when you begin working with a
school or district?

• Is it always the same, or does it vary?

• How do you begin to change their perceptions?

• What do you believe to be the key indicator if they change perceptions?

• OK, let’s talk about the DAIT process, is that OK?

• You are affiliated with the DAIT process, correct?

• What is your role in the DAIT process?

• What aspect of technical assistance is your responsibility?

• Do you work mostly with small groups or large groups?

• Is it always the same responsibility or does your role change based on the district?
FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

95
• What types of reactions come from teachers when you present technical assistance in the
area of staff development?

• Are they hesitant at first to ideas from outside consultants?

• How do you alleviate that?

• Are the reactions consistent?

• How important is building relationships with the teachers and administrators?

• Is there training from ALS to help with that relationship building for you?

• Do you stay with that particular district for the entirety of the contract or are you
switched back and forth depending on the training?

• What do you feel is the most important quality that a district must have/build to exit
program improvement using outside assistance?

• How does ALS help build that quality?

• How does ALS help maintain that quality?

• How much follow up is available through ALS after the contract has been completed?

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

96
APPENDIX D
FOCUS GROUP GUIDE FOR ACTION LEARNING SYSTEMS EXECUTORS OF
DAIT CONTRACT
Introduction

Hello, my name is Jason Kuncewicki, and I am a doctoral candidate pursuing a doctorate of
Education (Ed.D.) degree from the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of
Education. I am currently working on my dissertation and conducting a study of the
implementation of mandated technical assistance with an outside provider through the program
improvement process. Specifically, I am studying the contracted relationship with ALS and the
Buena Park School District and how that relationship can assist in exiting program improvement
status. Involvement would include participation in surveys and/or interviews with possible
follow up questions for further clarification if you are willing. Please be assured that none of
your personally identifiable information (PII) will be used, and information will only be used in
aggregate to determine and support findings for this study. Further, this study his study has been
approved by the USC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) at 3270 South Flower Street, CUB 301
Los Angeles, CA, 90089-0702 or (213) 821-5272 which ensures that this study will be sensitive
to your privacy and safety. Should you require further information, please contact the Rossier
School of Education at USC or my chair Dr. Guilbert Hentschke ghentsch@usc.edu, who is
advising me on this study. Thank you.

Jason Kuncewicki
kuncewic@usc.edu
714-334-8946

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

97
Focus Group Guide for Action Learning Systems Executors of DAIT Contract
I would like to thank you for sitting down with me today, the focus of today’s discussion will be
around the formulation of the DAIT contract and presentations that take place before contract
formulation and technical assistance given.

• Please state your name and title for the focus group.

• Tell me a little about how you apply to become a DAIT provider with the state.

• How many DAIT contracts do you have at the present time?

• What do you feel makes ALS the appropriate choice for the DAIT process?

• Are you aware of the competition for contracts?

• How are you contacted for presentations?

• Do you make contact or does the district?

• When contact is made, how much research do you do on the district?

• Do you already have relationships with the districts you are providing DAIT for?

• Can you discuss what types of relationships you already have?

• If so, does that determine what type of presentation is made?

• Does the same group always present the DAIT proposal/presentation?

• How is that decision made?

• Can you walk me through a proposal?

• When you are chosen for a contract, can you describe how the contract is written?

• Do you write in hazard protection for unexpected outcomes? How is the financial aspect
of the contract handled?

• How do you divide out the work to be done within the contract?

• Is that the same for each contract or does it vary?

• How do you monitor the contract?

FEDERAL PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT AND PRIVATIZATION

98
• Can it change within the contract period? I mean can you add or subtract aspects?

• How often do you have to report to the state?

• Do you monitor customer satisfaction? How?

• As the contract nears completion, does your company discuss possible future contracts
within the school district? How is that handled?

• For the districts that have completed the DAIT process, what percentage (in round
numbers) has continued the relationship with ALS in some sort or another?

• Out of the districts that you’ve worked with, how many of them have successfully exited
the PI process?

• How many have not?

• How many are currently still working through their contract?

• Do you see a commonality for the ones that have exited PI?

• Tell me a little about how the contract has been going with BPSD?

• Has it gone as planned with the district?

• Any unforeseen issues?

• Incentives for future contracts?

I would like to thank you so much for the information gathered here today. Is it ok that I contact
any of you if I have any other questions regarding DAIT or questions about what we discussed?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate aspects of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, more specifically the sanctions that accompany year 3 of program improvement. The study worked to identify any conditions, factors, processes, transactions or elements that may have contributed to a Title I federally funded California public urban elementary school district’s ability to successfully exit and move beyond their program improvement status through an aspect of mandated privatization through Title I federal funding. This researcher sought to better understand which incentives and behavior created by outsourcing technical assistance services contributed to exiting program improvement through the lens of Transaction Cost Economics. In order to capture the relationship between school districts and outside providers for technical assistance, a qualitative case study took place. The case study involved one school district (Buena Park), and one outside provider (Action Learning Systems). Through semi-structured interviews and a focus group of teachers and administrators in the district, a focus group of outside providers along with interviews of those providers, data was collected to answer research questions that pertain to perceptions of a partnership between firm and vendor, it’s effect on teaching and learning, and if that partnership created new growth opportunities for both parties. Through these protocols, it was found that the basis of success or failure through these partnerships was based on the strength of the relationship established between the stakeholders of the firm and vendor. The more trust the school district had in the vendor, the more the district took the tools delivered and implemented them into practice for instructional improvement for student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Contracting for performance: examining the relationship between LAUSD and ALEKS using transaction cost economics

PDF

Contracting for special education: a case study of a charter school contract for special education

PDF

Blended learning: developing flexibility in education through internal innovation

PDF

A study of online project-based learning with Gambassa: crossroads of informal contracting and cloud management systems

PDF

Special education outsourcing: district privatization of therapeutic day schools for students with severe emotional disabilities

PDF

Teen parents: outsourcing childcare to keep them connected and engaged in school

PDF

Outsourcing technology and support in higher education

PDF

Navigating a way out of program improvement: a case study analysis

PDF

Buy or build? A transaction cost economics view of university student record processing services

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student learning: case studies of California schools

PDF

Educational resource allocation at the middle school level: a case study of six middle schools in one California district

PDF

The local politics of education governance: power and influence among school boards, superintendents, and teachers' unions

PDF

Technology, policy, and school change: the role of intermediary organizations

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within a site-based managed elementary school: a case study

PDF

An investigation of standards-based education under the auspices of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: a case study of one small rural school district

PDF

Allocation of resources and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California Title I Program Improvement middle schools

PDF

Aligning educational resources and strategies to improve student learning: effective practices using an evidence-based model

PDF

Adequacy and allocation practices: a cornerstone of program improvement resolution

PDF

The middle college high school: a case study

Asset Metadata

Creator Kuncewicki, Jason (author)

Core Title Mandated privatization through program improvement: a case study of the relationship between Action Learning Systems and the Buena Park School District

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/11/2014

Defense Date 03/05/2014

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

Tag educational sanctions,No Child Left Behind,OAI-PMH Harvest,program improvement,Transaction Cost Economics

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee chair), Burch, Patricia (committee member), Strunk, Katharine O. (committee member)

Creator Email jkuncewicki@bpsd.k12.ca.us,kuncewic@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-375978

Unique identifier UC11296272

Identifier etd-Kuncewicki-2341.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-375978 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kuncewicki-2341.pdf

Dmrecord 375978

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kuncewicki, Jason

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 a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA