University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 1
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE: EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
LAUSD AND ALEKS USING TRANSACTION COST ECONOMICS

by

Donna Stewart Lewis

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

August 2014

Copyright 2014 Donna Stewart Lewis

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 2
Acknowledgements
Even though this vast journey towards a doctor of education degree has been arduous and
exhausting, I could not have conquered the challenge without the overwhelming love and support
of my family. First, I thank my parents, Donald and Beverly, who taught me to dream, focus,
and persevere. Second, I thank my daughters, La Donna and Alexandria, for being the
inspiration for all of my hopes and desires. I dedicate this achievement to you all.
I acknowledge my LAUSD roots through my 7
th
grade English teacher, Mrs. Vernon, at
Emerson Jr. High School, who told me that I was an exceptional writer and should consider a
professional career in journalism. Second, I acknowledge my 10
th
grade geometry teacher, Mr.
Checci, at University High School, who instilled in me an excitement for mathematical pursuits.
Third, I acknowledge my 11
th
grade physiology teacher, Mr. Anisman, also at University High
School, who awakened a curiosity for scientific discover. In hindsight, these three individuals
set the course for my lifelong passion for learning and inquiry.
I acknowledge, Dr. Martine Jago, at Pepperdine University, who served as a steward to
usher me towards doctoral scholarship. I also acknowledge several USC faculty members for
encouragement. Dr. Robert Rueda, for taking the time to discuss my doctoral endeavors and
provide me with insight and guidance towards this journey. Dr. Kenneth Yates for sharing his
expertise in gap analysis and illuminating its application for solving educational dilemmas. Dr.
Rudolph Crew who modeled reflectiveness, courage, and passion in educational leadership. Dr.
Guilbert Hentschke, my dissertation chair, for introducing Transaction Cost Economics as viable
framework for studying outsourcing decisions in educational milieus and my committee
members Drs. Katharine Strunk and Patricia Burch, who provided valuables suggestions for
launching my study.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 3
Table of Contents
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) as a Conceptual Framework 12
Application of Outsourcing Using TCE 12
Schools, Districts, and Outsourcing 13
Artificial Intelligence System Outsourcing Options 14
Advantages of Outsourcing 15
Disadvantages of Outsourcing 16
Statement of the Problem 18
Purpose of the Study 19
Research Questions 19
Limitations, Assumptions, and Design Controls 20
Definition of Key Terms and Concepts 21
Summary 24
Chapter Two: Literature Review 26
Artificial Learning Knowledge Spaces (ALEKS) 27
Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) 28
Network Institutional Arrangements 29
Multiple Principal-Agent Relationships 29
Partnerships 30
Public Sector Transaction Costs 30
Collusion in Bidding Practices 37
Criticisms of Transactions Cost Economics 37
Summary 39
Chapter Three: Methodology 40
Problem and Purposes Overview 41
Purpose of the Study 42
Research Questions 42
Population and Sample 42
Research Sites 43
Multiple Principal-Agent Relationships 43
Los Angeles Unified School District (Firm) 45
Sunshine Academy High School (Firm) 46
ALEKS Corporation (Vendor) 47
Quick and Associates (Vendor) 48
Participants 48
Data Collection and Instrumentation 48
Instrumentation 48
Research Question One 49
Research Question Two 52
Research Question Three 52
Research Question Four 53
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 4
Data Analysis 54
Summary 56
Chapter Four: Results 58
Descriptive Characteristics Participants 58
Organization of Data Analysis 59
Findings by Research Questions 60
Research Question One 60
Research Question Two 66
Research Question Three 72
Research Question Four 77
Summary 85
Chapter Five: Discussion 86
Purpose, Significance, Methodology 87
Conclusions 88
Fidelity in Implementation 89
Behavioral Issues among 9th Grade Algebra 1 Students 91
Perceptions about Reasonable Prices 92
Unanticipated Future Costs 95
Recommendations for Further Research 96
Summary 97
References 98
Appendix A 108
Appendix B 112
Appendix C 116
Appendix D 120
Appendix E 123
Appendix F 126
Appendix G 128
Appendix H 131
Appendix I 132

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 5
List of Tables
Table 1: CST Categories and Descriptions for the Mathematics Content Area 9

Table 2: CST Results (by Category) for LAUSD 9
th
Grade Algebra 1 Students from
2008 to 2012 10

Table 3: CST Results (by Category) for Sunshine Academy High School 9th Grade
Algebra 1 Students from 2008 to 2012 12

Table 4: Summary of Data Collection Methodology 55

Table 5: Summary of LAUSD School Report Card for Sunshine Academy High School
for Math and Algebra 1 from 2009 to 2013 68

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: Multiple Principal-Agent Partnership Relationship Transaction Costs, adapted
from Jobin, 2008 31

Figure 2: Institutional hybrid network of multiple principal-agent partnership relationships 45

Figure 3: Sample of ALEKS generated equations 82

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 7
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore the relationship between the Los Angeles
Unified School District (LAUSD) and the ALEKS Corporation using Transaction Cost
Economics (TCE) as a conceptual framework to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency.
Further, this study discusses the implications of high stakes testing on public schools, the impact
of mathematic artificial intelligence software in schools, and the options available for
outsourcing to improve school performance. In addition, this study investigates network
institutional arrangements, multiple principal-agent relationships, and partnerships. Finally, this
study applies public sector transaction costs to the relationship between LAUSD and the ALEKS
Corporation in an effort to evaluate its effectiveness.
Keywords: transaction cost economics, outsourcing, multiple principal-agent
relationships, school accountability, high stakes testing, mathematics, artificial intelligence
software

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Nelson
Mandela

The results of high-stakes testing is often a determining factor in whether students
dropout or graduate from high school in the United States. Proponents of high-stakes testing
often contend that it is a type of accountability system that benefits low-achieving students by
encouraging them to work harder and at the same time inspires teachers to provide more
individualized instruction (Roderick, Jacob, & Bryk, 2003). Although there have been some
strides that align with noticeable improvement on standardized tests in English language
proficiency, mathematics proficiency has not yielded the same results. This study aims to
examine outsourcing as a governance structure to measure school performance using Transaction
Cost Economics (“TCE”).
In accordance with a study conducted by the “National Assessment of Educational
Progress, less than 25% of high school seniors are considered proficient in mathematics”
(Presby, 2011). Further, under the federally mandated No Child Left Behind (“NCLB”) Act of
2001, schools are accountable to parents and students to meet clearly delineated performance
goals and provide candid information about the quality of the education being disseminated.
Perhaps the most fundamental (and devastating) consequence for any schools failure to meet its
performance goals is the loss of its students and its funding to other schools.
According to the California Department of Education (2012), the California High School
Exit Exam (“CAHSEE”) that is administered to all 10
th
graders, serves as one measure of
whether requisite skills required for graduation have been mastered. However, out of the
473,439 students in the10th grade that participated in the test during the 2010-11 academic year,
44% scored “below proficient” in mathematics (California Department of Education, 2013).
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 9
Further, it should be noted that even though the math portion of the CAHSEE exam is
administered during the 10
th
grade year, the content is based on 8
th
grade level standards. These
alarming statistics raise concerns about whether students are prepared to perform essential life
skills or meet the demands of an increasingly competitive global marketplace. The information
represented in Table 1 provides a description of each of the categories (advanced, proficient,
basic, below basic, and far below basic) used to measure achievement on the California
Standardized Testing and Reporting (“CST”) exam.
Table 1
CST Categories and Descriptions for the Mathematics Content Area
CST
Category
Description
Advanced
Superior performance where students demonstrate comprehensive and
complex understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this
assessment, at a specific grade level, in the Mathematics content area.
Proficient
Solid performance where students demonstrate a competent and adequate
understanding of knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at a
specific grade level, in the Mathematics content area.
Basic
Limited performance where students demonstrate a partial and rudimentary
understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at a
specific grade level, in the Mathematics content area.
Below
Basic/
Far Below
Basic
Serious lack of performance where students demonstrate little or a flawed
understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at a
specific grade level, in the Mathematics content area.
Note. Adapted from California Department of Education. (2013). California standardized testing and reporting
(STAR). Retrieved from http://star.cde.ca.gov/

During the 2009-2010 academic school year, 57.2% of 9
th
grade students in the Los
Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) received a grade of D or Fail in Algebra 1A during
the fall semester. Similarly, 57.6% of 9th grade students received a grade of D or Fail in Algebra
1B during the same school year. Based on the need to improve the proficiency of 9
th
grade
Algebra 1 students, LAUSD implemented a mandatory mathematics intervention (LAUSD
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 10
memorandum, March 1, 2011) at the beginning of the 2011-2012 academic year. This
intervention, administered only be credentialed mathematics teachers, required all 9
th
grade
students (including students with disabilities who served in special day classes) that took Algebra
Readiness in the eighth grade and received a D or Fail and scored less than 15 out of 30 (50%)
on LAUSD 8
th
grade Mathematics Diagnostic Assessment administered in Spring 2010 were
required to enroll in a second elective mathematics class (Math Tutorial Lab). Additionally, all
students who took Algebra 1 in the 8th grade and received a D or Fail and scored far below basic
or below basic on the 7th grade CST exam would be required to enroll in a second elective
mathematics class (Math Tutorial Lab) even though proficiency in the Core Mathematics class in
not essential. Schools could also elect to enroll additional students in these intervention classes at
their own discretion. The information represented in Table 2 provides a summary (by category)
of the percentage results of all LAUSD 9
th
grade Algebra 1 on the CST exam for each
measurable category from 2008 to 2012.
Table 2
CST Results (by Category) for LAUSD 9
th
Grade Algebra 1 Students from 2008 to 2012
CST
Category 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Advanced 1% 1% 1% 2% 2%
Proficient 8% 9% 10% 11% 13%
Basic 19% 17% 19% 20% 21%
Below Basic 47% 41% 43% 40% 40%
Far Below
Basic 25% 30% 27% 26% 24%
TOTAL 100% 98%* 100 99%** 100%
Note. Adapted from California Department of Education. (2013). California standardized testing and reporting
(STAR). Retrieved from http://star.cde.ca.gov/
*Percentage represents a 2% discrepancy based on the difference between the 35,545 9
th
grade students tested and
the 35,377 with scores. ** Percentage represents a 1% discrepancy based on the difference between the 27,973 9
th

grade students tested and the 27,858 with scores

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 11
Artificial LEarning Knowledge Spaces (ALEKS) was adopted by LAUSD to serve as a
strongly suggested Math Tutorial Lab intervention for 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students during the
2011-2012 academic year. ALEKS is a type of web-based artificial intelligent assessment and
learning system designed to identify student knowledge and provide immediate one-on-one.
ALEKS also provides periodic re-assessments, avoids multiple-choice questions, and allows
students to develop a mastery of a particular subject matter. ALEKS is designed to uncover the
knowledge state of students through evolutionary assessment mechanisms that converge (based
on specific criteria) to identify student capabilities (ALEKS Corporation, 2013). Despite the
mandatory intervention, however, the 2012 CST results for LAUSD revealed that 42% of 9
th

grade Algebra 1 students scored below basic and 31% of 9
th
grade student far below basic
(California Department of Education, 2013). In fact, in the 9th grade, only 15% of students
scored at Proficient or above in Algebra 1. Further, the 2011-2012 data released by LAUSD
through its School Report Card described 58% of students as scoring at the below basic or far
below basic performance level (California Department of Education, 2012).
During the 2009-2010 academic year (two years prior to LAUSD‟s mandatory
intervention requirement Sunshine Academy Senior High School implemented the ALEKS
system in order to redress their specific deficiencies in 9
th
grade Algebra 1 scores and
concurrently provide proactive instructional strategies in CAHSEE preparation for 10
th
grade
students. The information represented in Table 3 provides a summary (by category) of the
percentage results of Sunshine Academy High School‟s 9
th
grade Algebra 1 on the CST exam for
each measurable category (advanced, proficient, basic, below basic, and far below basic) from
2008 to 2012.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 12
Table 3
CST Results (by Category) for Sunshine Academy High School 9th Grade Algebra 1 Students
from 2008 to 2012
CST
Category 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Advanced 1% 1% 3% 10% 8%
Proficient 12% 11% 16% 26% 19%
Basic 23% 22% 23% 27% 29%
Below Basic 44% 41% 39% 26% 29%
Far Below
Basic 20% 25% 19% 12% 14%
Note. Adapted from California Department of Education. (2013). California standardized testing
and reporting (STAR). Retrieved from http://star.cde.ca.gov

Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) as a Conceptual Framework
A tug of war persists in a new era that has abandoned industrialized physical labor for
twenty-first century innovative intellectual acumen (Gupta, Herath, & Mikouiza, 2005). As a
result, school districts must make informed decisions about the relative elements of efficiency
that surround producing goods and services in-house versus pursuing an outsourced solution
(Williamson, 2010). Gregory (2011) describes TCE as a “continuum” between a regulated
hierarchical (make) and an open market (buy) structure that provides synchronized internal and
external governance mechanisms to control costs. The study of outsourcing through the lens of
TCE has emerged as a preeminent model for examining organizational governance practices.
Application of Outsourcing Using TCE
Espino-Rodríguez and Padrón-Robaina (2006) describe outsourcing as strategic decision
by a firm that recognizes the activities that require market invention based on internal resources
using business processes that are exploited through a competitive advantage. In a climate of
high-stakes testing, school districts must make a determination between whether the market or
the hierarchies are more efficient which dependent upon the surrounding circumstances of a
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 13
particular transaction where costs arise when human and environmental factors collide
(Williamson, 1975). From a business standpoint, TCE can be adapted to align both the markets
and hierarchies to improve efficiency (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012), and perhaps improve school
performance.
However, since both hierarchical and market structures involve transaction costs, it is
important to consider the related costs of reaching an external agreement compared to the costs
of performing the services internally (Coase, 1937). High-stakes testing and institutional
sanctions require schools to create synergy between being “flexible, entrepreneurial, responsive,
and efficient” (Gupta, Herath, & Mikouiza, 2005, p. 403).
Schools, Districts, and Outsourcing
School leaders remain at the precipice of the institutional decision making process where
they and are charged with examining a full array of possibilities in order to mobilize the
strengths of their operational and managerial efforts within the political, structural, human
resources, and symbolic frames (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Unfortunately, school leaders who are
overwhelmed by the complexity of their challenges may lack the “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi,
1990) required to develop the “clear goals” (Jackson & Csikszentmihalyi, 1999) intended to
achieve ultimate success. Although contemporary schools and districts may be slow to embrace
the notion of assuming a business-centered solution, it is incumbent upon them to remain
competitive and fiscally responsible to meet the mandates of national state accountability
standards. Outsourcing, as a business-centered solution, offers schools and districts a way to
forge a path of obtaining a variety of objectives through innovation, competition, and strategy.
High-stakes testing and institutional sanctions require schools and districts to implement out-of-
the-box thinking to improve student achievement and create synergy between being “flexible,
entrepreneurial, responsive, and efficient” (Gupta, Herath, & Mikouiza, 2005).
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 14
Even though some schools and districts may be slow to embrace an outsourcing efficient
option to improve student achievement, it is not a new construct within organizational business
milieus. In fact, in 1937, economist Ronald Coase, posed the dilemma about what efficiency
factors are necessary to determine whether companies should produce goods or services in-house
or outsource to outside vendors (Williamson, 2010). While educators grapple with a myriad of
alarming statistics and attempt to allocate responsive solutions to student achievement outcomes,
institutional challenges are becoming increasingly more complex. School leaders are expected to
expertly undertake a variety of executive tasks including “mediator, public relations manager,
visionary, facility manager, community builder, assessment expert, curriculum developer, human
resource director, budget analyst, and fundraiser” (p. 32).
Artificial Intelligence System Outsourcing Options
Since the 1970‟s, researchers have been examining the usefulness of computer-aided
artificial intelligence systems (“AIS”) also known as intelligent tutor systems (ITS) to provide
viable instructional intervention to increase student achievement (Corbett, Koedinger &
Anderson, 1997). The objective of computer-aided systems has been to “engage the student in a
sustained reasoning activity and to interact with the student based on a deep understanding of the
students behavior” (Corbett, Koedinger, & Anderson, 1997, p. 850).
Intelligent tutor systems may be utilized as a systematic intervention and instructional
strategy to enhance student achievement in math (Wolf, 2010) and provide students, teachers,
and school leaders with the mechanisms of development, monitoring, and adjusting individual
programs that lead to enhanced math achievement (Presby, 2011). Young et al. (2012) suggested
in their study about video games and situated learning that “analyzing complex multiplayer
interactions” (p. 63) may be a key component in the development of intelligent tutor systems.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 15
Nonetheless, the implementation of these systems oftentimes requires school districts to
outsource the instructional services to vendors who may be more efficient at performing the
function (Yang, Wacker, & Sheu, 2012). If an outsource solution is chosen, districts will be
required to craft precise contracts with vendors that meet technological demands, shifting
accountability mandates, and rising student achievement gaps in an effort to satisfy various
partners (district, principal, teachers, and students). During the 2011-2012 academic year, in an
effort to redress deficiencies in 9th grade students‟ Algebra 1 proficiency, LAUSD mandated that
ALEKS be implemented as a required intervention strategy that may be linked to AYP, API,
CST, and CAHSEE that are tied to funding and sanctions under NCLB (LAUSD memorandum,
March 1, 2011).
Advantages of Outsourcing
Proponents of outsourcing assert that it provides opportunities under certain operational
conditions (Lamoureaux, Raff, & Temin, 2002) that arise when transactions are sufficiently
complex and incomplete which permits one party to exert an unfair advantage. For instance, if
perfect competition (many buyers and sellers with no influence over price) is absent in a
transaction, vendors may act in a self-serving manner because firms have few choices and are
unable to switch to other vendors. On the other hand, from an organizational perspective, the
implementation of outsourcing may provide reduced costs, improved service quality, and
increased efficiency with relational contracts that define common goals and objectives
(Williamson, 1985; Milgrom & Roberts, 1992). Although transaction costs arise naturally from
those expenditures associated with contracting, TCE also infuses an advantage for school
districts that elect to outsource by providing empirical data in efficiency benefits (Macher &
Richman, 2008). Empirical research results reveal, in fact, that TCE has tenets that are
applicable outside of business and compliment social science fields.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 16
Outsourcing may also offer viable alternatives to in-house vertically integrated
hierarchies (Lamoureaux, Raff, & Temin, 2002) that may detract schools from their core
competencies. For instance, in addition to teaching and learning, schools are required to respond
to a multiplicity of ancillary issues that run the gamut from developing individualized education
plans (IEP) to tracking student attendance records. Outsourcing of some instructional services
(e.g. intelligent tutor systems) may improve a school‟s best practices through targeted expertise
from an expert vendor which allows the school to maintain control over strategic decision
making processes to increase institutional effectiveness (Gupta, Herath, & Mikouiza, 2005).
Disadvantages of Outsourcing
Inasmuch as there are benefits associated with outsourcing, opponents of the practice
contend that since educational institutions, by nature, have priorities in motivation, performance,
and evaluation that differ from business they should not be subsumed into the same practices
(Gupta, Herath, & Mikouiza, 2005). In fact, some higher education institutions argue that
private business practices are contrary to their collective cultural norms because they undermine
their not-for-profit missions. In addition, there is palpable fear that outsourcing will result in a
reduction of collaboration that is a mainstay in a shared governance environment and ultimately
decrease institutional loyalty.
Another disadvantage of outsourcing can result from the demand placed on human capital
within the institutions that are bereft of the specific expertise necessary to negotiate a contract
from initiation to completion (Gupta, Herath, & Mikouiza, 2005). The consequence of these
gaps in knowledge and skills (Rueda, 2011) can result in inefficiencies in the structure of the
system and cause lost jobs and decreased morale (Gupta, Herath, & Mikouiza, 2005). Moreover,
any benefit associated with cost of training may be far outweighed by the lack of enthusiasm or
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 17
willingness to participate in the broader “stretch goal” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 26) of improving
overall institutional effectiveness.
Opponents of outsourcing will also assert that TCE is a double-edged sword with long-
term contracting on one side and vertical integration on the other. Although long-term
contracting affiliations may offer some advantages, vertical integration, on the other hand, may
cause irreparable harm (Macher & Richman, 2008). In order to realize any benefit from vertical
integration, the institution would be required to forge “relationship specific investments”
(Macher & Richman, 2008, p. 13) during contract negotiations. As previously discussed,
oftentimes the institutions lack of personnel with skills and knowledge in this vital area would be
detrimental to overall success.
Weaknesses are likely to arise if educators do not fully understand the functional area
earmarked for outsourcing solutions or fail to properly analyze the strengths, weakness,
opportunities, and threats (SWOT) associated with the implementation (Gupta, Herath, &
Mikouiza, 2005). Although the decision making process may be collaborative, it must be
strategic to insure that the institution maintains its ability to operate effectively and efficiently.
Prior to implementation, an in depth SWOT analysis should uncover overall strengths and
weaknesses along with opportunities and threats associated with reducing costs and/or increases
manpower.
Incomplete contracts are those that are subject to contingencies within the initial phases
and throughout the duration of the contract (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012) which may result in a
surge of weaknesses throughout the structure of the agreement. Specificity, then, is essential in
contractual relations and must be achieved through the shared governance process of alignment
between in-house talent and outsourced expertise. These types of channels present unique
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 18
opportunities for educational institutions and outsource organizations to fashion long-term
relationships that seek mutually beneficial coordination of goals (Gupta, Herath, & Mikouiza,
2005).
Statement of the Problem
Nationally mandated high-stakes testing aside, the bottom line is that “High school is
now the front line in America‟s battle to remain competitive on the increasingly competitive
international economic stage” (Spring, 2009, p. 3). Friedman and Mandelbaum (2011) suggests
that “…raising math, science, and reading creativity levels in American schools is the key
determinant in economic growth…and educational well-being” (p. 100). Some researchers
specifically maintain that high school math courses (e.g. Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2)
are directly correlated to future income (French, Homer, & Robins, 2010).
Further, from a human capital theory perspective, economists assert that students who
invest in an advanced math curriculum realize higher incomes in the job market (Rose & Bets,
2004; Hanushek, 2009). Math literacy, in fact, serves to develop a student‟s ability to become an
expert thinker (Jerald, 2009). However, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD), only Portugal, Greece, Turkey, and Mexico trail the United States
with students who are enrolled in fewer advanced high school math courses (Hanushek,
Peterson, & Woessmann, 2011). With thoughtful strategic planning, schools may be able to
allay resources to develop outsourced relationships that can support Algebra 1 proficiency
among high school students.
Although TCE has been applied extensively to examine the outsourcing decisions
associated with the costs of negotiating a contract, monitoring its performance, and providing
feedback in (Williamson, 1975; Everaert, Sarens, & Rommel, 2010) in corporate settings, its
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 19
framework has not been applied to examine the effectiveness of the relationship between
LAUSD and the ALEKS Corporation to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency. This fissure
presents a transformative opportunity to ameliorate the application of TCE in the public sector by
utilizing it as a framework to develop evaluative administrative procedures that can ultimately
assist the education of children at “risk of academic failure” (Jimerson, 1999, p.266 ).
Moreover, TCE‟s dimensions can be implemented to not only improve LAUSD‟s contractual
outsourcing process but also improve the totality of the overall educational experience for every
student. This study will also support LAUSD‟s initiative to improve educational outcomes
across all subgroups of students by measuring the effectiveness of the delivery of the strongly
suggested but optional ALEKS program to support learning and improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1
proficiency. The results of this study may also serve to highlight successful strategies or
potential solutions to remove barriers that prevent students from being college-prepared and
career-ready.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore the relationship between LAUSD
and the ALEKS Corporation to evaluate its effectiveness on school performance to improve 9
th

grade Algebra 1 proficiency using TCE.
Research Questions
The research questions that will guide this case study are:
1. What were the factors that motivated the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to
improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
2. What were the factors that lead to the contractual relationship between LAUSD and ALEKS
to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 20
3. What were the factors that lead Sunshine Academy High School to select the ALEKS site
license from LAUSD to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
4. What factors do study participants believe are essential to insure that ALEKS is successful?
Limitations, Assumptions, and Design Controls
The concentration of this qualitative case study is a purposeful sample focused on one
district (LAUSD) and one senior high school (Sunshine Academy High School) in California
whose goal for implementing ALEKS was related to increasing Algebra 1 proficiency. For the
purposes of this study, 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency rates were reviewed through CST scores
to assess the effectiveness of the ALEKS implementation at Sunshine Academy High School.
Since this study was not longitudinal, time constraints governed the gathering data and the
reporting of results. Further, it should be noted that ALEKS Corporation and Quick and
Associates personnel cited privacy concerns that prompted them to decline participation in the
study.
It was assumed that all participants in this qualitative case study conducted themselves
with the utmost integrity in providing information during the data gathering process (Merriam,
2009) that it is truthful and honest to the best of their ability in their respective capacities:
LAUSD Superientendent, Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Director of K-12
Instruction, Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics, Sunshine Academy High School Principal,
Sunshine Academy High School Certified Mathematics Teachers administering ALEKS
instruction, and Sunshine Academy Title I Coordinator. Further, it is assumed that the protocols
and instrumentation used for face-to-face, one-on-one semi-structured interviews and
observations were reliable and provide rich data for analysis, discussion, and recommendations.
This case study employed a qualitative approach to unearth evidence related to the
research questions (Merriam, 2009). Nine participants were interviewed for this study at
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 21
LAUSD: the Superintendent, the Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction, the Director
of K-12 Instruction, one Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics, one Sunshine Academy High
School Principal, four Certified Mathematic Teachers of ALEKS instruction at Sunshine
Academy High School, and the Title I Coordinator at Sunshine Academy High School. In
addition, one observation was conducted of a 9
th
grade ALEKS math intervention lab. The
artifacts collected include: the ALEKS school site license, ALEKS pamphlets, summative
assessments (e.g. CST, CAHSEE Math scores, Sunshine Academy High School Report Cards),
and formative assessments (e.g. ALEKS standards-based progress reports). Data was analyzed
and results were codified in a narrative format to describe the strengths and weaknesses
associated with the implementation of ALEKS at Sunshine Academy High School to improve
Algebra 1 proficiency among 9
th
grade students.
Definition of Key Terms and Concepts
Anthropometry. The process of measuring and providing a shorthand account of
physical and mental capabilities of human beings (Falmagne et al., 2006).
Asset Specificity. Alternative uses of an asset involved in the transaction that is
measured by the lack of standardization (Nagpal, 2005).
Bounded Rationality. The finite ability of humans to access, store, and process
information that invariably makes contracts incomplete (Williamson, 1981).
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). California Education Code legislation
enacted in 1999 with two parts: English-language arts (ELA) and mathematics whereby all
students in California public schools must satisfy the CAHSEE requirement, as well as all other
state and local graduation requirements, to receive a high school diploma. The primary purpose
of the CAHSEE is to: (1) significantly improve student achievement in public high schools and
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 22
(2) to ensure that students who graduate from public high schools can demonstrate grade level
competency in reading, writing, and mathematics.
California Standardized Testing and Reporting (CST): Criterion-referenced tests that
assess the California content standards in ELA (English language arts), mathematics, science,
and history-social science from 2
nd
to 11
th
grade (California Department of Education, 2013).
Collusion. An arrangement among a group of firms that is designed to limit competition
between the participants (Porter & Zona, 1999).
Contract. The basic unit of the exchange in transaction cost economics and determines
the rules of the exchange.
Efficiency. The degree to which output exceeds input in a transaction (Jobin, 2006).
Ex ante transactions costs. Costs that emerge from the initial phase of the agreement
and are associated with the search costs for a suitable partner and contracting costs outlining,
negotiating, and safeguarding a contract (Williamson, 1985; Jobin, 2008).
Ex post transaction costs. Costs that arise after the contract is executed and results from
monitoring and enforcement (Williamson, 1985; Jobin, 2008).
Flow Theory. The achievable relationship between a skill level and a challenge based on
a cognitive affective state (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
Hazards. Problems that arise within the contractual relationship that are governed by the
rules of the contract (Williamson, 1975).
Hybrid Networks. Combination of public and private sector institutional arrangement
where individuals are engaged in reciprocal, preferential, and mutually supportive
actions(adapted from Powell, 1990).
Incentives. Elements of a transaction that make it more attractive.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 23
Incomplete Contracts. Agreements that do not generate all possible contingencies based
on cognitive limitations or agreements that have missing provisions because the idea was not
generated so it could not be articulated verbally in words (Weber & Mayer, 2010).
Integration. Occurs when the entangling of obligation and reputation results in an
interdependent relationship without common ownership or legal framework (Powell, 1990).
Intelligent Tutor System (ITS). The application of artificial intelligence techniques as a
model computer- based instruction (Corbett, Koedinger & Anderson. (1997).
Moral Hazards: Those issues that keep parties in a transaction and prevent them from
making another choice (Williamson, 1975).
Networks. Institutional arrangement where individuals are engaged in reciprocal,
preferential, and mutually supportive actions (Powell, 1990).
Partnerships. Collaborative efforts created to improve the conditions of economic
performance (Jobin, 2008).
Probity. Loyalty and rectitude to which certain public transactions are discharged and
determines the vertical relations surrounding political leadership, horizontal relations with
counterpart agencies, and internal relations with the agency (Williamson, 1999; Jobin, 2008).
Stretch Goals. Very difficult but possible-to-achieve challenges (Clark & Estes, 2008)
Vertical Integration. The "paradigm" problem for explaining the distribution of firms
and markets in modern economies (Williamson, 2005).
Outsourcing. Strategic decision that entails the external contracting of business
processes or services with higher capability firms (Espino-Rodríguez & Padrón-Robaina, 2006).
Opportunism. When a party in an exchange takes unfair advantage of other parties in the
exchange (Barney, 1990).
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 24
Partnership. A joint effort toward common public policy objectives by a means of
shared governance based on incomplete written agreements (Jobin, 2008).
Probity. The loyalty with which certain public transactions are discharged (Williamson,
1999) and „determines the vertical relations of a public agency with the political leadership,
horizontal relations with counterpart agencies, and internal relations within the agency (Ruter,
2005).
Relational Contract. Agreements and unwritten codes of conduct with vendors that
guide the contractual relationship in terms of clearly defined goals and objectives (Williamson,
1985; Milgrom & Roberts, 1992).
Shared Governance. Framework within which partnerships make strategic decisions
(relating to partnership objectives), organizational (relating to financial and non-financial
resources), and operational decisions (relating to delivering partnership outputs) (Jobin, 2008).
Social Capital. The combination of social networks, trust, and collective action (Jobin,
2008).
Transaction Cost Economics (TCE). The predominant framework employed to
investigate the determinants of outsourcing decisions including the costs of negotiating a contract
monitoring performance, and providing feedback (Williamson, 1985; Everaert, Sarens, &
Rommel, 2010).
Uncertainty. The unknown aspects of a transaction that prohibit the design of a complete
contract (Rau, 2007).
Summary
Chapter one has provided an overview of the national statistics associated with overall
math proficiency in the United States and, Algebra proficiency in California, and Algebra 1
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 25
proficiency at LAUSD. A synopsis of artificial intelligent systems (also known as intelligent
tutor systems) and their connection to improving mathematics proficiency coupled with the
advantages and disadvantages of outsourcing using Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) as a
conceptual framework. Chapter two aims to extract from the TCE by applying it to network
institutional arrangements, multiple principal-agent relationships, and partnerships. Finally,
chapter two will highlight public sector transaction costs in order to evaluate the effectiveness of
the relationship between LAUSD and the ALEKS Corporation.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 26
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
In an educational era that emphasizes standards and accountability, it is imperative that
foundational skills in reading, writing, and math be introduced and mastered early on in the
educational process to prevent an inevitable spiral into academic ruin (Jimerson & Kaufman,
2003). Further, educators must take responsibility for insuring that students are provided with
the tools and resources necessary to meet rigorous standards and implement research, policy, and
strategies to identify students who may at risk of academic failure (Jimerson & Kaufman, 2003,
p. 623).
Artificial Intelligence Software
Artificial Intelligent Systems (AIS) also known as Intelligence Tutor Systems (ITS) have
been evolving since the early 1970‟s and many researchers have concluded that “those designed
to deliver math instruction and assessments that provide positive learning effects” (Barrus, Sabo,
Joseph, & Atkinson, 2011, p. 4). However, in order for students to realize optimum success,
schools should be strategic about selecting ITS services that provide individualized learning
experiences that address their learning gaps, provide necessary scaffolding, and mimic one-on-
one human tutoring. For example, an effective contract between an ITS service vendor and a
school or district may include specific goals and objectives for how the system will be delivered
to individual students in an effort to safeguard against incomplete contracts that ultimately
increase transaction costs (i.e. decrease in student motivation, engagement, or competence).
Formative and summative evaluations may also be embedded into the contract terms and
used as methods to evaluate the effectiveness of ITS services. In preparation for the California
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), formative evaluations can offer students and teachers
opportunities to check for understanding and adjust instruction during the delivery of a particular
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 27
content standard (i.e. students know the quadratic formula and are familiar with its proof by
completing the square) while summative evaluations will assess overall learning at the end of a
unit (i.e. graphing quadratic occasions) (California Department of Education, 2013).
Artificial Learning Knowledge Spaces (ALEKS)
ALEKS is an Intelligent Tutor System based on the science of anthropometry which is
“the art of measuring the physical and mental faculties of human beings, enables a shorthand
description of any individual by measuring a small sample of his dimensions and qualities”
(Falmagne et al., 2006, p. 62). ALEKS has been adopted by not only K-12 school districts and
higher institutions but also independently by parents, students, adult continuing education
programs, homeschoolers, and tutors. Researchers who have studied ALEKS (Hargety, 2005;
Presby, 2011; Stillson, 2003; & Stillson 2009) have generally found that it serves as a effective
motivational, instructional, and assessment tool for improving mathematical competence.
ALEKS has also been aligned with common core academic standards, provides preparation for
the GED, and provides detailed student performance data to support the creation of
Individualized Education Plans (IEP). According to the ALEKS.com website:
ALEKS is a Research-Based Online Math Program:
• Artificial Intelligence Targets Gaps in Individual Student Learning
• Assessment and Learning with Standards-Based Content
• Customizable Curriculum Aligns with Course Syllabi or Textbooks
• Monitor Student, Class, School, and District Progress Toward Mathematics Standards
• Fully Bilingual – English and Spanish
• Unlimited Online Access – PC and Mac Compatible

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 28
Transaction Cost Economics (TCE)
School districts may be required to participate in a paradigm shift that recognizes
outsourced instructional services as a method to strengthen the outcome of student achievement
in math. Born & Wilson (2000) argue that comprehensive improvement strategies in student
achievement should coincide with systematic reform at all levels organization including that the
classroom, school, district, and with a focus on standards, instruction, assessments and
governance. Transaction cost economics may serve as a lens through which public school
systems may cultivate governance structures through outsourced instructional services that
improve math proficiency.
Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) provides a model for governance structures to
explain what Oliver Williamson (1985) referred to as “transaction-cost-economizing” behaviors
(Jobin, 2008, p.442). The purpose of TCE is to compare the costs of selecting one governance
structure over another. TCE assumes that an organization that performs better and yields lower
transaction costs is a more efficient organization. Transaction costs are not precisely measured
but instead approximated using critical dimensions of the transaction - bounded rationality,
opportunism, uncertainty, frequency, and asset specificity (Williamson, 1985).
Williamson (1999) extended the applicability of the TCE contracting model to the public
sector through a process of contract nexus among multiple principal-agent relationships within
the organization. The multiple-principle agent relationships among various actors in the public
K-12 system include districts, schools, administrators, teachers, and students. These multiple-
principle relationships may be considered partnerships that work collaboratively to improve the
economic performance of students (Jobin, 2008). School systems (districts, schools,
administrators, teachers, and students) are essentially a vertically integrated shared governance
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 29
structures that work as multiple-principal partnerships. Districts work towards mutually agreed
objectives to increase federally mandated accountability targets of Academic Yearly
Performance (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API) while administrators, teachers, and
students share responsibility for increasing individual student outcomes. In order to successfully
meet accountability targets, school districts may seek assistance from markets that “offer choice,
flexibility, and opportunity” (Powell, 1990, p. 302).
Network Institutional Arrangements
Networks are institutional arrangements, one party is dependent on the resources that are
controlled by another party and can be cumbersome to initiate, maintain, or adjust (Powell,
1990). As the network relationship continues to develop among the parties, moral hazards are
diminished based on the monetary outlay, economic commitment, or embedded obligation of
both parties. In order to meet the demands of increase accountability standards promulgated
under NCLB legislation and improve the proficiency of 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students, LAUSD
established network by contracting with the ALEKS Corporation administered through the sales
firm - Quick and Associates. This network is essentially a cooperative relationship between
LAUSD, high school sites, ALEKS Corporations, and Quick and Associates where each is
“engaged in reciprocal, preferential, mutually supportive actions” (Powell, 1990, p. 302).
Multiple Principal-Agent Relationships
Moe (1990) questioned the applicability of TCE to the public-sector based partly on its
unique multiple principal-agent relationships. Williamson (1999) acknowledged that even
though there are some differences between public and private organizations, inherent
characteristics remain at the core and create a “nexus of contracts” (Jobin, 2008, p. 443).
LAUSD, Sunshine Academy High School, ALEKS Corporation, and Quick and Associates
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 30
represents a hybrid network consisting of public and private actors within a multiple principal-
agent relationship designed to improve the 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency.
Partnerships
Jobin (2008) defines partnerships as a delivery method that relies on “joint efforts toward
common public policy objectives by means of shared governance based on an incomplete written
agreement” (p. 441). Based on the trust between the parties, strategic decision making processes,
and procedures for dealing with contingencies provided by partnership arrangements, they are
often considered the most cost effective device for addressing complex issues. However, like
other forms of governance, partnerships are not immune to various types of transaction costs that
should be considered when parties enter into an agreement. TCE may be used to explain how the
multiple principal-agent relationship structure within LAUSD (superintendent, district personnel,
principals, and teachers) and ALEKS Corporation (represented by Quick and Associates) affects
the partnership performance in implementing and maintaining solutions intended to improve 9
th

grade Algebra 1 proficiency.
Public Sector Transaction Costs
In general, transaction costs refer to the “comparative costs of planning, adapting, and
monitoring tasks” (Williamson, 1981, pp. 1552-1553) outside of traditional vertically integrated
organizational structure. Hybrid network multiple principal-agent public-sector partnership
transactions may be categorized by the formal and informal dimensions. The formal dimensions
include: information asymmetry, incompleteness, probity, opportunism, and asset specificity.
Moreover, social capital is an informal dimension of transaction costs that also includes elements
of trust and reputation (Jobin, 2008). The formal and informal details surrounding the formation
of the institutional hybrid network (public and private-sector) within the multiple principal-agent
relationship partnership among LAUSD, ALEKS Corporation, Sunshine Academy High School,
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 31
and Quick and Associates coupled with TCE‟s may illustrate a normative and predictive
framework (Jobin, 2008). The normative framework (TCE dimensions) based on law and
economics and the predictive value based on partnership performance may serve as a combined
barometer to provide suggestions within governance structures that lead to a reduction
transaction costs. Figure A illustrates the multiple principal-agent partnership relationship
transaction costs between the two firms (LAUSD and Sunshine Academy High School) and the
two vendors (ALEKS Corporation and Quick and Associates).

Figure 1. Multiple Principal-Agent Partnership Relationship Transaction Costs, adapted from
Jobin, 2008.
Information asymmetry. Information asymmetry (also known as information
impactedness) represents the fusion between uncertainty (unknown future costs of a transaction
which prevent the design of complete transactions) and opportunism (making false promises to
All transaction costs associated
with traditional outsourcing as a
governance structure.
Multiple principal-agent
public sector transaction
costs: the cost of
transforming ALEKS (inputs)
into outputs (9
th
grade
Algebra 1 proficiency).
Multiple principal-agent relationships ex
ante public sector transaction costs:
*Searching costs:
a. costs associated with the LAUSD’s search
of the ALEKS Corporation.
b. costs associated with Sunshine Academy
High School’s search for a site license
agreement through LAUSD.
*Contracting costs:
a. costs associated with the negotiation of
the LAUSD and ALEKS Corporation contract.
b. costs associated with the negotiation of
the site license agreement between Sunshine
Academy High School (through LAUSD) and
the ALEKS Corporation.
Multiple principal-agent relationships ex
post public transaction costs:
*Monitoring costs:
a. Costs associated with monitoring the
contract between LAUSD and ALEKS
Corporation to ensure that each party fulfills
their obligations.
b. Costs associated with monitoring the site
license between Sunshine Academy High
School (through LAUSD) and the ALEKS
Corporation
*Enforcing costs:
a. costs associated with ex post bargaining
and sanctioning between LAUSD and ALEKS
Corporation if one party does not perform in
accordance with the contract.
b. costs associated with ex post bargaining and
sanctioning between Sunshine Academy High
School (through) LAUSD and the ALEKS
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 32
garner personal advantage) (Weber & Mayer, 2010). When a transaction participant is unable to
judge the quality of a particular service and is willing to pay an average price, it may result in a
failure of the market that increases expenditures and, in turn, increases transaction costs. LAUSD
(and its partners), in contracting with ALEKS Corporation (and its partners), may circumvent
information asymmetry through the hybrid network organizational structure base on the notion
that each party is engaged in a mutually supportive arrangement (Powell, 1990).
Uncertainty. Uncertainty is the unknown aspects of a transaction that prohibits the design
of a complete contract (Rau, 2007). Informational uncertainty is caused by cognitive inability to
process large amounts of information in complex transactions. In addition, interpretive
uncertainty arises when perceptual limitations are incorporated into bounded rationality that
causes parties to have different interpretations of the agreement (Weber & Mayer, 2010). These
perceptual limitations could fundamentally alter the predictions of TCE and its impact on
uncertainty. Although, the hybrid multiple principal-agent partnership network between LAUSD
and the ALEKS Corporation may generally prevent information asymmetry, transaction costs
related to uncertainty may arise based on different interpretations of the agreement among the
various partners.
Frequency of transactions. Williamson (1985) believed that more frequent transactions
require more formal or vertically integrated governance structures. Although LAUSD may
represent a formal vertically integrated governance structure lead by its Superintendent, the
ALEKS Corporations structure is unclear. However, the frequency of transactions between
LAUSD and the ALEKS Corporation may be an incentive to renegotiate or renew terms of the
contract which may increase opportunistic behavior or transaction costs among the parties.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 33
Opportunism. Opportunism is another behavioral dimension of TCE that occurs when
one party in an exchange takes unfair advantage of another party in the exchange (Barney, 1990)
arising out of their self-interested disposition to “feel better off” (Rau, 2007). When there are
small numbers of vendors available in the market, opportunistic behavior may be more prevalent
because alternatives are limited or non-existent (Williamson, 1975). The devious nature of
opportunistic behavior necessarily results in incomplete contracts and increased transaction costs
due to misaligned incentives (Gregory, 2011). The contract between LAUSD and the ALEKS
Corporation established a hybrid network based on “mutually supportive actions” (Powell, 1990,
p. 302) intended to increase 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency but the number of available vendors
to provide this type of service is unclear. However, when perfect competition (numerous school
districts and numerous vendors of ITS software) is present in the market, the tendency or ability
for either party to act opportunistically is significantly diminished. Further, if incentives were
provided to or by either party to make the arrangement more attractive opportunistic behavior
may increase.
Incompleteness. The dimension of incompleteness arises from two separate mental
processes: cognitive and verbal (Williamson, 2000). The cognitive process prevents actors
within to a transaction from generating all the possible contingencies and the verbal process
reduces the likelihood of including content that cannot be expresses in words. This
incompleteness may be attributed to bounded rationality which postulates that even though
human beings are unable to predict all possible future contingencies, they will act as rational as
possible. During the 1960‟s, Richard Cyert recognized that economic theories like uncertainty
and bounded rationality should be combined with interdisciplinary thought processes – like
psychology (Hardt, 2009). In 1997, Herbert Simon postulated that vital information leading to
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 34
an understanding of economic theories (like bounded rationality and incompleteness) exists in
the recesses of the human mind and should be unlocked in order to understand their decision-
making processes (Hardt, 2009). In the case of this study, as individual agents (within LAUSD
and the ALEKS Corporation) participate in the hybrid network multiple principal-agent
relationship, their limited cognitive abilities and biases may emerge and be clarified (and perhaps
resolved) through the auspices of a psychology-based mechanism called flow.
Flow has been described as a “cognitive-affective state characterized by the free
investment of psychic energy into chosen goals” (Rodrigo, 2011, p. 96). Flow Theory was
originally developed by psychologist Mihalyi Csikszentmihaly and related to the optimal
“achievable relationship between a skill level and a challenge” (MacNeil & Cavanagh, 2013, p.
8). The characteristics of flow also include: (1) merging action-awareness, (2) clear goals, (3)
unambiguous feedback, (4) concentration on task, (5) sense of control, and (6) loss of self-
consciousness (MacNeil & Cavanagh, 2013, p. 8). Hybrid networks consisting of multiple
principal-agent relationships, like LAUSD and ALEKS Corporation may benefit from the use of
Flow Theory to minimize the transaction costs associated with the human cognitive limitations
that cause incomplete contracts.
Probity. Probity is a formal transaction cost dimension that has been extended to capture
the uniqueness of public-sector organizations (Williamson, 1999). Probity is the “loyalty and
rectitude with which certain public transactions are discharged…determines the vertical relations
of public agency with the political leadership, horizontal relations with counterpart agencies, and
internal relations within agency”. LAUSD is politically bound by accountability standards to
meet certain API and AYP targets to avoid the sanctions adopted under NCLB legislation.
Vertically, these accountability standards are closely monitored and implemented from the
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 35
Superintendent to classroom teachers. Further, LAUSD‟s horizontal partnership with the
ALEKS Corporation assists in meeting its accountability obligations.
Asset specificity. Asset specificity relates to an asset within a transaction that can be
measured by its ability to be standardized (Nagpal, 2005). If an asset is extremely standardized,
it is considered to have low asset specificity. In contrast, if an asset is extremely unique, it is
considered to have high asset specificity. In order to effectively evaluate a partnership
arrangement, organizations should examine the specificity of the asset that is the subject of the
transaction (Jobin, 2008). In this case study, the contract between LAUSD and the ALEKS
Corporation is based the highly specific assets of specialized education, training, and knowledge
that are required from parties researching partner, negotiating terms, monitoring obligations, and
enforcing performance. Further, the specific acquisition of the knowledge becomes an
“irreversible investment - unless the knowledge becomes obsolete, resulting in a loss” (Jobin,
2008, p. 447).
Ex ante transaction costs. Ex ante transaction costs occur during the initial phase of the
agreement and include all costs associated with outlining and negotiating a contract (Williamson,
1985). In order for LAUSD to protect their highly specific assets of specialized education,
training, and knowledge required to search and negotiate the terms a partnership with ALEKS
Corporation, it will attempt to write a thorough contract that estimates all possible behavioral
contingencies (Jobin, 2008). The consequences, however, of this intense and thoughtful
attention to detail will be an increase in transaction cost.
Ex post transaction costs. Ex post transaction costs arise after a contract is formed an
result from monitoring and enforcing terms which may be incomplete (Williamson, 1985). Since
LAUSD may not be able to successfully predict all of the contingencies surrounding the highly
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 36
specific assets of education, training, and knowledge, it may need to renegotiate terms in order to
reach its goal to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency. The coordination required between
LAUSD and the ALEKS Corporation to renegotiate contract terms which could include financial
and non-financial burdens (inputs of time and effort) along with productive activities (outputs of
improved 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency) may decrease the performance of specific assets. This
decrease in highly specific assets may result in increased transaction costs (Williamson, 1985).
Renegotiation or renewal may also be required when there is a change in leadership
within the network (Jobin, 2008). Over the last six years, three different Superintendents have
been at the helm of LAUSD. This shift in political power may have substantially altered
expectations, agendas, and personnel within the district. Highly specific assets like education,
training, and knowledge may have been lost by LAUSD which may cause them to be in a weaker
negotiation position and increase both opportunism (by the ALEKS Corporation) and transaction
costs.
Social Capital. Social capital represents the combination of “social networks, trust, and
collective action” (Jobin, 2008, p. 451) that may be responsible for improves efficiency through
trust among the partners and reputations of the partners.
Trust. Trust is typically based on non-contractual arrangements (Jobin, 2008). LAUSD,
for instance, may have contracted with the ALEKS Corporation based on a previous relationship
with the firm, recommendations from another school districts, or rapport that may have been
established with specific individuals with the network. In addition, the level of trust may improve
the performance among the parties, which could reduce transaction costs associated with
searching, contracting, monitoring, and enforcing.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 37
Reputation. Reputation represents the “partner‟s past actions that describes and assesses
the partner‟s ability to deliver outputs and outcomes” (Jobin, 2008, p. 451). LAUSD and the
ALEKS Corporation may, in fact, reduce the transaction costs related to enforcement based on
the fact that each party will endeavor to protect their reputations.
Collusion in Bidding Practices
Although collusion has not been included as an integral part of the TCE literature, it may
be necessary to discuss as part of the outsourcing process in education. Oftentimes collusion in
the bidding process is difficult to detect because it appears to be part of “competitive behavior”
(Porter & Zona, 1999, p. 264). Collusions can be described as an “arrangement among firms that
limits competition among participants”. The conspirators in the process may participate in price
fixing or inflated bidding practices to create exclusive territories. Further, collusion may be
greater for products or services that are inelastic in demand because there is no substitute.
For instance, if LAUSD is bidding for artificial intelligence software to redress their 9
th
grade
students‟ mathematics deficiencies in Algebra 1 there may be a variety of programs and vendors
(who may be competitors of the ALEKS Corporation) available to provide that service. In other
words, artificial intelligence software is elastic because there are substitutes for one vendor as
opposed to another. However, the competitive field narrows considerably when LAUSD
mandates that all 9th grade Algebra 1 interventions will be provided by ALEKS because there
are few vendors who have almost complete control over price.
Criticisms of Transactions Cost Economics
Although TCE has been the utilized as the preeminent tool for the efficient governance of
outsourced transactions based on its success empirical success, it has also been vehemently
criticized for its flaws in application (Gregory, 2011). Inasmuch as TCE outlines a “continuum”
between a hierarchy and a market, it should be noted that human behaviors are invariably
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 38
associated with each transaction. Oliver Williamson (1981) argued, in fact, that TCE must
account for “human behavior as we know it” (Gregory, 2011, p. 73). However, Goshal & Moran
(1996) caution that the so-called “rules of behavior” prescribed by TCE cannot be applied in a
prescriptive manner. That said, LAUSD‟s search for outsourced instructional services like
ALEKS, they should be aware of limitations of human behavior and make adjustments (as
necessary) to address them prior to negotiating specific contract terms.
Critics of bounded rationality suggest emphasizing only its cognitive processing
limitations without consideration its cognitive perceptual limitations is either “logically
inconsistent or completely unnecessary” and undermines an important element of TCE (Weber &
Mayer, 2010, p. 6). Although the processing limitations address the amount of information an
individual is able to process, the perceptual limitations explain how an individual perceives the
amount of information they are able to process. This subtle nuance may be viewed as an over-all
simplification of the decision-making process. For instance, an ITS instructional service contract
may generate all of the clearly defined terms necessary to provide individualized programs for
participating students but the meanings of the terms may vary from school to school or district to
district. In this case then, even though the parties may have acted rationally, the contract will be
incomplete based on perceptions.
Critics of opportunism, as applied to TCE, suggest that even if parties to a transaction
have the ability to predict opportunistic behavior, the panoply of consequences associated with
those behaviors that are unknown (Gregory, 2011). Further, when opportunism is combined with
bounded rationality incomplete contracts arise because cognitive perceptions and behavioral
perceptions are uncertain. In practice, schools may overcome the “moral hazards” of
opportunistic behavior by developing ITS instructional service contract with a supplemental
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 39
relational contract (agreements and unwritten codes of conduct) with vendors that guide the
contractual relationship in terms of clearly defined goals and objectives (Williamson, 1985;
Milgrom & Roberts, 1992).
Summary
Chapter two has provided an overview of TCE, network institutional arrangements,
multiple principal-agent relationships, partnerships, collusion in bidding practices, and criticisms
of TCE. Chapter three aims to provide an overview of the research methodology selected for
this case study and an analysis of how data will be collected.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 40
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Although education remains at the precipice of socio-economic success, high school
students continue to struggle with basic skills math. Even though federally promulgated the No
Child Left Behind Act (2001) enacted in 2002 expects all schools to improve, the sanctions
(which only apply to Title I schools) are not providing an assurance that students will have the
ability to compete in a global economy.
The intention of No Child Left Behind (“NCLB”) was to assist schools with high
percentages of low-income families to meet both Annual Yearly Progress (“AYP”) and
Academic Performance Index (“API”) targets in English and math. The AYP target is a certain
percentage of a school student population who are required to score “proficient” or higher in
English and mathematics on the California Standardized Testing and Reporting (“CST”) or, for
high schools, the California High School Exit Exam (“CAHSEE”). In addition, the API target
translates to a certain score or an improvement in an API score by one point to meet the
requirement of AYP. High schools must also achieve a certain graduation rate or improve their
graduation rate by a specified amount, according to a formula. Any school that is unable to meet
AYP or API targets for two consecutive years will be placed in Program Improvement and be
required to establish a comprehensive two-year plan that includes teacher professional
development, parental involvement, and provides for student transfers to a public school who is
not in Program Improvement. By the year two, sanctions continue to escalate must not only
abide by all previous provisions, but will also be required to provide Supplemental Educational
Services (“SES”), such as tutoring, to students from low-income families (e.g. qualified for free
or reduced lunch). Artificial Intelligence Systems (“AIS”) or Intelligent Tutor Systems (“ITS”)
may not only serve to fulfill the second year of Program Improvement SES requirement in
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 41
tutoring but also provides ancillary improvement in 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency and
CAHSEE passages rates.
Problem and Purposes Overview
Nationally mandated high-stakes testing aside, the bottom line is that “High school is
now the front line in America‟s battle to remain competitive on the increasingly competitive
international economic stage” (Spring, 2009, p. 3). Friedman and Mandelbaum (2011) suggest
that “…raising math, science, and reading creativity levels in American schools is the key
determinant in economic growth…and educational well-being” (p. 100). Some researchers
specifically maintain that high school math courses (e.g. Algebra 1, Geometry, and Algebra 2)
are directly correlated to future income (French, Homer, & Robins, 2010). Further, from a
human capital theory perspective, economists assert that students who invest in an advanced
math curriculum realize higher incomes in the job market (Rose & Bets, 2004; Hanushek, 2009).
Math literacy, in fact, serves to develop a student‟s ability to become an expert thinker (Jerald,
2009). With thoughtful strategic planning, schools may be able to allay resources to develop
outsourced relationships that can support 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency among high school
students.
Although TCE has been applied extensively to examine outsourcing decisions including
the costs of negotiating a contract, monitoring its performance, and providing continuous
feedback (Williamson, 1985; Everaert, Sarens, & Rommel, 2010), Sunshine Academy High
School has not applied TCE to measure the strengths and weaknesses associated with the
implementation of LAUSD mandated ALEKS contracted mathematics intervention to remediate
Algebra 1 proficiency among 9
th
grade students or any non-mandated 10
th
grade students
enrolled in ALEKS as part of their CAHSEE preparation. This fissure presents a transformative
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 42
opportunity to ameliorate the efficacy of TCE by utilizing it as a framework to develop seminal
instructional and/or intervention strategies that can “assist the education of children at risk of
academic failure” (Jimerson & Kaufman, 2003, 623). Moreover, TCE‟s dimensions can be
implemented to improve LAUSD‟s contractual outsourcing process and improve the totality of
educational experience for all students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore the relationship between
LAUSD and the ALEKS Corporation to evaluate its effectiveness on school performance to
improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency using TCE.
Research Questions
The research questions that will guide this case study are:
1. What were the factors that motivated the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to
improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
2. What were the factors that lead to the contractual relationship between LAUSD and ALEKS
to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
3. What were the factors that lead Sunshine Academy High School to select the ALEKS site
license from LAUSD to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
4. What factors do study participants believe are essential to insure that ALEKS is successful?
5. Coordinator, Sunshine Academy High School Certified Mathematics Teachers administering
ALEKS, and 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students participating in ALEKS?
Population and Sample
Although qualitative research has not been widely accepted among the scientific
community, the field is replete with guidance about notable validity models (Tracy, 2010). In
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 43
fact high quality criteria has been implemented to provide both and precision based on the
objectives of the study and the skillfulness of the researcher. Many qualitative research scholars,
however, have argued that the field should not be standardized because “arguments, reasoning,
and conclusions” (p. 838) emanate from the research itself.
This qualitative case study utilized a purposeful sampling to evaluate the relationship
between LAUSD and the ALEKS Corporation because represents a typical sample of available
hybrid (public and private sector) network governance structures (Merriam, 2009). Further,
LAUSD, ALEKS Corporation, and Sunshine Academy High School has been selected “based on
the time, money, location, and availability” (Merriam, 2009, p. 79) of participants.
Research Sites
Although this case study was originally designed to examine the nexus between two
firms– the Los Unified School District (LAUSD) and Sunshine Academy High School and two
vendors – ALEKS Corporation and Quick and Associates in an effort to describe each
partnership and its relationship to Transaction Cost Economics (TCE). However, access to
participants from the ALEKS Corporation or Quick and Associates was restricted and prevented
data from being collected from either source. As a result, this study includes only one vendor
LAUSD and one firm – Sunshine Academy High School. The characteristics of both LAUSD
and Sunshine Academy High School will be described in accordance with data obtained from
their websites.
Multiple Principal-Agent Relationships
Multiple principal-agent relationships often arise out of the context of transaction cost
economics (TCE) when its tenets are applied to the public sector (Jobin, 2008). Further,
partnerships may emerge which can be described as collaborative efforts intended to improve
economic outcomes through a creation of specific conditions. This case study examined the
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 44
principal-agent relationship (contract) between LAUSD and ALEKS Corporation (doing
business through Quick and Associates) concurrently with the principal-agent relationship
between Sunshine Academy High School and ALEKS Corporation (site license through
LAUSD). In addition, this study assessed the partnership between LAUSD and Sunshine
Academy High School whose collective objective is to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency.
Each of these interwoven levels of governance structures invokes comparative transaction costs
that include searching, contracting, monitoring, and enforcing of the multiple principal-agent
relationship. The collective unit of LAUSD, ALEKS Corporation, Sunshine Academy High
School and Quick & Associates represents the network of individuals who are engaged in a
“reciprocal, preferential, and mutually, supportive arrangement” (Powell, 1990, p. 302) intended
to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency. Figure B illustrates the institutional multiple
principal-agent partnership relationship between the two firms (LAUSD and Sunshine Academy
High School) and the two vendors (ALEKS Corporation and Quick and Associates) within the
hybrid network of outsourced services.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 45

Principals Agents
(Firms) (Vendors)

Horizontal Relations

(Partners)

Figure 2. Institutional hybrid network of multiple principal-agent partnership relationships.

Los Angeles Unified School District (Firm)
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was founded in 1853, is the second
largest public school district in the United States and has enrollment of more than 640,000
students in kindergarten through 12
th
grade. Further, there are 900 schools and 187 public
charter schools (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013). The boundaries of the district
cover over 720 square miles. The district boasts a continued upward growth in their Academic
Performance Index (API), graduation rates, and California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)
passage rates. The district has more winners of the United States Academic Decathlon (12) than
any other district in the country with individual and team victories in science, mathematics,
social studies, language arts, foreign and dual languages, business and entrepreneurial skills,
visual and performing arts, and athletics. The current Superintendent, believes, “We are
transforming LAUSD (2013) together so all youth achieve. All, not some, but all”.
LAUSD

Sunshine Academy
High School
ALEKS Corporation

Quick and
Associates
Vertical Relations
Vertical Relations
(Partners)
(Partners)
INSTITUTIONAL HYBRID NETWORK
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 46
The goals of LAUSD are:
 100% graduation
 Proficiency for all
 100% attendance
 Parent and Community Engagement
The mission of LAUSD (2013) according to its Performance Management Unit is to:
 Identify specific, system, issues and barriers
 Highlight successful strategies and potential solutions
 Empower local districts and school to make data-based decisions to achieve
prepare every student to be college-prepared and career- ready
Sunshine Academy High School (Firm)
Sunshine Academy High is a Title I comprehensive 9
th
through 12
th
grade high school
(88% of students on free or reduced lunch) offering courses in all academic subjects and several
career technical education pathways (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013). The
demographics of Sunshine Academy High School are as follows: .3% Alaskan, 4.4% Asian, .2%
Filipino, .4% Pacific Islander, 1.2% Black, 90.8% Hispanic, and 2.7% White with a total of
3,246 students. In addition, there are 857 classified English Language Learners in Armenian,
Korean, Filipino, Spanish and other languages. Sunshine Academy High School maintains a
balanced traditional academic calendar that includes four ten-week terms with 4 blocked ninety-
minute periods per day. Sunshine Academy also uses two intersession terms (Winter and
Summer) as intervention strategies designed primarily for students who need to recover credits
or enrichment for students who elect to advance their credits.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 47
In accordance with its vision, Sunshine Academy High School is dedicated to developing
an environment in which the entire community is committed to the education and development
of every student. Sunshine Academy High School will further create a secure environment,
develop a community of learners (e.g., students, parents, community, teachers, staff and
administrators), promote all partners as continual learners and facilitators of quality learning
through professional development, function as a center for community resources, and prepare all
students to be successful and responsible contributors in a multicultural and technologically
advanced society. The Sunshine Academy High School staff members include one principal,
one assistant principal, six instructional specialists, ten counselors, 250 teachers, 15 special
educational assistants, and 12 classified clerical staff.
This case study used Sunshine Academy High School as a purposeful sample within the
broad context of LAUSD to examine the effectiveness of the strongly suggested (several
participants revealed during data collection that ALEKS was not mandatory) intervention of the
ALEKS program to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency. Sunshine Academy High School
implemented the ALEKS program during the 2009-2010 academic year (two years prior to
LAUSD‟s strongly suggested intervention) in an effort to provide additional support for 9
th
grade
students who were struggling to master Algebra 1 content.
ALEKS Corporation (Vendor)
The impetus for the ALEKS program began in 1993 when Dr. Jean-Claude Falmagne
assembled a team of cognitive scientists and software engineers at the University of California,
Irvine. The ALEKS Corporation was formed in 1996 by a team of cognitive scientists and
software engineers at the University of California, Irvine. ALEKS is based on what has been
described in the website as a “groundbreaking” mathematical cognitive science research referred
to as Knowledge Space Theory. ALEKS uses adaptive questioning to identify and assesses a
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 48
student's knowledge state and deliver targeted instruction on specific topics. The ALEKS
Corporation endeavors to assist both educators and students by delivering exceptional artificial
intelligence assessment tools intended to improve learning outcomes.
Quick and Associates (Vendor)
Quick and Associates is the sales organization responsible for representing the ALEKS
Corporation by administering its contracts through schools and districts. According to its
website, in addition to representing the ALEKS Corporation, it is also has ties to six of the
leading educational publishers including National Geographic Learning/Cengage, Heinemann
Publishing, Benchmark Education, and Santillana with a “team of professionals” available in
California, Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas. Quick and Associates suggests
that it prides itself in “outstanding customer service” during every step of the process from
searching for a solution, to writing a contract, and ultimately implementing a program.
Participants
The LAUSD Superientendent, Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction, One
Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics, Director of K-12 Instruction, Sunshine Academy High
School Principal, four Sunshine Academy High School Certified Mathematics Teachers
administering the ALEKS Intelligent Tutor System to 9
th
Grade Algebra 1 students, and
Sunshine Academy High School Title 1 Coordinator. In addition, one 9
th
grade ALEKS
intervention lab was observed. As previously discussed, this study does not include any ALEKS
Corporation or Quick and Associates Personnel based on an inability to gain access.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Instrumentation
The topic addressed in this qualitative case study is “relevant, timely, and evocative”
(Tracy, 2010, p. 840) and aligned to the “contextual priorities” of the Los Angeles Unified
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 49
School District (2103) which are intended to “identify barriers, highlight solutions, and empower
schools to insure students are “college-prepared and career-ready” (LAUSD, 2013). Further, this
study implemented multi-faceted layers of participants, sources, and methods through which the
phenomena of the relationship between the LAUSD and ALEKS Corporation was investigated
through the primary conceptual framework of Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) and the
secondary conceptual framework of Flow Theory. The process of navigation through multiple
methods, data, and theories assisted in establishing internal validity (Merriam, 2009). The
methods used to examine the research questions included: semi-structured interviews,
observation, and artifact investigation, as presented in Table 4. Even though closed-ended/open-
ended Likert scaled online surveys were initially anticipated to be part of this study, it was
determined that their usage would likely result in redundancy of data collected from interviews.
Research Question One
The participants selected to address Research Question 1 had sufficient information about
the factors that motivated the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to improve 9
th

grade Algebra 1 proficiency to provide informed responses (Glense, 2011). Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with the Superintendent, Executive Director of Curriculum and
Instruction, Director of K-12 Instruction, Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics, Sunshine
Academy High School Principal, four Sunshine Academy Certified Mathematics Teachers, and
Sunshine Academy Title I Coordinator. Initially, a semi-structured interview was conducted
with the Executive Director of Curriculum Instruction, which subsequently lead to the semi-
structured interview with the Director of K-12 Instruction and Superintendent. The interviews
with the Superintendent, Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction and the Director of K-
12 Instruction were designed to assess the process of the search for a vendor and the formation of
the contract between the LAUSD and the ALEKS Corporation intended to improve 9
th
grade
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 50
Algebra 1 proficiency. The Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction and Director of K-
12 Instruction interviews also revealed the decision making process for LAUSD‟s adoption of
ALEKS Artificial Intelligence System (“ALEKS”) as a strongly suggested intervention strategy
to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1. Although artifacts (e.g. ALEKS Corporation contract/site
license, internal LAUSD bidding policies) were requested at the end of the semi-interviews with
the Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction and the Coordinator of Secondary
Mathematics, it was determined during the semi-structured interview with the Director of K-12
Instruction that a written contract was not available to elucidate key information or provide a
more nuanced understanding of the truth through “due diligence and effort” (Tracy, 2010, p.
841) to effectively analyze the research question.
Even though several Coordinators of Secondary Mathematics were identified and
available to participate in semi-structured interviews, it was discovered during the process of
data collection that only one Secondary Mathematics Coordinator was directly involved in the
relationship between LAUSD and the ALEKS Corporation. The semi-structured interview with a
the Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics then was designed to ascertain procedural
information about the factors that motivated improvement in Algebra 1 proficiency, the selection
of the ALEKS Corporation as a contracted vendor, and the adoption of the ALEKS Artificial
Intelligence System as a strongly suggested mathematics intervention for 9
th
grade Algebra 1
students. It should be noted that during this semi-structured interview, the LAUSD
Memorandum 5419.0 was identified as a one-year “strongly suggested” optional intervention
strategy as opposed to a “mandatory” intervention policy.
The interview with the Principal of Sunshine Academy High School was be designed to
ascertain procedural information about decision-making process for implementing the ALEKS
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 51
program prior to LAUSD strongly suggested mathematics intervention for 9th grade Algebra 1
students. During the semi-structured interview, the LAUSD Memorandum 5419.0 and Ordering
Instructions for ALEKS and LAUSD Contractor Code of Conduct were referenced and discussed
to add “requisite variety” (Tracy, 2010, p. 841) to the analysis of comparative data gleaned from
the Superintendent, Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction, Director of K-12
Instruction and Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics. Artifacts (e.g. ALEKS Corporation
contract/site license, internal LAUSD bidding policies) will be requested at the end of the
interview to investigate the phenomena of the relationship between LAUSD and the ALEKS
Corporation to provide a more in depth understanding of the truth. It should be noted that the
interview with the Title I Coordinator was conducted at the request of the Principal to gather
artifacts (i.e. site licenses, ALEKS pamphlets, invoices) that could be used as part of the data
analysis process.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the four Certified Mathematics Teachers
of ALEKS Instruction at Sunshine Academy High School were designed to ascertain procedural
information about the implementation of ALEKS and their participation in the decision-making
process. Although artifacts (CST, CAHSEE, and math exam scores) were not available for
review prior to the interviews in order to provide a “credible account” of the data for analysis
(Tracy, 2010, p. 842), they were requested at the close of the interviews sessions as an
assessment for interpretation and self-reflection (Tracy, 2010; Maxwell, 2013) during data
analysis.
Although, all participants agreed to be re-interviewed (using a semi-structured format) for
clarification and new participants may be interviewed to gather additional information, data
collection was deemed to be sufficient and no follow-up was necessary.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 52
Research Question Two
It is assumed that the participants selected to address Research Question 2 will have
sufficient information about the factors that lead the LAUSD to contract with the ALEKS
Corporation improve 9th grade Algebra 1 proficiency to provide informed responses (Glense,
2011). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the LAUSD Superintendent, Executive
Director of Curriculum and Instruction, one Coordinator of Secondary Mathematics, and the
Director of K-12 Instruction. Representatives from the ALEKS Corporation and Quick and
Associates (as previously discussed) did not participate in this study. Each of the interviews was
designed to assess the process for selecting the ALEKS Corporation/Quick and Associates to
improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency. Artifacts were not available for review prior to the
interviews (i.e. LAUSD and ALEKS Corporation/Quick and Associates contract) and data
extracted to assess the relationship that can be transferred to a narrative for data analysis.
Research Question Three
It is assumed that the participants selected to address Research Question 3 will have
sufficient information about the factors that lead Sunshine Academy High School (to select the
ALEKS site license from LAUSD to improve 9th grade Algebra 1 proficiency to provide
informed responses (Glense, 2011). A semi-structured interview was conducted with the
LAUSD Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction and the Sunshine Academy High
School Principal. The interviews the Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction and the
Sunshine Academy High School Principal was designed to assess the process of search for a site
license from the LAUSD intended to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency. The interviews
with the Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction and the Sunshine Academy High
School Principal interviews also attempted to ascertain the reasoning behind the decision to
making for Sunshine Academy High School to adopt ALEKS Artificial Intelligence System
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 53
(“ALEKS”) as an intervention strategy to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 two years prior to the
strongly suggested intervention policy from LAUSD. Collectively, the artifacts (i.e. ALEKS
Corporation site license, CST and CAHSEE scores) was requested at the end of the interview to
investigate the phenomena of the relationship between Sunshine Academy High School,
LAUSD, ALEKS Corporation, and Quick and Associates not to provide one perspective but
instead a more thoughtful understanding of the phenomena being studied using multi-vocality
(Tracy, 2010). At the close of each interview, participants were asked to provide additional
contacts that might be helpful in illuminating key information required to effectively analyze the
research question.
Research Question Four
Although Hybrid Closed-ended/Open-endedOnline Surveys were distributed
administered to Certified Mathematics Teachers of ALEKS Instruction an using online Survey
Monkey (2013) portal to address the value of ALEKS to various partners posed in Research
Question 4, none of the surveys were received. Instead, data was gathered from semi-structured
interviews and one 9
th
grade ALEKS Math Intervention Lab The semi-structured interviews and
9
th
ALEKS MathIntervention Lab was sufficient to respond to the research question. In fact, the
semi-structured interviews ascertained information about the teachers‟ preparation and training
prior to facilitating ALEKS, their opinion about students‟ engagement throughout the
intervention sessions, their participation in the decision-making process for implementing
ALEKS two years prior to the LAUSD strongly suggested intervention policy, along with other
information pertaining to their experience with ALEKS. One 9
th
Grade ALEKS Math
Intervention Lab was observed to ascertain information about the students‟ instruction of the
Algebra 1 prior to their participation in the program, their engagement throughout the
intervention sessions, and any other information pertaining to their experience with ALEKS. All
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 54
of the contrasting data collection methods (i.e. semi-structured interviews, observation, and
artifact investigation) were culled and coded to extract identical themes for verification of face
validity (Tracy, 2010).
Data Analysis
This qualitative case study provided an “advanced understanding” (Flyvjerg, 2006, p.
236) of the phenomena the relationship between LAUSD and the ALEKS Corporation to
improve student performance in 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency using Transaction Cost
Economics (TCE). The process of data analysis included identifying the segments data collected
from this case study that respond to the prosed research questions (Merriam, 2009). These
segments will correspond to a unit of data that may potentially answer a proposed question or
parts of proposed question. These units of data will attach meaning to the case study.
Reflective memos were written at the conclusion of each of the interviews with the
LAUSD Executive Director of Curriculum & Instruction, Director of K-12 Instruction,
Coordinators of Secondary Mathematics, the Sunshine Academy High School Principal,
Sunshine Academy High School Certified Mathematics Teachers, and Title I Coordinator to
extract biases and make initial interpretations of the data prior to transcription. Interviews were
transcribed using Rev.com, Inc. (2013) voice recognition online transcription service.
Subsequent to the transcription of the semi-structured interviews an interpretation of the
interviews was conducted to triangulate the responses to the proposed research questions. The
collected data was initially analyzed manually using an inductive open coding format to identify
connections, themes, and relationships. Subsequently, the data was organized and analyzed to
parse the data in a more detailed and descriptive manner.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 55
Finally, last stage of the data triangulation process was conducted using collection of
artifacts including the ALEKS Order Confirmation, Sunshine High School Report Cards (2009-
2013), ALEKS Quick Start Guide, LAUSD Contractor Code of Conduct, ALEKS Ordering
Instructions, ALEKS Order Confirmation, LAUSD Mathematics District Approved
Supplemental Instructional Resources, LAUSD Memorandum 5419.0, California Department of
Education CST Results (2013) and California Department of Education CAHSEE (2013)
Results. This data was initially analyzed manually to identify common themes from the
interviews and observation in an effort to respond to the proposed research questions. Table 4
represents a summary of the data collection methodology that will be used in this qualitative case
study.
Table 4
Summary of Data Collection Methodology
Research
Questions
Participants Semi-
Structured
Interview
(APPENDICES
A,B,C, D and E)
ALEKS Math
Intervention Lab
Observation
(APENDIX F)
Artifact
Investigation
(APPENDICES
G and H)
What were the factors that
motivated LAUSD to
improve 9
th
grade Algebra
1 proficiency?
LAUSD
Superintendent,
Executive Director
of Curriculum &
Instruction,
Director of K-12
Instruction,
Coordinator of
Secondary
Mathematics
(ALEKS)
X

X

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 56
Table 4, continued
What were the factors that
lead to the contractual
relationship between
LAUSD and ALEKS to
improve 9
th
grade Algebra
1 proficiency?
LAUSD
Superientendent,
Executive Director
of Curriculum &
Instruction,
Director of K-12
Instruction
Coordinator of
Secondary
Mathematics,
(ALEKS)
X X
What were the factors that
lead Sunshine Academy
High School to select the
ALEKS Corporation site
license from LAUSD to
improve 9
th
grade Algebra
1 proficiency?
Sunshine Academy
High School
Principal, Sunshine
Academy High
School Certified
Mathematics
Teachers of
ALEKS

X X
What factors do study
participants believe are
essential to insure that
ALEKS is successful?

LAUSD
Superintendent,
Executive Director
of Curriculum &
Instruction,
Director of K-12
Instruction,
Sunshines
Academy High
School Prinicpal,
Sunshine Academy
High School
Certified
Mathematics
Teachers of
ALEKS, 9
th
Grade
Algebra 1/ALEKS
Lab students
X X X

Summary
Chapter three has provided an overview of the research methodology used for this
qualitative case study including the population and sample, instrumentation, and data analysis.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 57
Chapter four will aim to provide results of the data collection and analysis and Chapter five will
offer recommendations for further research.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 58
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Math literacy has been described as a social issue that has the ability to ulitmately affect
individual economic access (Donovan, 2008). This chapter represents the data collected as part
of a qualitative study on the outsourced contract between LAUSD (firm) the ALEKS
Corporation (vendor). This study is designed to examine LAUSD‟s decision making process by
investigating the relationship with the ALEKS Corporation to evaluate its effectiveness on
school performance to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency using Transaction Cost
Economics (TCE) (Williamson, 1975). Data was collected through interviews, surveys, artifact
review and observation. Presentation of the data will be accomplished through individual
research questions in an effort to emphasize the nexus among individual themes.
Descriptive Characteristics Participants
Ten participants contributed to this study through semi-structured interviews. It should
be noted that in accordance with LAUSD External Research Review protocols, the
“confidentialy of all sources must be maintained” (Researcher Approval Letter, June 14, 2013).
Therefore, pseudonyms were used throughtout this study. The LAUSD senior district personnel
included: Superintendent (Dr. Jarvis), Executive Director of Curriculum and Instruction (Mr.
Gellan), Director of K-12 Instruction (Dr. Seton), and Secondary Mathematics Coordinator of
ALEKS (Dr. Peterson) were interviewed. The Sunshine Academy High School personnel
included: Principal (Mr. Arnold), Certified Secondary Math Teachers of ALEKS (Ms. Smythe,
Mr. Sorenson, Mr. Lorenzo, and Mr. Carter), Title I Coordinator (Ms. Young). Finally, 26
students from one of Mr. Sorenson‟s 9th grade ALEKS Lab intervention sessions were observed.
It should be noted that although requests were extended to representatives of the ALEKS
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 59
Corporation and Quick & Associates via phone and email to participate in this study, each
declined based on propietary and privacy concerns.
Organization of Data Analysis
Initally, this study intended to collect data through interviews, online surveys, and artifact
review. However, subsequent to the interivew with Mr. Sorenson, an appointment was made to
observe one of his 45-minutes 9
th
grade ALEKS Math Lab Intervention sessions. An ALEKS
Math Intervention Lab Observation protocol was used to collect data during this session and is
included as Appendix F. Data was also collected from various artifacts: ALEKS Order
Confirmation, Sunshine High School Report Cards (2009-2013), ALEKS Quick Start Guide,
LAUSD Contractor Code of Conduct, ALEKS Ordering Instructions, ALEKS Order
Confirmation, LAUSD Mathematics District Approved Supplemental Instructional Resources,
LAUSD Memorandum 5419.0, California Department of Education CST Results (2013) and
California Department of Education CAHSEE Results (2013). Each artifact was reviewed
separately to determine its role in effectiveness of the ALEKS intervention to improve 9
th
grade
Algebra 1 proficiency. All of this data assisted to support the triagulation process, ensure validity
and reliability, and refine emerging themes (Creswell, 2009). The following research questions
are intended to serve as a roadmap to guide the anaylsis presented in this chapter:
1. What were the factors that motivated the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
2. What were the factors that lead to the contractual relationship between LAUSD and
ALEKS to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 60
3. What were the factors that lead Sunshine Academy High School (Sunshine Academy
High School) to select the ALEKS site license from LAUSD to improve 9
th
grade
Algebra 1 proficiency?
4. What factors do study participants believe are essential to insure that ALEKS is
successful?
These questions align to the purpose of the study, which was to explore the relationship between
LAUSD and the ALEKS Corporation to evaluate its effectiveness on school performance to
improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency using TCE. These questions also focus on the factors,
motivations, and perceived value that LAUSD and Sunshine Academy High School associate
with the educational outsourced contract with the ALEKS Corporation.
Findings by Research Questions
Research Question One
What were the factors that motivated the LAUSD to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1
proficiency? Three factors emergerd as motivators for LAUSD to improve 9th grade Algebra 1
proficiency – low student performance, students‟ future success, and accountability to students.
It should be noted that the Sunshine Academy High School Principal, Mr. Arnold, stated that “a
lot of different tools” were used to improve the overall proficiency rate (personal
communication, September 10, 2013). Similarly, LAUSD Director of K-12 Instruction, Dr.
Seton commented that “there have been a number of things” that have occurred which attribute
to the rise in Algebra 1 scores (personal communication, August 1, 2013).
Low student performance. A prior discussion of relevant literature espoused the notion
that some researchers specifically maintain that high school math courses (e.g. Algebra 1,
Geometry, and Algebra 2) are directly correlated to future income (French, Homer, & Robins,
2010). Senior district level personnel at LAUSD interviewed for this study appear to align with
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 61
research about the importance of Algebra 1, its impact as a predictor of overall student success,
and motivation for improving 9
th
grade proficiency (French, Homer, & Robins, 2010). Dr. Jaris,
(personal communication, January 9, 2014 ) stated:
…we believe bar none that it [Algebra1] is the gatekeeper course for advancement
through high school and postsecondary…it was also, without question, the stumbling
block for almost all kids who were not successful in high school... graduation, dropout,
and admission to postsecondary all directly linked to success in Algebra or not success in
Algebra.
Dr. Peterson continued by indicating that, “Algebra 1 is a gateway to college and this
knowledge gives way to the importance of the emphasis on the subject. If a child passes Algebra
1- that is the catalyst for moving on to higher math classes”, (personal communication, July 26,
2013). Dr. Seton intimated “not many of our kids are passing Algebra…and if you don‟t pass
Algebra, you don‟t graduate …which impacts you for the rest of your life without a doubt”
(personal communication, August 1, 2013). Math literacy serves to develop a student‟s ability to
become an expert thinker (Jerald, 2009). From a human capital theory perspective, economists
assert that students who invest in an advanced math curriculum realize higher incomes in the job
market (Rose & Bets, 2004; Hanushek, 2009). Mr. Gellan stated “…research shows that
students who don‟t do well in math in 9
th
grade don‟t end up dealing well in many other subject
areas. So it becomes a gatekeeper or it is a gatekeeper”, (personal communication, August 6,
2013).
Students’ future success. Despite research that reveals that United States students are
trailing other countries around the world in math literacy (Hanushek, Peterson, & Woessmann,
2011). In reference to Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is an international
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 62
assessment that measures 15-year-old students' reading, mathematics, and science literacy, Dr.
Jarvis said, “As a matter of fact, we are at the moment engaged in a very, very fascinating
conversation at LAUSD, involving individual PISA (Programme for International Student
Assessment) results”, (personal communication, January 2014). Further, Dr. Jarvis shared, “So
things like factors outside of school - violence and poverty and language – are not in our control
but Algebra was and remains”.
In contrast, Mr. Gellan commented, “…when you control for such factors as poverty and
socioeconomic gaps, you might be surprised about how well the student actually do relative to
other countries” (personal communication, August 6, 2013.) Unfortunately, this statement fails
to fully contextualize the standards by which students are required to compete on a global scale.
Poverty and socioeconomic status are likely not even considered in the college admission
process, future job opportunities, or overall self-efficacy and may even contribute to deficit-
minded theories that cause inferiority stereotypes to persist (Goski, 2008). Instead, test scores,
critical thinking, and problem-solving skills will likely determine student success. Mr. Gellan
also admitted that, “As far as a career choice piece, I‟m a little biased and that I was a math
major. I believe that math applies basically in just about every subject” (personal
communication, August 6, 2013).
When the discussion turned towards high school student readiness for the California State
University system, Mr. Gellan‟s response seemed more dire “...[B]ecause we‟re in a culture of
moving all students to be college prepared and career ready, even in the best situation, 80% of
our students are not” (personal communication, August 6, 2013). Moreover, even though the
LAUSD (following state of California guidelines) only imposes minimum requirements for math
(up to Algebra 2) and many students do not take any math classes beyond the 11
th
grade, Mr.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 63
Gellan admits, “The minimum requirements do not necessarily make students competitive” and
“As a society, we accept not doing well in math” (personal communication, August 6, 2013).
An overlapping issue - connected to the previously discussed factor of the impact of
Algebra 1 on student success – is that oftentimes high-stakes testing determines whether students
dropout or graduate from high school. The California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) is a
required standardized test for all 10th grade students and measures requisite knowledge in two
content areas - mathematics and English language arts. In fact, students who fail to pass both
sections are barred from graduation and do not receive diplomas.
Further, the California Standardized Test (CST) serves as an assessment and
accountability measure for the district under NCLB guidelines. The LAUSD 2013 CST results
for 9
th
graders testing in Algebra 1 reveal that out of 24,027 students, 39% scored Below Basic
and 22% scored Far Below Basic. Mr. Gellan (personal communication, August 6, 2013) said:
We‟ve done a lot of studies that show the correlation between 9
th
grade
success on Algebra 1 and how they do in the CAHSEE. Students that are
higher in taking geometry, for example, have much higher pass rates than
those that are doing Algebra 1.
Although this data on LAUSD‟s recent results from high-stakes testing aligns to the impact of
Algebra 1 on student success and student math proficiency for global competitiveness factors it
simultaneously controverts the district goals of “100% graduation rates and proficiency for all”
(Los Angeles Unified School District, 2013).
Despite the high percentages of Below Basic and Far Below Basic results for 9
th
graders
on the Algebra 1 portion of CST, the data comports with the factors that motivated the LAUSD
to improve Algebra 1 proficiency. Specifically, Dr. Peterson‟s acknowledgement that “Algebra
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 64
1 is a gateway to college…and if a child passes catalyst for moving on to higher math classes”
(personal communication, July 26, 2013) and Dr. Seton stating “…[I]f you don‟t pass Algebra,
you don‟t graduate …which impacts you for the rest of your life without a doubt" (personal
communication, August 1, 2013) align with the need to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency
to improve graduation rates and college readiness.
Another LAUSD related motivational factor to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency
that emerged from the collection of data was the interaction between math remediation and
intervention. Further, the teacher‟s may be the key to remediation and intervention based on
their role as the classroom facilitator who guides students, provides feedback, and monitors their
progress (Kuhn & Dempsey, 2011). Weiss (2010) described continuous instructional
improvement as an “ecosystem” for student learning where teachers adapt instruction to meet
students‟ differing needs, harness theory guided research to guide their instruction, and deliver
instruction that is “pedagogically agnostic”. Although this type of systematic approach
necessitates innovative (perhaps time consuming and expensive) preparation for educators at all
levels, Weiss (2010) argues that if these practices are executed early, education will grow
substantially. This overarching idea of an ecosystem seemed to be supported by Dr. Seton
comments, “In an ideal intervention the goal is for higher levels of intensity, duration and
frequency. You get that by grouping your children” (personal communication, August 1, 2013).
At the same time, however, Dr. Seton admitted:
If I were looking at an Algebra tutorial class, what I would expect to see, again, not
necessarily my reality, but what I would expect to see is that I have small groups of
children doing different varying activities (personal communication, August 1, 2013).

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 65
Dr. Seton also stated:
[T]he most critical component is teaching teachers how to analyze their data for
instructional and intervention purposes. We‟re doing some work with a Target grant right
now that has six elementary schools…that‟s our heart and soul of what we‟re doing is
helping them to really focus their data, look at what their data is them about where they
need to go next with children and build your multi-disciplinary support all around…It‟s
not about programs. It‟s about awareness of where the child is in their learning and that‟s
what the data tells us (personal communication, August 1, 2013).
Furthermore, Mr. Lorenzo (in reference to ALEKS) said, “…it assesses you to see your prior
knowledge and builds on that slowly, at each level, and then tries to just build a stronger
foundation in your basic math” (personal communication, September 16, 2013). However,
despite the tacit acknowledgment by numerous LAUSD educators of the benefits of continuous
instructional improvement proposed by Weiss (2010) and the notion that adaptation of
instruction could be the proverbial holy grail of transformative educational models it may only
be used in theory to improve student achievement. In practice, educators may be more occupied
with the specter of reality; teaching to the test to improve arbitrarily imposed AYP or API
targets, and projecting a veil of excellence rather than actually modifying instruction and
implementing interventions to meet the individual needs of students.
Accountabilityto students. According to a study conducted by the “National Assessment
of Educational Progress, less than 25% of high school seniors are considered proficient in
mathematics” (Presby, 2011, p. 30). Moreover, the federally mandated No Child Left Behind
(“NCLB”) Act of 2001 ensure that schools are accountable to parents and students to meet
clearly delineated performance through the academic performance index (API) and annual yearly
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 66
performance (AYP). Another theme that emerged as a motivational factor for LAUSD to
improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency through the synthesis of data collection was market
accountability standards for schools and districts. Market accountability balances the interaction
between consumers (i.e. parents and students) and providers (i.e. schools and districts) to
regulate practice with the understanding that competition will lead to higher quality (Stecher &
Kirby, 2004). Market accountability connects closely to a bottom line evaluation (Clark & Estes,
2008) approach whereby the success of the school is measured by the organizational goal to meet
AYP.
Although LAUSD adopted an intervention to combat the low math proficiency rates of
fourth through seventh graders, according to Dr. Peterson, “Nothing was adopted for high
school” (personal communication, July 26, 2013). Instead, Dr. Peterson intimated that high
schools who knew that the skill level of students were low could purchase software if they “had
the money” (personal communication, July 26, 2013). Dr. Seton said, “To me our accountability
is to kids” (personal communication, August 1, 2103). Based on this information, it appears that
students and parents should be inquiring about high school math proficiency rates, determining
access to interventions, and synthesizing that data to make informed decisions about enrollment
at various high schools within the district.
Research Question Two
What were the factors that lead to the contractual relationship between LAUSD and
ALEKS to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency? Three factors that lead to the contractual
relationship between LAUSD and ALEKS Corporation to improve 9th grade Algebra 1
proficiency - previous results from other ALEKS sofware implementations, ALEKS‟ arificial
intelligence component, ALEKS‟ reasonal price. Further, these factors align with the previously
discussed Transcation Cost Economics (TCE) behaviors of trust, reputation, ex post transaction
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 67
costs, ex ante transaction costs, asset specificity, probity, incompleteness, and bounded
rationality (Williamson, 1975). These factors include outsourcing methods for student
intervention, teacher support and training during technology integration, and integration of
technology to increase student achievment.
Previous results from other ALEKS sofware implementation. Current research on
outsourcing methods reveals five classifications: survey, case study, conceptual framework,
mathematical modeling, and financial data analysis (Jiang & Qureshi, 2006). Further, in an
educational climate where accountability is foremost, “finding evidence of the results of
outsourcing is critical” (Jiang & Qureshi, 2006, p. 44). Mr. Gellan commented, “I think it was
Dr. Henson [previous LAUSD district personnel] informed us of ALEKS as an intervention
program has shown some results” (personal communication, August 6, 2013). This
acknowlegment of non-contractual and probity between one district employee to another may
align with the costs associated with educational outsourcing through TCE. Dr. Peterson stated
that ALEKS “…has artificial intelligence also it has inbred program that really tells me how well
this child is progressing” (personal communication, July 26, 2013). However, ex post
transaction costs could arise through individual teacher monitoring of student progress through
the ALEKS online teacher module. It is unclear, though, whether surveys, case studies, or
conceptual frameworks guided the aforementioned results or were considered by LAUSD prior
to selecting ALEKS as a 9
th
grade Algebra 1 intervention. During the interview, Dr. Seton said:
Out of my interventions, I expect accelerated growth and that‟s at least 1.5 years. If I‟m
not seeing a 1.5 year growth, we‟ve got to talk about fidelity of implementation. We‟ve
got to talk about whether it‟s the right program…Our due diligence after we contract with
somebody is about analyzing the data (personal communication, August 1, 2013).
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 68
Even though Dr. Seton indicated a “1.5 year accelerated growth” (personal communication
August 1, 2013) mathematical model requirement no evidence was unearthed to support the
claim that any growth had actually occurred based on the relationship between LAUSD and
ALEKS to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency. In fact, Table 5 (below) respresents a
summary of the math and Algebra results from LAUSD Student Report Cards on Sunshine
Academy High School from 2009-2010 (when ALEKS was implemented) to 2012-2013.
Table 5
Summary of LAUSD School Report Card for Sunshine Academy High School for Math and
Algebra 1 from 2009 to 2013
Students Scoring Proficient or Advanced
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010
Math 29% 28% 27% 19%
Algebra 1 26% 23% 30% ?*
Students Scoring Below Basic or Far Below Basic
2012-2013 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009-2010
Math 43% 45% 51% ?*
Algebra 1 42% 49% 43% ?*
Note. Adapted from Los Angeles Unified School Report Card. (2013). Los Angeles Unified
School District. Retrieved from http://getreportcard.lausd.net/reportcards/reports.jsp
*Data unavailable.
Although the 2010-2011 Algebra 1 scores reveal that 30% of students are Proficient or
Advanced in Algebra, 43% of students scored in the Basic or Far Below Basic range. In 2012-
2013 (four years after the implementation of ALEKS), 26% of students are scoring in the
Proficient or Advance and 42% are scoring Below Basic or Far Below Basic. It is difficult to
determine whether these percentages represent the “1.5 accerlated growth” previously sited by
combined teaching and learning aspect of Algebra 1 is a highly specific asset which requires
specialized education, training, and knowledge. Even if LAUSD trusts ALEKS based on its
reputation of past actions, it may not translate into proficiency for every 9
th
grade Algebra
student.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 69
Further, when discussing whether ALEKS can be credited for improving 9
th
grade
Algebra 1 proficiency throughout the district, Dr. Peterson commented that only about 30% of
schools have been successful because “they did it right” (personal communication, July 26,
2013). Dr. Peterson stated:
…it‟s hard to say whether ALEKS was responsible for their success…[on the one hand]
if it‟s not done with fidelity, we cannot equate the success that something else is
happening at the a school site. On the other hand, if it‟s done with fidelity, we can say
with certainty that ALEKS perhaps was responsible (personal communication, July 26,
2013).
Further, Dr. Peterson said, “An administrator has to be up and doing and sure that everybody‟s
on Board” (personal communication, July 26, 2013).
Although Dr. Peterson‟s comments suggest some form of mathematical model (which is
a highly specific asset), it is difficult to determine whether the 30% is a benchmark for math
intervention strategies within the district or arbitrary data observed from the participation of a
few high schools actually using the strategy.
Dr. Seton said:
I would say this is actually an incredibly reasonable program ….when we started with
this company, their licensing was such that you purchase a license for a year…When I
took this over and the first year we were with them, I said “that‟s not going to
match…because children don‟t always need a year-long intervention. Some children only
need a semester…we had some passionate discussions…and ultimately came around and
negotiated a more flexible licensing process. They ultimately came around, which didn‟t
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 70
surprise. We‟re a huge district and there‟s a little bit of power with a huge district like
ours (personal communication, August 1, 2013).
While Dr. Seton‟s remarks appeared to apply a fiscally responsible financial data analysis model
which included a specific imperative for LAUSD to have the option of either a year-long or
semester long ALEKS site license for Algebra 1 intervention. Despite the vehement insistence
on the flexibility of the ALEKS site licenses provided to the LAUSD, Ms. Young at Sunshine
Academy High School noted that the licenses are only purchased in 40-week increments (the
entire academic school year) (personal communication, October 13, 2013).
Social pressure and public opinion. Several of the study LAUSD district level
participants referenced the social, political, economic and community associated with Algebra 1
proficiency. Mr. Gellan stated, “…[S]o there’s always the piece weighing it up against public
pressures and opinion, but at the same time we have a rigorous standard …[T]he embracement of
the common core standards in mathematics because they are internationally benchmarked”
(personal communication, August 6, 2013). Further, Dr. Seton intimated “…[Y]ou don’t pass
Alegebra, you don’t even graduate…That so impacts what happens to you the rest of your life
without a doubt…We work with a consortium of school districts…” (personal communication,
August 1, 2013). Dr. Peterson commented:
Knowing that Algebra 1 is the gateway to college, and knowing that gave a lot of
emphasis on Algebra 1, and its state data as well as national data and international
data…The district came together to have a discussion regarding how best to help all the
students improve (personal communication, July 26, 2013).
Although LAUSD district personnel seem to be aware of the intersection of various entities as
essential elements to effectuating system-driven learning experience for students, and the school
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 71
sites, each principal is responsible for accountability standards. CST, CAHSEE, API, and AYP
guide the decision making process for school site principals and outcomes are carefully
monitored through the district and NCLB. Moreover, market accountability may be triggered at
Sunshine Academy High School based on its principal‟s ability to select among a variety of
vendors which could result improved proficiency for 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students.
As a result, in 2009 Mr. Arnold (while serving as assistant principal and in consultation
with the previous principal) decided to select ALEKS among the other available math
intervention resources available to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency. Mr. Arnold said,
“In reading about it [ALEKS], in researching about it, I liked the concept of …I like its artificial
intelligence components, and really being able to identify the specific skill that the kids needed
to work on” (personal communication, September 10, 2013).
Reseaonable price. This particular theme is connected with the student success and
global competitiveness factors discussed in the findings from Research Question One. Some
researchers believe that teachers who are able to effectively administer technology tools will
realize greater success in student achievement and have positive effect on diverse learners (Kuhn
& Dempsey, 2011). School principals can assist in the success of technology integration by
discussing strategies during faculty meetings and including the item in a faculty member‟s
annual goal setting plans. Dr. Peterson mentioned three key components to a successful
integration: “optimal technology, teacher buy-in, and an administrator monitors the usage”
(personal communication, July 26, 2013). Dr. Peterson indicated that the expectation is that
math proficiency among 9
th
grade students will increase:
[I]f the program is administered with fidelity, which does not happen. You get school
A,B,C. School A has 100 kids. Put them in this program, they use it once, and they
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 72
never go back until the next time when someone starts knowing and usually they use it
again two times and stop. Compared to school where the principles ensure that the kids
uses it at least 2-hours a week, as recommended by ALEKS, throughout the school year
(personal communication, July 26, 2013).
According the the ALEKS Quick Start Guide, “students should be spend at least 3-5 hours per
week with ALEKS” (ALEKS 2013b, p. 12). Furthermore, in the process of gathering Sunshine
Academy High School artifacts for review, Ms. Young mentioned that she believed that the
effectiveness of ALEKS was based on “correct teacher training” and that “some teachers were
not trained” (personal communication, October 13, 2013). Because the aggregate of teacher
training and support, optimal technology, teacher buy-in, administrator monitoring may not be
have been considered at the outset by LAUSD district level senior personnel and as a result the
contract between LAUSD or the ALEKS Corporation may have lacked an element of cognitive
processing or “flow” required to be complete (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
Research Question Three
What were the factors that lead Sunshine Academy High School to select the
ALEKS site license from LAUSD to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency? As a result of
the data analysis, three factors emerged which lead Sunshine Academy High School to select
ALEKS site license from LAUSD improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficienc – finite district
options, social pressure and public opinions, and student motivation.
Finite district options. According to the LAUSD Mathematics District Approved
Supplemental Instructional Resources there are “evidence-based supplemental intervention
resources approved by the district” (LAUSD Memo 5090, March 10, 2010). These resources
include California Math Triumphs, California Fast Forwards Mathematics, SRA Number
Worlds, Odyssey Focus Math, ALEKS, Carnegie, and Mind Institute. However, only two
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 73
interventions are designed to target high school populations - ALEKS and Carengie. Further,
according to Ms. Young, the Title I Coordinator at Sushine Academic High School, only the
ALEKS program is currently being used (personal communication, October 13, 2013). Patrick,
Mantzicopoulous, and Sears (2012) suggest that teachers and students in classroom do not
function as secluded separate units within an entire school system. Instead, teachers and students
are contextualized among various stakeholders which include “other teachers, school leaders,
administrators, and communit[ies]” (Patrick, Mantzicopoulous, & Sears, p. 443). It also
encompasses local, state, and national, and international social, political and economic issues.
For instance, teachers and students function in a reciprocal capacity where teachers are
responsible for facilitating learning and students view learning as a realistic means of personal
improvement. As a result, both teachers and students share in the success of indiviudal schools
and districts which effect assessment and accoutability mandates like CST, CAHSEE, API, AYP,
and NCLB.
ALEKS’ artificial intelligence component. Dr. Peterson stated that ALEKS “…has
artificial intelligence with an inbred program that really tells me how well this child is
progressing” (personal communication, July 26, 2013). However, the effectiveness of the
sofware may be directly linked to the math teacher during the integration of math technology
may be directly related to the support and training they receive prior to the implementation. In
fact, Kuhn and Dempsey (2011, p. 20) suggest that “timely, on-site support may be the single
factor that makes a difference in effective teacher implementation and increased student
learning”. LAUSD‟s investment in teacher support and training during the integration of
ALEKS may categorized as ex ante transaction costs because they are associated with the initial
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 74
framework and subsequent negotiation of the contract (Williamson, 1985; Jobin, 2008). Dr.
Peterson said:
[O]nce the decision was made, we put trainings in place. That was between June and
September the first year of implementation. Teachers were trained and then an ALEKS
representative went to school to support teachers in the classroom and we went out on the
scent to see how implementation was going...As well as there are a couple of webinars
organized by ALEKS (personal communication, July 26, 2013).
Although attention to teacher training and support may have initially been tantamount throughout
LAUSD and Sunshine Academy, as time lapsed it seemed that the level of importance seemed to
diminish. In fact, one new math teacher at Sunshine Academy High School (who was not
interviewed for this study) intimated during a professional development meeting (personal
communication, January 14, 2014) that she was slated to receive ALEKS training during the Fall
2013 term but had not yet received any training.
On the other hand, according to the ALEKS Quick Start Guide, various teacher resources
are available including: The ALEKS Training Center, Free Online Webinar Training, ALEKS
Course Products, ALEKS Implementation Strategies, and ALEKS Customer Support. In fact,
the ALEKS Training Center provides teachers with an opportunity to “veiw pre-recorded
training videos, download PDFs, or request a customized training” (ALEKS, 2013b). If teachers
are unaware or do not take advantage of the resources available from ALEKS, the likelihood of
improving student proficiency may be substanitally diminished and could result in increased ex
ante transaction costs to LAUSD.
Student motivation. Chouinard and Roy (2008) suggest that there is a decrease in math
motivation, specifically within the expectancy-value domain, among high-school students over
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 75
time. In general, expectancy refers to a student’s belief about their perfomance and success on a
given task. Value relates to a student’s interest in a particular task and the utility value is
associated with that task. Various strategies may be implemented to support students’ beliefs in
math competency including “making sure that the sutdents are well aware of the content to be
learned and competence to develop” as well as “the meaning of what is learned” (Chouinard &
Roy, 2008, p. 47). All of the 9
th
grade students who fail Algebra 1 during the first term of the fall
semester at Sunshine Academy High School are automatically placed in ALEKS as an
intervention during the second fall term. The consequence of this “failure” may be students who
lack expectancy-value in Algebra 1 and fail to reach the optimal level between skill and
challenge to be successful at the task. Further, LAUSD’s failure to consider a student
expectancy-value within the initial stages of the relationship with ALEKS Corporation may
result in educational outsourced contracts that are incomplete and create weaknesses throughout
the structure of the agreement (Tadelis & Williamson, 2012).
During a 90-minute block period, students who are enrolled in ALEKS spend 45 minutes
in the classroom and 45 minutes in the lab. The first session of the ALEKS Intervention Lab is
intended to serve as an assessement and measures each student‟s competency and skill level.
Individual student progress is then tracked through an online computer system and monitored by
the teacher. Students move through various modules as they master specific competencies.
According to Mr. Arnold, however, ALEKS sessions are designed to be an “alignment pieice”
and said:
The skills that they were learning were basic foundation skills that didn‟t directly
translate into …it‟s not Algebra. In theory, it would help you negotiate Algebra a little
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 76
better, but it didn‟t help them understand Algebra better (personal communication,
September 10, 2013).
Although Sunshine Academy appears to have attempted to improve Algebra 1 proficiency
among 9th grade students with the implementation of the ALEKS program, it is unclear whether
students receive any pertinent information that translates the use of ALEKS into the content,
competence, or understanding that lends itself to increased expectancy-value in Algebra 1.
Participating in these types of rudimentary skills may lower 9th grade students expetancy-value
for successfully passing Algebra 1. Even the Mr. Sorenson (personal communication, September
6, 2013) was not convinced that the entire class would pass or have the requisite skills necessary
to be successful in Algebra 1. Furthermore, data gathered from a Sunshine Academy High
School Dean (not interviewed for this study) during the first term of the fall semester (2013),
revealed that 80% of the 9
th
grade students failed Algebra 1. This outcome may substantially
increase ex ante and ex post transaction costs associated with ALEKS because Sunshine
Academy High may not have anitcipated these results or factored in the monitoring required by
teachers charged with facilitation.
In fact, Mr. Arnold intimated that there was some “frustration that it [ALEKS] didn’t
necessarily lead to an improved Algebra score…” (personal communication, September 10,
2013). But he continued in reference to ALEKS as an intervention:
…[T]hat just by giving these kids this attention for some it motivated them. For some it
helped them develop a better relationship wth the teacher. Maybe they brought in some of
those study skills to bare on their Algebra class, so they were working a little harder
(personal communication, September 10, 2013).

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 77
On the other hand, Mr. Lorenzo noted that:
[T]here are a few that make great strides and are making connections…A lot of students,
like I said, they already have that phobia [about mathematics], so they lose interest
quickly…I hate to say this but in 9th grade, we were more of a motivator and that’s
where we spend a lot of our time preaching, and I’m sorry to the word but we preach to
these kids the importance of learning this because right now we’re becoming math
illiterate (personal communication, September 16, 2013).
Although Sunshine Academy may have implemented the ALEKS program to improve the
expectancy-value of student compentence, school leaders may not have considered 9th grade
high school students need to make meaningful real-world connections to Algebra 1 content in
order to be successful in high school and beyond.
Research Question Four
What factors do study participants believe are essential to insure that ALEKS is
successful?The success of ALEKS was classified among four of the multiple principal-agent
levels - district (school culture) , principal (willing teachers) , teachers (autonomy) and students
(engagement).
District: school culture. Generally, people tend to place more perceived value on tasks
that they feel comfortable can be accomplished (Parjares, 1996). Collective efficacy refers to a
“group‟s shared beliefs in their capabilities to realize given levels of attainment” (Parjares, 1996,
p. 567). Further, mathematics self-efficacy can be described as “expectancies of success in
mathematics” (Parjares, 1996, p. 560). As a result, LAUSD‟s value of ALEKS may be linked to
its perceived importance of collective efficacy about 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency based on
the how stakeholders (principals, teachers, and students) perform their respective duties
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 78
(leadership, pedagogy, and learning) within the school environment. For example, at the district
level Dr. Peterson said:
In LAUSD, we recommend [ALEKS] in some schools but not all our schools. One would
be because of the culture. Two, teachers perhaps did not see value in the use of
technology. And, in addition, some teachers may not be comfortable in using technology
to improve students achievement (personal communication, July 26, 2013).
Principal: willing teachers. Moreover, Mr. Arnold commented that although Mrs.
Smythe liked the program she “…had some frustration that it didn‟t necessarily lead to improved
Algebra score[s]” (personal communication, September 10, 2013). Dr. Peterson and Mr.
Arnold‟s comments seemed to reveal skepticism about the success of ALEKS‟ perceived
importance based on the school environment, teachers‟ mathematics self-efficacy in the use of
technology, and teachers‟ expectancy of success.
On the other hand, there is some evidence that suggests that the overall success of
ALEKS is specifically dependent on the “beliefs” individual stakeholders within the group. Dr.
Peterson said, “It [ALEKS] was not well implemented in some schools and we don‟t have a
handle on that” (personal communication, July 26, 2013). While Dr. Seton intimated, “A
challenge we have with when we teach a program, teachers become program dependent instead
of really, really thinking it through” (personal communication, August 1, 2013). Mr. Arnold
stated:
The challenge with that [the classroom and computer lab] is then you have the ability to
go back and forth…You have to have a teacher that‟s willing to work them both to get
the best out of our kids…We‟ve been fortunate that we have great teachers who are
willing to do that (personal communication, September 10, 2013).
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 79
Ms. Smythe said:
We had to teach the students how to use the computer properly and to teach them internal
motivation to want to succeed in the program. We realized that students with behavior
problems were not ideal candidates for the program since so much of the program is
individual work (personal communication, September 12, 2013).
In this instance, Dr. Peterson, Dr. Seton and Mr. Arnold (administrators) seem to believe that the
success of the ALEKS software is the responsibility of the teacher. However, Ms. Smythe
believed that the success of ALEKS may be dependent on the motivation of the student
participant. The lack of consensus between the various stakeholders charged with administering
ALEKS may undermine the integrity of collective efficacy and ultimately decrease the likelihood
of improving 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency.
Teachers: autonomy. Even though artificial intelligence software systems may provide
math teachers with an opportunity to provide targeted instruction to students with varying
degrees of proficiency, teachers‟ attitudes towards technology integration is often a barrier to
effective progress (Kuhn & Dempsey, 2011). Interestingly, even though ALEKS was selected
by Sunshine Academy as an intervention strategy to address the needs of their 9
th
grade students,
only one of the four math teachers was involved in the decision making process. In fact, when
Ms. Smythe was asked if she was aware of the factors that motivated Sunshine Academy High
School to select ALEKS, she said, “No. I was told we would be adopting it and went to training”
(personal communication, September 12, 2013). Mr. Sorenson (responding to the same
question) also said, “….[N]o they only asked me to teach the ALEKS program…” (personal
communication, September 6, 2013).
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 80
At the same time, only one out of four math teachers administering ALEKS appeared to
be aware of the research data associated with ALEKS or its success rate. Mr. Lorenzo said, in
fact, said, “What I do know is that the research showed that it‟s been successful at certain
schools…” (personal communication, September 16, 2013). This data suggests that the 9
th

grade Algebra 1 math teachers at Sunshine Academic High School administering ALEKS may
be unable to experience derivative enjoyment and simultaneously display low levels of intrinsic
motivation because they were integral components of the decision-making process or versed on
research-based benefits of integration. In addition, teachers who do not perceive themselves as
being valuable stakeholders in the process of student achievement may undermine the collective
efficacy required to support the group belief that ALEKS can be a successful intervention.
Students: engagement. Researchers often cite student engagement as a challenge to
professional educators (Taylor & Parsons, 2011). Further, since technology has been inculcated
into the daily lives of students, pedagolicial practices must change to prevent a societal threat to
“our own futures” (Taylor & Parsons, 2011, p. 6). Some educators believe that student
engagement may be reliant upon students‟ intrinsic motivation. Murphy and Alexander (2000)
suggest that intrinsic motivation might increase as students move through grades. In the
classroom, intrinsic motivation can be compared to mastery goals because of their focus on
individual competence. Ms. Smyth said, “We had to teach the students how to use the computer
properly and to teach them internal motivation to want to success in the program” (personal
communication, September 12, 2013). In fact, when students have total involvement in a task,
they may be deemed to have flow (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008).
However, students‟ concept about a specific task may be linked to social schemas that
prevent students from complete engagement even when that task is associated with the
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 81
contemporary technological components of artificial intelligence software. Moreover, students
may acutally attribute teachers insistence on engagement of a particular task (i.e. participation
ALEKS) as “boring” (Deci, Ryan & Koester, 1999, p. 630) because they are unable to make a
connection to future goals and thereby disengage which could eventually undermine the flow
process (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008). Mr. Lorenzo stated, “The only issue they [students]
really had is - their interest” (personal communication, September 16, 2013). At Sunshine
Academy High School, ALEKS is only administered as an intervention to 9th grade students
who failed Algebra 1 in the previous term. As a result, students may negatively associate
ALEKS to a boring task attributed failure and therefore choose disengage. In fact, Mr. Lorenzo
further stated:
I hate to say this, but in 9
th
grade, we were more of a motivator and that's where we spend
a lot of our times preaching, and I'm sorry to say the word, but we preach to these kids
the importance of learning this because right now, we're becoming math illiterate
(personal communication, September 16, 2013).
In the ALEKS Lab, students were, in fact, relegated to learning what the ALEKS system refers
to as “Prep for Algebra 1 Concepts”. During an observation of Mr. Sorenson‟s ALEKS
Intervention, twenty-five total students were present split between two separate computer labs.
In the first lab there were 12 students (five females and seven males) and in the second lab there
were 13 students (five females and eight males). Figure C provides three expamples of the type
ALEKS generated equations that students were practicing in the lab.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 82

1. Evaluate:

2. Round:
761 to the nearest 100
th

589 to the nearest 10
th

3. Reduce:

Figure 3. Sample of ALEKS generated equations.

Even though the session was intended to immerse all of the students in ALEKS, two students
were not involved with ALEKS at all. In one lab, a female student was being assisted by Mr.
Sorenson and practicing concepts and problems that seemed were more advanced than her peers.
In the other computer lab, an adult teaching assistant was drilling a male student on
multiplication tables. A few of students seemed focused on ALEKS, but most appeared to be
bored, egaged in peer gossip, randomly clicking keys, or constantly reviewing a pie chart that
referenced their progress.
In addition, Mr. Sorenson said, “After quarter one of seeing certain factors that they were
low-skill, we decided to put them in this intervention class in the ALEKS” (personal
communication, September 6, 2013). Furthermore, there may be no incentive for 9
th
grade
students at Sunshine Academy to engage in ALEKS because it seems to have no link to their
future goal of Algebra 1 proficiency. Mr. Carter also intimated:
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 83
The goal of the class is to see improvement in where they are. There is no ultimate goal
to pass Algebra during the ALEKS class. It's more to get them better prepared for the
Algebra test that they will take (personal communication, September 6, 2013).
However, the Best Practices section of the ALEKS Quick Start Guide (2013, p. 12) suggests:
In order to solicit the maimum amount of student enthusiasm and participation, it is
important to make ALEKS part of the syllabus and grade. Students should spend at least
least 3-5 hours per week in ALEKS. The more time spent making progress, the more
dramtic your students‟ learning outcomes will be.
Even though Mr. Carter stated, “I don‟t know if its measureable, but I do think that generally,
kids that are taking ALEKS class do a little better” (personal communication, September 13,
2013), most students seemed distracted and off task during the observation. Mayer (2011)
advises instructional designers to consider the cognitive procesing of working memory and
create lessons that “minimize extaneous processing, manage essential processing, foster
generative processing” (Mayer, 2011, p. 128). Additionally, Johnson (2012) suggests that
classroom technology should be supplemented by creative lectures, integrated worksheets/study
guides, manipulatives, correlated textbook reading, expository writing, information problem
solving, collaboration, and games. Additionally, the Best Practices secion of the ALEKS Quick
Start Guide (2013, p. 12) suggests:
ALEKS questions are open-ended free response. Therefore, all work must be done on a
separate sheet of paper with pencil. By having a dedicated ALEKS notebook, student can
deep all their ALEKS work done in one location and can use the notebook as a reference
point when reviewing course material. This also provides another opportunity for a
graded element in ALEKS, if needed.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 84
The ALEKS Quick Start Guide‟s Teacher Resouces section also provides teachers with the
chance to “view a small selection of strategies from educators who are successfully using
ALEKS to achieve dramatic learning results” (2013, p. 13). The ALEKS webiste currently lists
fifteen implementation strategies for 9th grade students, with a computer lab scenario, for the
purpose of intervention in California ("ALEKS Imlementation Strategies," 2013). There are no
strategies (within this portal) from any LAUSD teachers, however, one teacher from Glendale
Unified District commented:
We have seen students do better on homework and tests in their core math classes, and
we have also seen students who were in danger of scoring Below or Far Below Basic
make significant gains on their California Standardized Tests. Additionally, we have
improved student morale in math. Students exposed to ALEKS have more enthusiasm
about doing better in math, and are really happy and proud of them (ALEKS, 2013a).
Another teacher from Anaheim High School Union District stated:

Each student has a computer along with paper and pencils to work with. Moreover, the
peer tutors and I walk around the computer lab to help students with problems. Students
understand a concept better after they've had lots of practice on similar problems.
Students are actively engaged and want to learn how to do the problems (ALEKS,
2013a).
The integration of an ALEKS invention coupled with creative lectures, integrated worksheets
and study guides may serve to enhance student engagement, decrease boredom, instill a positive
attribution for the task of improving Algebra 1 proficiency.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 85
Summary
Chapter four has provided the results of an analysis of the data collected used for this
qualitative case study from the perspective of its participants. Chapter five will aim to provide a
conclusion for the study and implications from the findings and recommendations for further
research.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 86
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Algebra 1 has often been referred to as the gatekeeper to overall high school success. In
fact, student achievement in Algebra 1 has been linked to increased high school graduation rates
and decreased dropout rates. Further, more stringent No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
accountability standards have instilled a sense of urgency for school districts to prioritize,
monitor, and remediate student proficiency levels to avoid severe federally mandated sanctions.
As a result, school districts are electing to outsource educational services in an effort to improve
Algebra 1 outcomes. LAUSD provides its high schools with several research-based outsourced
options for math interventions (purchased as student site-licenses) based on student deficiencies
at individual sites. It should be noted the Sunshine Academy High School (a comprehensive
Title I school), selected ALEKS as an outsourced option to improve their 9
th
grade Algebra 1
proficiency levels. It should also be noted that although the California State University system
admitted 96 first-time freshmen from Sunshine Academic High School during the Fall of 2012,
only 23 were proficient in mathematics (California State University, 2012). The question, then,
that permeated this study is whether ALEKS, as an outsourced educational service option to
improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency is working for Sunshine Academy High School.
This case study aimed to explore the contractual relationship between LAUSD and the
ALEKS Corporation to evaluate its effectiveness on school performance to improve 9
th
grade
Algebra 1 proficiency using Transaction Cost Economics (TCE). The first chapter introduced
the significance of TCE as a conceptual framework to examine buy versus make decisions within
educational systems. The second chapter presented a review of literature on artificial
intelligence software, ALEKS, and TCE. Chapter three provided the problem and purpose
overview, purpose of the study, research questions, population and sample, data collection and
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 87
instrumentation, and data analysis. Chapter four presented the findings unearthed by the
qualitative research through the triangulation of an assortment of data collection methods
(Creswell, 2009). Further, the findings were used to assess effectiveness of ALEKS on LAUSD
school performance to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency by comparing and contrasting
existing literature pertaining to artificial intelligence software, Artificial Learning Knowledge
Spaces (ALEKS), and Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) (Williamson, 1975).
Chapter five provides a summary the research findings, conclusions, implications, future
research, and summary.
Purpose, Significance, Methodology
The reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) increased accountability measures
for schools and districts to insure that students are scoring at proficient levels in math and
English. Moreover, NCLB (2001) places sanctions on districts and schools that fail to meet
expected targets in Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) and/or Academic Performance Index (API).
As a result, LAUSD contracted with ALEKS Corporation to provide an intervention in artificial
intelligence software resources to improve 9
th
Algebra 1 proficiency. In this study, a hybrid
multiple principal-agent partnership network contractual relationship was examined between
LAUSD, ALEKS Corporation, and Sunshine Academy High School. Formal dimensions of
Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) - were analyzed along with Flow Theory (FT) to provide
refinement of the cognitive processing involved with contractual relationships.
A total of ten semi-structured interviews were conducted at LAUSD – four interviews
with district senior level personnel (Superintendent, Executive Director of Curriculum and
Instruction, Director of K-12 Instruction, and Secondary Mathematics Coordinator) and six
interviews with Sunshine Academy High School personnel (principal, four certified math
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 88
teachers facilitating ALEKS, and the Title I Coordinator). None of the Likert-scaled online
surveys distributed to the four interviewed math teachers were returned. However, it should be
noted that the data derived from those surveys may not have yielded any additional information
or the information derived may have been redundant. One observation was conducted of a 45-
minute session 9th grade Algebra 1 ALEKS Intervention Lab. Several artifacts were analyzed
including ALEKS Order Confirmation, Sunshine High School Report Cards (2009-2013),
ALEKS Quick Start Guide, LAUSD Contractor Code of Conduct, ALEKS Ordering Instructions,
ALEKS Order Confirmation, LAUSD Mathematics District Approved Supplemental
Instructional Resources, LAUSD Memorandum 5419.0, California Department of Education
CST Results (2013) and California Department of Education CAHSEE (2013) Results. The
combination of various artifacts, interviews, and an observation was provided rich data for the
researcher to triangulate.
Conclusions
In accordance with No Child Left Behind (NCLB), LAUSD is required to maintain
threshold proficiency levels in math throughout the district. As a result, LAUSD established a
contractual relationship with the ALEKS Corporation for outsourced educational instructional
services to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency. This study used Transaction Cost
Economics (TCE) as a conceptual framework to measure the effectiveness of LAUSD‟s decision
to utilize the outsourced educational services from ALEKS Corporation (Rau, 2007). Based on
the data collection and analysis process of this study, the LAUSD/ALEKS Corporation contract
which is intended to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency appears to illuminate a higher
incidence of transaction costs associated with information asymmetry through uncertainty and
opportunism. First, transaction costs are increased through the uncertainty of negotiating terms,
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 89
monitoring obligations, and enforcing performance of the highly specific ALEKS software asset.
Second, transaction costs are increased based on the opportunism created by LAUSD which only
provides only a limited number of approved supplemental math instructional resources for
Sunshine Academy High School to select. Although this practice might be financially
reasonable to LAUSD, it may prove to be financially challenging for Sunshine Academy High
School. Moreover, based on the perceptions of the participants, this study draws the following
conclusions:
1. Fidelity in implementation influences the value of the contractual relationship through
school culture, teacher autonomy, and student interest.
2. Perceptions about reasonable prices differ among participants in multiple principal-agent
outsourced contracts.
3. Behavioral issues among 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students determine access to math
interventions.
4. Unanticipated future costs (e.g. cognitive limitations) during the contract negotiation
phase increase indirect transaction costs.
Fidelity in Implementation
Typically, artificial intelligence software systems that focus on math instruction and
assessment should provide “positive learning effects” (Barrus, Sabo, Joseph, & Atkinson, 2011,
p.4). In order to achieve that end, school systems must be strategic about selecting software that
is individualized, imitates human interaction, and is scaffolded. Interestingly, during the course
of the study, differing views emerged among stakeholders relating to the implementation of
artificial intelligence software and its connection to positive learning effects. Even though Dr.
Peterson and Dr. Seton each commented that artificial intelligence software must be
administered with “fidelity” in order to realize maximum results, each acknowledged some
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 90
deficiencies in that process. On the one hand, Dr. Peterson intimated that success of artificial
intelligence software in math was directly connected to the fidelity of its implementation
(personal communication, July 26, 2013). However, Dr. Seton believed that fidelity was linked
to analyzing the data for 1.5 years of accelerated growth after implementation.
In contrast, Sunshine Academy High School personnel offered varied perspectives on
individualization, scaffolding, and human interaction as it relates to ALEKS. Mr. Arnold
believed that artificial intelligence software works best when there is a cadre of willing teachers
whose mission is to get the best out of students. However, Mr. Lorenzo was adamant that many
students harbor phobias about math and lose interest quickly so that much of the teachers spend
their time serving as motivators who preach the importance of learning math (personal
communication, September 16, 2013).
Even though the above findings demonstrate a lack of cohesion between the stakeholders
in regards to the success of the ALEKS in reference to positive learning effects, district
personnel and school site staff consistently documented improvement in 9
th
grade Algebra 1
proficiency. In fact, overall LAUSD CST scores in 2012 revealed that 64% of 9
th
grade Algebra
1 students scored Below Basic or Far Below Basic compared to 71% in 2009. Similarly, at
Sunshine Academy High School, 43% of 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students scored Below Basic or Far
Below Basic on the CST‟s in 2012 as compared to 66% in 2009.
Further, although ALEKS has been referred to as an effective motivational, instructional,
and assessment tool for improving math proficiency (Hargety, 2005; Presby, 2011; Stillson,
2003; & Stillson 2009), this study revealed contrasting perceptions among various stakeholders
at LAUSD (district level personnel, principals, teachers, and students) regarding the motivation
to implement ALEKS. Opinions about ALEKS seem to follow linear pattern where district level
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 91
personnel believe that principals are responsible for motivating teachers; principals believe that
teachers are responsible for motivating students; and teachers believe that students are
responsible for motivating themselves. For instance, Dr. Peterson commented that an
administrator (referring to the principal) is required to ensure that everybody is “on board”.
Whereas Mr. Arnold intimated that, “You have to have a teacher that‟s willing to work to get the
best out of our kids.” At the same time, Mr. Arnold also stated that he only selected teachers
who were “motivated to participate” in ALEKS (personal communication, September 10, 2013).
Ms. Smythe said, “We had to teach the students how to use the computer properly and to teach
them internal motivation to want to succeed in the program (personal communication, September
12, 2013). In this case, the fidelity of implementation of ALEKS through the senior district level
personnel, school site administrators, and classroom teachers may be associated with the
motivation of all the participants.
Behavioral Issues among 9th Grade Algebra 1 Students
“Schools are ideal locations for offering preventitive interventions because they acan
reach a large number of children in a context in which they spend a considerable aount of their
daily lives” (McClowry, Snow, Tamis-LeMonda, & Rodriguez, 2012, p. 24). At the same time,
students who participate in disruptive behavior have a tendancy to be less engaged and have
“fewer positive interactions with their peers and teachers” (McClowry, Snow, Tamis-LeMonda,
& Rodriguez, 2012, p. 23). There appeared to be consensus among the teachers facilitating
ALEKS at Sunshine Academy that student participants not exhibit disruptive behaviors. Mr.
Sorenson said:
Obviously, they needed to be in low skill and they also needed to be well-behaved.
People that wanted to learn and willing to put that extra effort. We did not want any
behavior issues in ALEKS because it would be pointless for anybody who was not
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 92
willing to work, to be in the class. It will be total waste of time (personal communication,
September 6, 2013).
Mr. Carter stated, “ The behavior issues…is very important” (personal communication,
September 13, 2013). Ms. Smythe said, “We realized that students with behavior problems were
not ideal candiates for the [ALEKS] program since so much of it is individual work” (personal
communication, September 12, 2013).
The data collection process revealed three criteria that Sunshine Academy has
implemented to select 9th grade ALEKS participants: low Algebra scores in the first term of 9th
grade, consistent school attendance, and good behavior. Mr. Sorenson said, “ The people that
went in there, in the ALEKS Program, were basically chosen by the teachers.” In addition, Mr.
Carter stated:
You have to have students that do not have attendance issues. That‟s one of the main
things, because the way that we identify kids before was based on their grades and based
on teacher recommendations, but we have to look at also attendance because what we‟re
looking for now is, we‟re looking for kids that are struggling in Math, but show up every
day (personal communication, September 13, 2013).
Even if Sunshine Academy‟s criteria of enrolling low performing students with consistent
attendance seems reasonable, only the least disruptive students in ALEKS may may ultimately
result in the catestrophic affect of jeopadizing the success of those students who are most
vulnerable to acquiring Algebra 1 proficiency.
Perceptions about Reasonable Prices
This study revealed at least two unanticipated future costs to LAUSD for ALEKS
associated with improving 9th grade Algebra 1 proficiency. First, there are a number of students
who continue to fail Algebra 1 and subsequently enroll in ALEKS as an intervention. It should
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 93
also be noted that these licenses are non-transferable. When asked about the cost of ALEKS, the
Director of K-12 Instruction, Dr. Seton, replied that it “…is actually an incredibly reasonable
program. When we started with this company their licensing was such that purchase the license
for one year” (personal communication, August 1, 2013). On the other hand, the Secondary
Mathematics Coordinator, Dr. Peterson, stated that some high school principals had intimated
concerns about the cost of the individual ALEKS site licenses (personal communication, July 26,
2013). Typically, transaction costs refer to the “comparative costs of planning, adapting, and
monitoring tasks” (Williamson, 1981, pp. 1552-1553). During an interview with Ms. Young, it
was confirmed that the most recent ALEKS purchase (via ALEKS Order Confirmation) took
place on August 29, 2012. At that time, Sunshine Academy High School placed an order for a
quantity of 200 (40-week site licenses) at $24.50 each for a total of $4,900. Ms. Young also
explained that unused site licenses were retained and “carried-over” but are non-transferrable
among students. Ms. Young, Title I Coordinator, also commented there have been occasions
when students have checked out the Sunshine Academic High School prior to the end of the 40-
week academic year resulting in a loss of an entire site licenses (personal communication,
October 13, 2013). Further, during the 2012-2013 academic year, a shortage occurred because
Sunshine Academy High School depleted its supply of sites licenses. When asked about the cost
of ALEKS, the Dr. Seton replied that it “…is actually an incredibly reasonable program. When
we started with this company their licensing was such that purchase the license for one year”
(personal communication, August 1, 2013). On the other hand, a Dr. Peterson stated that some
high school principals (especially small schools) had intimated concerns about the costs
associated with individual ALEKS site licenses (personal communication, July 26, 2013). Even
though Dr. Seton stated that she was the “trustee of district‟s money” these losses and/or
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 94
shortages of student licenses may result in increased outsourced transaction costs and diminished
efficiency within LAUSD.
Secondly, a cost that is perhaps even more uncertain, is incompleteness. The dimension
of incompleteness is a construct that is divided into two distinct mental processes: cognitive and
verbal (Williamson , 2000). The cognitive process prevents parties to a transaction from
generating all the possible contingencies. This incompleteness may be attributed to bounded
rationality which postulates that even though human beings are unable to predict all possible
future contingencies, they will act as rational as possible. The verbal process minimizes the
likelihood of including content that could be expressed in words. The LAUSD Ethic Office
provides a Contractor Code of Conduct which set forth that “All LAUSD Contractors and their
Representatives are expected to conduct any and all business affiliated with LAUSD in an ethical
and responsible manner that fosters integrity and public confidence” and “Be a responsible
bidder”. The Contractor Code of Conduct also includes a “Schematic of LAUSD‟s Competitive
Contracting Process”. Although each of the district level interview participants was asked for a
copy of the contract with ALEKS Corporation, none of them were able to produce a hard copy,
some of them believed that it may be available with another office, and others believed that it
was perhaps in the hands of a custodian of records somewhere in the district office headquarters.
However, when asked about the competitive contract bidding process with ALEKS, Dr.
Seton stated that there was a “due diligence” and an “obligation to explore anybody else who
offers an intervention” to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency, but since “…this was not a
particularly large contract… you don‟t have to do a RFP (Request for Proposal)” (personal
communication, August 1, 2013). Further when asked why ALEKS was selected, the Dr. Seton
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 95
stated that it was “evidence-based and vetted with a reasonable price” (personal communication,
August 1, 2013).
Unanticipated Future Costs
Even though Dr. Seton (or her LAUSD colleagues), may have been acting as reasonably
as possible when she negotiated with the ALEKS contract and stated that it was “evidence-based,
vetted, and a reasonably priced”, all possible future contingencies may not have been considered
based on the negotiators limitations in cognitive processing (personal communication, August 1,
2013). Additionally, LAUSD senior level personnel‟s perceptual limitations about how much
information was required to be included in the ALEKS contract may have been impaired. Some
researchers believe that cognitive-based decision making exist in the recesses of the human mind
and can only understood through psychology based mechanisms (Hardt, 2009).
Flow Theory (FT), developed by Mihalyi Csikszentmihaly (1990), is characterized as a
“cognitive-affective state characterized by the free investment of psychic energy into chosen
goals” (Rodrigo, 2011, p. 96). In this case, some of the future contingencies among students
(e.g. lack of student engagement, increased boredom, and negative attribution) which arose in the
ALEKS Intervention Lab may have been attributed to the negotiators cognitive limitations as it
related to a dimension of lack of flow – specifically the inability to develop “clear goals”
(MacNeill & Cavenagh, 2013) for improving 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency with ALEKS. In
fact, when Dr. Jaris was asked whether he believed that there might be some of the
aforementioned consequences might occur based on the transaction participants inability to
forecast all possible contingencies, he responded that it “would be more than reasonable to say
yes” (personal communication, January 9, 2014).

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 96
Recommendations for Further Research
In today‟s increasingly competitive global landscape, it is imperative for educators at
LAUSD and Sunshine Academy High School to insure that students possess requisite
foundational knowledge to be college prepared and career ready. Outsourced contractural
relationships to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency, like ALEKS, may be the gateway to
increased student achievement. However, LAUSD district senior personnel and school site
leadership might consider lowering transcaction costs through improved efficiency. These
efficiencies may take shape at the district level through initial contract negotiations which
specifically emphasize cognitive future contengies that directly affect classroom performance
and which ultimately reduce the numbers of 9
th
grade students failing Algebra 1. At the site
level, adequate planning and buy-in from certified math teachers administering ALEKS may
minimize a surge in transaction costs based on shortages or non-transferability of site licenses.
Consequently, the results of this study uncovered a variety of recommendations for future
research may include the following research questions:
 What interdisciplinary constructs might be combined with Transaction Cost Economics
(TCE) to improve the cognitive processes associated with educational outsourcing
decisions?
Ideas may include an educational outsourcing study using Flow Theory.
 What research tools are available to measure LAUSD 9
th
grade students‟ actual
performance in Algebra 1 with their potential performance using ALEKS software?
Ideas may include a gap analysis study using 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students at LAUSD.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 97
Summary
Algebra 1 is a gatekeeper and students that lack requisite proficiency and foundational
knowledge may be at risk of failure. These students may be unable to score at a proficient level
in Math on the CST (California Standards Tests) or pass the CAHSEE (California High School
Exit Exam). These students may drop out of high school and be relegated to low paying jobs.
This problem has grave and far-reaching implications because students who are unable to
perform “essential life skills” may be unmotivated to reach their highest potential or fall prey to
an apathetic culture has no confidence in a students‟ ability to learn. It is incumbent on LAUSD
educators to embrace the notion that “all students can learn” and insure that students are
equipped to meet the demands of an increasingly competitive global marketplace. Moreover, all
LAUSD schools should be places where students are introduced to “intentional teaching”
(Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), disciplined to critically think, prepared to effectively
communicate, fortified with tools to succeed in postsecondary education (albeit university or
vocational training), and ideally become conscientious and contributing members of our society.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 98
References
ALEKS Implementation Strategies. (2013a). Retrieved December 30, 2013, from
http://www.aleks.com/k12/implementations/popup?_form_=true&parse_list=h*85&parse
_request=true&cmscache=parse_list:parse_request
ALEKS Quick Start Guide. (2013b). Print.
Anderson, L.W. & Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing: A
revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Addison Wesley
Longman, Inc.
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism,
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500.
Barrus, A. L., Sabo, K. E., Joseph, S. S., Atkinson, R. K., & Perez, R. S. (2011, April).
Evaluating adaptive, computer-based mathematics tutoring systems: A math
improvement and feasibility study. Paper presented at American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barney, J.B. (1990). How a firm‟s capabilities affect boundary decisions, Sloan Management
Review, 40(3), 137-145.
Born, L. & Wilson, D. (2000). Philanthropic support for public education in the southwestern
region: An assay of philanthropy‟s effort to impact school reform in Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, Environmental Scanning Brief, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Washington, D.C.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 99
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the
contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.
California Department of Education. (2012). State accountability report card: Reported using
data from the 2010-11 school year. Sacramento, CA.
California State University. (2012). California High School Academic Performance Reports –
Fall 2012. Retrieved from
http://www.asd.calstate.edu/scripts/hsrem12/hsrem12.idc?campus=193298
California Department of Education. (2013). California standardized testing and reporting
(STAR). Retrieved from http://star.cde.ca.gov/
California High School Exit Exam. (1999). California Education Code (EC) Section 60850(a).
Chouinard, R. & Roy, N. (2008). Changes in high-school students‟ competence beliefs, utility
value and achievement goals in mathematics, British Journal of Educational Psychology,
78, 31–50.
Clark, R.E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research in to results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm, Economica, 4(16), 386-405.
Corbett, Koedinger & Anderson. (1997). Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, Second,
Completely Revised Edition in M. Helander, T. K. Landauer, P. Prabhu (Eds), Elsevier
Science B. V., Chapter 37, pp. 849.874.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper &
Row.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 100
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. & Koester, R. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining
the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, Psychological Bulletin 125(6),
627-668.
Donovan, T. (2008). The importance of algebra for everyone, Focus on Basics, 9(A), 35-38.
Espino-Rodríguez, T. F. & Padrón-Robaina, V. (2006). A review of outsourcing from the
resource-based view of the firm, International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 49-
70.
Everaert, A., Sarens, G., & Rommel, J. (2010). Using transaction cost economics to explain
outsourcing of accounting, Small Business Economics, 35, 93-112. doi 10.1007/s11187-
008-9149-3
Falmagne, J. C., Cosyn, E., Doignon, Thiéry, N. (2006). The assessment of knowledge in theory
and practice, Lecture notes in computer science, (3874), 61-79.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks.
French, M. T., Homer, J. F., & Robins, P. K. (2010). What you do in high school matters: The
effects of high school GPA on educational attainment and labor market earning in
adulthood.
Friedman T. L. & Mandelbaum, M. (2011). That used to be us: How American fell behind in the
world and how we can come back. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research, Qualitative Inquiry,
12(2), 219-245.
Fryer, R. G. (2011). Financial incentives and student achievement: evidence from randomized
trials, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1755-1798.
Glense, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson Education Inc.,
Boston.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 101
Gorski, P. (2008) Peddling poverty for profit: Elements of oppression in Ruby Payne‟s
framework. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(1), 130-148.
Graham, S. & Weiner, B. (2012). Motivation: Past, Present, and Future. In K. R. Harris, S.
Graham & T. Urdan (Eds.). APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol. 1.
Gregory, T. (2011, March). Transaction cost economics and directions for relational
governance. Paper presented at meeting of Southern Association for Information Systems
Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Grenville-Cleave, B. & Boniwell, I. (2012). Surviving or thriving? Do teachers have lower
perceived control and well-being than other professions? Management in Education,
26(1), 3-5.
Gupta, A., Herath, S.K., Mikouiza, N.C. (2005). Outsourcing in higher education: An empirical
examination, International Journal of Educational Management 19(5), 396-412.
Hagerty, G. & Smith, S. (2005). Using the web-based interactive software ALEKS to enhance
college, Mathematics and Computer Education, 39(3), 183.
Hanushek, E. A. (2009). The economic value of education and cognitive skills. In Gary Sykes,
Barbara Schneider and David N. Plank (eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Research
(pp. 39-56). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., & Woessmann, L. (2011). Teaching math to the talented.
Education Next, 11(1), 10-18.
Hardt, Ł. (2009). The history of transaction cost economics and its recent developments,
Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 2(1), 29-51.
Jackson, G. (1975). The research evidence on the effects of grade retention. Review of
Educational Research, 45, 613-635.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 102
Jackson, S. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Flow in Sports: The Keys to Optimal Experiences
and Performances. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jerald, C. D. (2009). Defining a 21st Century Education. Center for Public Education. Retrieved
from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Learn-About/21st-Century.
Jiang, A. & Qureshi, B. (2006). Research on outsourcing results: Current literature and future
opportunities. Management Decision,44(1), 44-55.
Jimerson, S.R. (1999). On the failure of failure: Examining the association between early grade
retention and education and employment outcomes during late adolescence. Journal of
Psychology, 37, 243-272.
Jimerson, S.R., & Kaufman, A.M. (2003). Reading, writing, and retention: A primer on grade
retention research. The Reading Teacher, 56(7), 622-635.
Jobin, D. (2008). A transaction cost-based approach to partnership performance evaluation,
Evaluation, 14(4), 427-465.
Johnson, D. (2012). The classroom teacher’s technology survival guide. San Francisco: John
Wiley and Sons.
Katz, M. (1971). Class, bureaucracy, and schools: The illusion of educational change in
America. New York: Praeger.
Kuhn, M. & Dempsey, K. (2011). End the math wars. Learning & Leading with Technology,1,
18-21.
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, p. 63.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 103
Lopez, G. R., (2003). The racially neutral politics in education: A critical race theory
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68-94.
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2013). Retrieved from
http://home.lausd.net/pdf/superintendent/PerformanceMeterOverview_August2012.pdf
Macher, J. & Richman, B. (2008). Transaction cost economics: An assessment of empirical
research in social sciences, Business and Politics, 10(1), 1-63.
MacNeill, N. & Cavanagh, R. (2013). The possible misfit of Csikszentmihalyi‟s dimensions of
flow in the contemporary role of school leaders, Management in Education, 27(1), 7-13.
doi: 10.1177/0892020612459288
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage Publications,
Inc., Thousand Oaks.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
McClowry, S.G., Snow, D.L., Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., Rodriguez, E.T. (2010). Testing the
efficacy of INSIGHTS on student disruptive behavior, classroom management, and
student competence, School Mental Health, 2, 23-35.
Merriam, S.B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Josey-Bass,
Inc., San Francisco.
Milgrom, P. & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization and management. Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey.
Moe, T. (1990). „The Politics of Structural Choices: Toward a Theory of Public Bureaucracy‟, in
Oliver Williamson (ed.) Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard to the Present and
Beyond, pp. 116-153. New York: Oxford University Press.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 104
Murphy, P.K & Alexander, P.A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology,
Contemporary Educational Psycology,25, 3-53.
Patrick, H., Mantzicopoulous, P., & Sears, D. (2102). Effective Classrooms (443-469). In K. R.
Harris, S. Graham & T. Urdan (Eds.). APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol. 1.
Nagaoka, J. & Roderick, M. (2004). Ending social promotion: The effects of retention. Charting
Reform in Chicago. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Nagpal, P. (2004). Use of Transaction Cost Economics Framework to Study Information
Technology Sourcing: Over-Application or Under-Theorizing? Case Western Reserve
University, USA . Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 4(6).
http://sprouts.aisnet.org/4-6
National Association of School Psychologists. (2011). Grade retention and social promotion
(Position Statement). Bethesda, MD: Author.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved February 16, 2013 from http:// www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html
Oakes, J., Wells, S., Makega, J., & Datnow, A. (1997). Detracking: The social promotion of
ability, cultural politics and resistance to reform. Teachers College Record, 98, 482-510.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66, 543-578.
Porter, R. H. & Zona, J. D. (1999). Ohio school milk markets: An analysis of bidding, The
RAND Journal of Economics, 30(2), 263-288.
Powell, W.W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organizations, Research
in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336.
Presby, L. (2011). Utilizing an Intelligent Tutoring System In Lieu of Teaching to the Fat Part of
the Curve, The Business Review Cambridge 18(2), 30-36.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 105
Putney, L. G., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Developing collective classroom efficacy: The
teacher's role as community organizer, Journal of Teacher Education, 62(1), 93-105.
Rau, S. (2007). Outsourcing: Success or failure? The role of transaction characteristics and
management control (Master‟s Thesis). Retrieved February 15, 2013 from
http://arno.unimaas.nl/show.cgi?fid=12164 (ID: i248622)
Rev.com, Inc. (2013)
Roderick, M., Jacob, B., & Bryk, A. (2003). The impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on
student achievement in promotion gate grades. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 24, 333-357.
Rodrigo, M. T. (2011). Dynamics of cognitive-affective transitions during a mathematics game,
Simulation & Gaming, 42(1), 85-99.
Rose, H., & Betts, J. R. (2004). The effects of high school courses on earnings. Review of
Economics.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Sandel, M. J. (2012). What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. New York: Farrar,
Straus, and Giroux.
Schnase, J. L., & Cunnius, E. L. (Eds.). (1995). Proceedings from CSCL '95: The First
International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Schunk, D.H, Pintrich, P.R., & Meece, J.L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, &
application. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Spring, J. (2009). Globalization of education: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 106
Stecher, B. & Kirby, S.N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for
education from other sectors (pp. 1-7). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved
November 14, 2005, retrieved from http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG136.
Stillson, H. & Alsup, J. (2003). Smart ALEKS or not? Teaching basic algebra using an online
interactive learning system, Mathematics and Computer Education, 37(3), 329.
Stillson, H. & Parthasarathi, N. (2009). ALEKS and Mathxl: Using online interactive systems to
enhance a rem, Mathematics and Computer Education, 43(3), 239.
SurveyMonkey (2013). Retrieved from http://www.surveymonkey.com
Tadelis, S. & Williamson, O. (2012). Transaction cost economics. In Gibbons R. & Roberts, J.
(Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Economics, Princeton University Press
(forthcoming).
Taylor, L. & Parsons, J. (2011). Improving Student Engagement, Current Issues in Education,
14(1).
Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative
research, Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.
Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Taking responsibility for ending social promotion: A
guide for educators and state and local leaders. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Weber, L. & Mayer, K. J. (2010). Expanding the Concept of Bounded Rationality in TCE:
Implications of Perceptual Uncertainty for Hybrid Governance.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 107
Weiss, J. (2010). Organizing school systems for continuous improvement. In Adams, J. E. (Ed.),
Smart money: Using educational resources to accomplish ambitious goals (pp. 109-122).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Wells, A., & Serna, I. (1996). The politics of culture: Understanding local political resistance to
detracking in racially mixed schools. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 93-118.
Williamson, O.E. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. The
Free Press, New York.
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. The
American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548-577. doi: 10.1086/227496
Williamson, O.E. (1999). Public and private bureacracies: A transaction cost economics
perspective, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 15, 306-342.
Williamson, O.E. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead, Journal
of Economic Literature, 38, 595-613.
Williamson, O. E. (2010). Transaction cost economics: The natural progression, Journal
Retailing, 86(3), 215-226.
Whitehead, D. P. (2009). Leadership matters, Childhood Education, 86(1), p. 32b.
Wolf, M. (2010). Visualizing math: How intelligent tutoring technology can math-challenged
students, Educause Quarterly, 33(4). Retrieved from
Yang, C., Wacker, J. G., & Sheu, C. (2012). What makes outsourcing effective? A transaction-
cost economics analysis, International Journal of Production Research, 50(16), 4462-
4476.
Young, M. F., Slota, S., Cutter, B. A., Jalette, F., Mullin, G., Lai, B., Yukhymenko, M. (2012).
Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61-89.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 108
Appendix A
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
LAUSD SUPERIENTENDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CURRICULUM AND
INSTRUCTION
I. Introduction:
Hello, my name is Donna Stewart Lewis and I am a Doctor of Education candidate at the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education gathering data for a qualitative
research case study intended to assess the effectiveness of the contract between LAUSD and the
ALEKS Corporation designed to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency.
During our conversation, I‟m hoping to learn more about the factors that motivated
LAUSD to improve Algebra 1 proficiency, why LAUSD chose the ALEKS Corporation as a
partner to improve math proficiency, what factors lead LAUSD to select the ALEKS software
system as the strongly suggested Algebra 1 intervention strategy, and what factors lead Sunshine
Academy High School to select ALEKS as a mathematics intervention two years prior to the
LAUSD strongly suggested intervention policy.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential and I will not
identify you by name in this study. Please note that this study has been approved by the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board to ensure that the process will be
sensitive to your privacy and safety. For further information or inquiries, please contact the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education or my dissertation chair - Dr.
Guilbert Hentschke at ghentsch@usc.edu.
I would like to tape record our conversation (which should take approximately 60
minutes) in order to have an accurate record of the details. Would that be okay? Do you have
any questions before we begin?
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 109
II. Background:
Before I ask you specific questions about the ALEKS software program, I would like to start
by asking you some back questions about your background and LAUSD.
1. What is your current position? How long have you been in your position? What are your
responsibilities/duties? What was your prior experience and training?
2. To get a sense of LAUSD, how many students does it serve? How many current 9
th
grade
students? How many 10
th
grade students?
3. How many 9
th
grade students are enrolled in the Algebra 1 ALEKS intervention program?
III. Factors Motivating Improvement:
Let‟s shift gears and talk more specifically about 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency.
1. What factors motivated LAUSD to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency? Why?
2. How were those factors connected to CAHSEE passage rates?
3. Were any of those factors linked to concerns about overall student success (e.g. college
admission, career choice, self-efficacy)?
4. What LASUD personnel were involved in the discussion?
IV. Factors Leading to the Contract with ALEKS:
Since we‟ve already discussed some basic elements that motivated LAUSD to improve 9
th

grade Algebra 1 proficiency, I‟d like to learn more about the contractual process.
1. Although there is an LAUSD Contractor Code of Conduct (See APPENDIX I), what
guidelines are LAUSD employee required to follow prior to, during, and after engaging
in the contractual process?
2. What is the competitive contract bidding process for outsourced instructional services
like the ALEKS artificial intelligence software with LAUSD?
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 110
3. What other artificial intelligence software was considered prior to contracting with the
ALEKS software program to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
4. What other artificial intelligence software vendors have LAUSD used to improve 9
th

grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
5. Why was the ALEKS artificial intelligence software selected among various vendors to
as a mandated intervention to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency? Have there been
budgeting concerns from high school principals about the cost of individual site licenses
(SEE APPENDIX H)?
6. What were the terms of the contract between LAUSD and the ALEKS artificial
intelligence software vendor?
V. Implementation of ALEKS:
Since we‟ve discussed the contractual process, now I‟m interested to learning more about
how the mandated intervention of ALEKS artificial intelligence software was implemented.
1. Once the mandated intervention was transmitted via LAUSD Memorandum 5419.0 (See
APPENDIX H) on March 1, 2011, what was the timeline for district-wide
implementation of the ALEKS artificial intelligence software in 9
th
grade Algebra 1
classrooms?
2. What type of training was needed for certified mathematics teachers to administer the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software?
3. What was the anticipated learning curve for 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students to participate in
the ALEKS artificial intelligence software?

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 111
VI. Reflections:
The last set of questions focus on the lessons you‟ve learned from the implementation of the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency at LAUSD.
1. Did LAUSD solicit the experiences of other school districts that have implemented
similar types of mandatory district-wide mathematics intervention strategies? What were
those experiences?
2. What are some lessons learned that LAUSD might share with other school districts that
may be interested in implementing similar types of mandatory district-wide mathematics
intervention strategies?
3. What measures is LAUSD using to gauge the success of the ALEKS artificial
intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
VII. Document Collection
Does LAUSD have any documents that address the planning, process, and
implementation of the ALEKS artificial intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1
proficiency (including the ALEKS Corporation contract, LAUSD Employee Code of Conduct,
memorandums, strategic plan, business plan)? If so, may I have copies?
VIII. Closing
Thank you so much for your time. May I call and/or email you if I have any additional
questions throughout the course of my study? Are there any additional contacts that may provide
insight for my study? May I have their names and contact information (phone number and email
address)? Have a wonderful day.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 112
Appendix B
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
LAUSD DIRECTOR OF K-12 INSTRUCTION
I. Introduction:
Hello, my name is Donna Stewart Lewis and I am a Doctor of Education candidate at the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education gathering data for a qualitative
research case study intended to assess the effectiveness of the contract between LAUSD and the
ALEKS Corporation designed to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency.
During our conversation, I‟m hoping to learn more about the factors that motivated
LAUSD to improve Algebra 1 proficiency, why LAUSD chose the ALEKS Corporation as a
partner to improve math proficiency, and what factors lead LAUSD to select the ALEKS
software system as the mandatory Algebra 1 intervention strategy.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential and I will not
identify you by name in this study. Please note that this study has been approved by the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board to ensure that the process will be
sensitive to your privacy and safety. For further information or inquiries, please contact the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education or my dissertation chair - Dr.
Guilbert Hentschke at ghentsch@usc.edu.
I would like to tape record our conversation (which should take approximately 60
minutes) in order to have an accurate record of the details. Would that be okay? Do you have
any questions before we begin?
II. Background:
Before I ask you specific questions about the ALEKS software program, I would like to start
by asking you some back questions about your background and LAUSD.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 113
1. What is your current position? How long have you been in your position? What are your
responsibilities/duties? What was your prior experience and training?
2. To get a sense of LAUSD, how many students does it serve? How many current 9
th
grade
students? How many 10
th
grade students?
3. How many 9
th
grade students are enrolled in the Algebra 1 ALEKS intervention program?
III. Factors Motivating Improvement:
Let‟s shift gears and talk more specifically about 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency.
1. What factors motivated LAUSD to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency? Why?
2. How were those factors connected to CAHSEE passage rates?
3. Were any of those factors linked to concerns about overall student success (e.g. college
admission, career choice, self-efficacy)?
4. What LASUD personnel were involved in the discussion?
IV. Factors Leading to the Contract with ALEKS:
Since we‟ve already discussed some basic elements that motivated LAUSD to improve 9
th

grade Algebra 1 proficiency, I‟d like to learn more about the contractual process.
1. Although there is an LAUSD Contractor Code of Conduct (See APPENDIX I), what
guidelines are LAUSD employee required to follow prior to, during, and after engaging
in the contractual process?
2. What is the competitive contract bidding process for outsourced instructional services
like the ALEKS artificial intelligence software with LAUSD?
3. What other artificial intelligence software was considered prior to contracting with the
ALEKS software program to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 114
4. What other artificial intelligence software vendors have LAUSD used to improve 9
th

grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
5. Why was the ALEKS artificial intelligence software selected among various vendors to
as a mandated intervention to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency? Have there been
budgeting concerns from high school principals about the cost of individual site licenses
(SEE APPENDIX G)?
6. What were the terms of the contract between LAUSD and the ALEKS artificial
intelligence software vendor?
V. Implementation of ALEKS:
Since we‟ve discussed the contractual process, now I‟m interested to learning more about
how the mandated intervention of ALEKS artificial intelligence software was implemented.
1. Once the mandated intervention was transmitted via LAUSD Memorandum 5419.0 (See
APPENDIX G) on March 1, 2011, what was the timeline for district-wide
implementation of the ALEKS artificial intelligence software in 9
th
grade Algebra 1
classrooms?
2. What type of training was needed for certified mathematics teachers to administer the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software?
3. What was the anticipated learning curve for 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students to participate in
the ALEKS artificial intelligence software?
VI. Reflections:
The last set of questions focus on the lessons you‟ve learned from the implementation of the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency at LAUSD.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 115
1. Did LAUSD solicit the experiences of other school districts that have implemented
similar types of mandatory district-wide mathematics intervention strategies? What were
those experiences?
2. What are some lessons learned that LAUSD might share with other school districts that
may be interested in implementing similar types of mandatory district-wide mathematics
intervention strategies?
3. What measures is LAUSD using to gauge the success of the ALEKS artificial
intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
VII. Document Collection
Does LAUSD have any documents that address the planning, process, and
implementation of the ALEKS artificial intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1
proficiency (including the ALEKS Corporation contract, LAUSD Employee Code of Conduct,
memorandums, strategic plan, business plan)? If so, may I have copies?
VIII. Closing
Thank you so much for your time. May I call and/or email you if I have any additional
questions throughout the course of my study? Are there any additional contacts that may provide
insight for my study? May I have their names and contact information (phone number and email
address)? Have a wonderful day.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 116
Appendix C
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
LAUSD COORDINATOR OF SECONDARY MATHEMATICS
I. Introduction:
Hello, my name is Donna Stewart Lewis and I am a Doctor of Education candidate at the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education gathering data for a qualitative
research case study intended to assess the effectiveness of the contract between LAUSD and the
ALEKS Corporation designed to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency.
During our conversation, I‟m hoping to learn more about the factors that motivated
LAUSD to improve Algebra 1 proficiency, why LAUSD chose the ALEKS Corporation as a
partner to improve math proficiency, and what factors lead LAUSD to select the ALEKS
software system as the mandatory Algebra 1 intervention strategy.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential and I will not
identify you by name in this study. Please note that this study has been approved by the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board to ensure that the process will be
sensitive to your privacy and safety. For further information or inquiries, please contact the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education or my dissertation chair - Dr.
Guilbert Hentschke at ghentsch@usc.edu.
I would like to tape record our conversation (which should take approximately 60
minutes) in order to have an accurate record of the details. Would that be okay? Do you have
any questions before we begin?
II. Background:
Before I ask you specific questions about the ALEKS software program, I would like to start
by asking you some back questions about your background and LAUSD.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 117
4. What is your current position? How long have you been in your position? What are your
responsibilities/duties? What was your prior experience and training?
5. To get a sense of LAUSD, how many students does it serve? How many current 9
th
grade
students? How many 10
th
grade students?
6. How many 9
th
grade students are enrolled in the Algebra 1 ALEKS intervention program?
III. Factors Motivating Improvement:
Let‟s shift gears and talk more specifically about 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency.
5. What factors motivated LAUSD to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency? Why?
6. How were those factors connected to CAHSEE passage rates?
7. Were any of those factors linked to concerns about overall student success (e.g. college
admission, career choice, self-efficacy)?
8. What LASUD personnel were involved in the discussion?
IV. Factors Leading to the Contract with ALEKS:
Since we‟ve already discussed some basic elements that motivated LAUSD to improve 9
th

grade Algebra 1 proficiency, I‟d like to learn more about the contractual process.
7. Although there is an LAUSD Contractor Code of Conduct (See APPENDIX I), what
guidelines are LAUSD employee required to follow prior to, during, and after engaging
in the contractual process?
8. What is the competitive contract bidding process for outsourced instructional services
like the ALEKS artificial intelligence software with LAUSD?
9. What other artificial intelligence software was considered prior to contracting with the
ALEKS software program to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 118
10. What other artificial intelligence software vendors have LAUSD used to improve 9
th

grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
11. Why was the ALEKS artificial intelligence software selected among various vendors to
as a mandated intervention to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency? Have there been
budgeting concerns from high school principals about the cost of individual site licenses
(SEE APPENDIX G)?
12. What were the terms of the contract between LAUSD and the ALEKS artificial
intelligence software vendor?
V. Implementation of ALEKS:
Since we‟ve discussed the contractual process, now I‟m interested to learning more about
how the mandated intervention of ALEKS artificial intelligence software was implemented.
4. Once the mandated intervention was transmitted via LAUSD Memorandum 5419.0 (See
APPENDIX G) on March 1, 2011, what was the timeline for district-wide
implementation of the ALEKS artificial intelligence software in 9
th
grade Algebra 1
classrooms?
5. What type of training was needed for certified mathematics teachers to administer the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software?
6. What was the anticipated learning curve for 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students to participate in
the ALEKS artificial intelligence software?
VI. Reflections:
The last set of questions focus on the lessons you‟ve learned from the implementation of the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency at LAUSD.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 119
4. Did LAUSD solicit the experiences of other school districts that have implemented
similar types of mandatory district-wide mathematics intervention strategies? What were
those experiences?
5. What are some lessons learned that LAUSD might share with other school districts that
may be interested in implementing similar types of mandatory district-wide mathematics
intervention strategies?
6. What measures is LAUSD using to gauge the success of the ALEKS artificial
intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
VII. Document Collection
Does LAUSD have any documents that address the planning, process, and
implementation of the ALEKS artificial intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1
proficiency (including the ALEKS Corporation contract, LAUSD Employee Code of Conduct,
memorandums, strategic plan, business plan)? If so, may I have copies?
VIII. Closing
Thank you so much for your time. May I call and/or email you if I have any additional
questions throughout the course of my study? Are there any additional contacts that may provide
insight for my study? May I have their names and contact information (phone number and email
address)? Have a wonderful day.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 120
Appendix D
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
SUNSHINE ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPAL
I. Introduction:
Hello, my name is Donna Stewart Lewis and I am a Doctor of Education candidate at the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education gathering data for a qualitative
research case study intended to assess the effectiveness of the contract between LAUSD and the
ALEKS Corporation designed to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency.
During our conversation, I‟m hoping to learn more about the factors that lead to
Sunshine Academy High School to select the ALEKS site license from LAUSD to improve
Algebra 1 proficiency two years prior to the mandated intervention policy and 10
th
grade
CAHSEE Math passage rates.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential and I will not
identify you by name in this study. Please note that this study has been approved by the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board to ensure that the process will be
sensitive to your privacy and safety. For further information or inquiries, please contact the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education or my dissertation chair - Dr.
Guilbert Hentschke at ghentsch@usc.edu.
I would like to tape record our conversation (which should take approximately 60
minutes) in order to have an accurate record of the details. Would that be okay? Do you have
any questions before we begin?
II. Background:
Before I ask you specific questions about the ALEKS software program, I would like to start
by asking you some back questions about your background and LAUSD.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 121
1. What is your current position? How long have you been in your position? What are your
responsibilities/duties? What was your prior experience and training?
2. To get a sense of the Sunshine Academy High School, how many total students does it
serve? How many current 9
th
grade students? How many 10
th
grade students?
3. How many 9
th
grade students are enrolled in the Algebra 1 ALEKS intervention program?
How many 10
th
grade students are enrolled in ALEKS as CAHSEE preparation?
II. Implementation of ALEKS:
Although LAUSD mandated the ALEKS intervention for 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students on
March 1, 2011 through LAUSD Memorandum 5419.0 (See APPENDIX G), Sunshine Academy
High School selected ALEKS for intervention during the 2009-2010 academic year – (two years
prior to LAUSD mandatory intervention).
1. What were the factors that motivated Sunshine Academy High School to select the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software from a variety of programs available from
LAUSD?
2. What school site personnel were involved in the decision making process?
3. What type of training from LAUSD was offered to certified mathematics teachers at
Sunshine Academy High School in order to administer the ALEKS artificial intelligence
software?
4. What was the anticipated learning curve for 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students at Sunshine
Academy High School to participate in the ALEKS artificial intelligence software?
III. Reflections:
The last set of questions focus on the lessons you‟ve learned from the implementation of the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency at LAUSD.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 122
1. Did the Sunshine Academy High School solicit the experiences of other school high
schools that have implemented similar types of mathematics intervention strategies?
What were those experiences?
2. What are some lessons learned that the Sunshine Academy High School might share with
other high schools that may be interested in implementing similar types of mandatory
district-wide mathematics intervention strategies?
3. What measures is Sunshine Academy High School using to gauge the success of the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
IV. Document Collection
Does the Sunshine Academy High School have any documents that address the planning,
process, and implementation of the ALEKS artificial intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade
Algebra 1 proficiency (including the ALEKS Corporation site license, memorandums, strategic
plan, business plan, CST math scores, CAHSEE math scores)? If so, may I have copies?
V. Closing
Thank you so much for your time. May I call and/or email you if I have any additional
questions throughout the course of my study? Are there any additional contacts that may provide
insight for my study? May I have their names and contact information (phone number and email
address)? Have a wonderful day.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 123
Appendix E
SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
CERTIFIED MATHEMATICS TEACHERS OF ALEKS INSTRUCTION AT SUNSHINE
ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL
I. Introduction:
Hello, my name is Donna Stewart Lewis and I am a Doctor of Education candidate at the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education gathering data for a qualitative
research case study intended to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the ALEKS artificial
intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency at LAUSD. During our
conversation, I‟m hoping to learn more about the factors that lead to Sunshine Academy High
School selecting the ALEKS site license from LAUSD to improve Algebra 1 proficiency two
years prior to the mandated intervention policy and 10
th
grade CAHSEE Math passage rates.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential and I will not
identify you by name in this study. Please note that this study has been approved by the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board to ensure that the process will be
sensitive to your privacy and safety. For further information or inquiries, please contact the
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education or my dissertation chair - Dr.
Guilbert Hentschke at ghentsch@usc.edu.
I would like to tape record our conversation (which should take approximately 60
minutes) in order to have an accurate record of the details. Would that be okay? Do you have
any questions before we begin?
II. Background:
Before I ask you specific questions about the ALEKS software program, I would like to start
by asking you some back questions about your background and LAUSD.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 124
1. What is your current position? How long have you been in your position? What are your
responsibilities/duties? What was your prior experience and training?
2. To get a sense of your role at Sunshine Academy High School, how many total students
do you serve? How many current 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students do you serve? How many
10
th
grade CAHSEE preparation students do you serve?
3. How many 9
th
grade students are enrolled in your Algebra 1 ALEKS intervention
program? How many 10
th
grade students are enrolled in ALEKS as CAHSEE
preparation?
II. Implementation of ALEKS:
Although LAUSD mandated the ALEKS intervention for 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students on
March 1, 2011 through LAUSD Memorandum 5419.0 (See APPENDIX G), Sunshine Academy
High School selected ALEKS for intervention during the 2009-2010 academic year – two years
prior to LAUSD.
1. Are you aware of the factors that motivated Sunshine Academy High School to select the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software from a variety of programs available from
LAUSD?
2. Were you part of the school site personnel who was involved in the decision making
process to select ALEKS prior to the mandatory intervention by LAUSD?
3. What type of training did you receive from LAUSD in order to administer the ALEKS
artificial intelligence software? How long did it take you to become proficient in
administering ALEKS?
4. What was the anticipated learning curve for 9
th
grade Algebra 1 students at Sunshine
Academy High School to participate in the ALEKS artificial intelligence software? In
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 125
your experience, what has been the actual learning curve for students participating in the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software?
III. Reflections:
The last set of questions focus on the lessons you‟ve learned from the implementation of the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency at LAUSD.
1. Did you solicit the experiences of other certified mathematics high school teachers that
have been involved in the implementation similar types of mathematics intervention
strategies? What were those experiences?
2. What are some lessons learned you‟ve learned that you might share with other certified
mathematic high school teachers that may be interested in implementing similar types of
mandatory district-wide mathematics intervention strategies?
3. What measures do you or your Mathematics department use to gauge the success of the
ALEKS artificial intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade Algebra 1 proficiency?
IV. Document Collection
Does the Sunshine Academy High School have any documents that address the planning,
process, and implementation of the ALEKS artificial intelligence software to improve 9
th
grade
Algebra 1 proficiency (including the ALEKS Corporation site license, memorandums, strategic
plan, business plan)? If so, may I have copies?
V. Closing
Thank you so much for your time. May I call and/or email you if I have any additional
questions throughout the course of my study? Are there any additional contacts that may provide
insight for my study? May I have their names and contact information (phone number and email
address)? Have a wonderful day.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 126
Appendix F
ALEKS Math Intervention Lab Observation Protocol
School Data
School District:
School Name:
Name of Principal:
Name of Teacher Observed:
Date of Observation:
Grade Level:
Subject:
Number of Students:
Observation Schedule
Pre-Observation Conference:
Lab Observation Session:
Name of Observer Date Time of Class Observation

Location Site Visit/Study

Brief Summary of Lab Observation

Physical Space
Define the physical space:
 Geographical
 Temporal
 Physical
 Political

Utility: What is the purpose of the
setting?

Participant reactions to the physical
setting.

Participants
Who are the participants taking place
in the observation? How many
participated?

Demographical information:
 Racial
 Ethnic
 Gender
 Class

What are the roles of those being
observed? How do you know?

What was each of the specific
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 127
participants doing?
 Group interaction
 Individual actions
 Passive participants
 Active participants
Purpose of Site Visit/Observation
What was the purpose of the site visit?
Are there any political contexts to be
discussed?

Was there any discussion of
educational policy? Why? How so?
What are the positions of participants
involved?
 Power dynamics
 Roles

Sequence of Class Observation Events
Beginning
Middle
End
Observer Role
What am I doing? What is my role
throughout the observation?

Describe some of my interactions with
other participants throughout the
observation.

How did my interaction/presence
affect the observation participants?

Other

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 128
Appendix G
LAUSD MEMORANDUM

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM

MEM-5419.0
Office of Curriculum, Instruction and School Support Page 1 of 3 March 01, 2011

TITLE: Mathematics Intervention Programs for 9th
Grade Students Enrolled in Algebra 1
NUMBER: MEM-5419.0

ISSUER: Judy Elliott, Chief Academic Officer,
Office of Curriculum, Instruction and School
Support

DATE: March 01, 2011
ROUTING:
All Offices
Local District Superintendents
Administrators of Instruction
Local District Directors
Principals
Mathematics Department Chairs,
Coaches and Teachers
PreK-12 Counseling Coordinators,
Counselors
APSCS

PURPOSE: The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide information to schools about the
9
th
grade mathematics intervention program for students enrolled in the core
Algebra 1 class.

MAJOR
CHANGES:

Major changes for the Mathematics Intervention Programs for 9th Grade Students
Enrolled in Algebra 1 include:

1. Revisions in mathematics intervention program implementation for 2011-
2012 and thereafter
2. Mathematics intervention class to be taught by mathematics credentialed
teachers

BACKGROUND In the 2009-10 school year 57.2% of 9th grade students received a D or a Fail in
Algebra 1A in the fall semester. Similarly 57.6% of Grade 9 students received a
grade of D or Fail in Algebra 1B in 2009-2010 school year.

Source: LAUSD myData

The five-year Algebra 1 CST results for all LAUSD 9th grade students are
summarized in the table below:
Algebra 1
CST
# students % Adv % Prof % Basic % BB % FBB
2009-2010 31,138 1 10 19 43 27
2008-2009 34,731 1 9 18 41 30
2007-2008 35,558 1 8 19 47 25
2006-2007 33,598 1 8 19 44 29
2005-2006 34,136 1 7 18 43 31
Source: CDE website, http://star.cde.ca.gov/

These data suggest that students taking Algebra 1 in the 9th Grade need
immediate intervention and support at the start of the school year.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 129

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM

MEM-5419.0
Office of Curriculum, Instruction and School Support Page 2 of 3 March 01, 2011

INSTRUCTIONS:

In order to provide immediate and on time intervention for the students who did
not make progress in mathematics in 8
th
grade, this memorandum provides the
direction for assisting schools as they design their master schedules for the 2011-
12 academic year to include a second supporting mathematics classes for
identified students.

Student identification for the intervention program
All ninth-grade students, including students with disabilities served in a special
day class, who took Algebra Readiness in the 8th grade and received a D or Fail,
and scored less than 15 out of 30 (50%) on the LAUSD 8th Grade Mathematics
Diagnostic Assessment administered in Spring 2010, must be enrolled in a second
elective mathematics class(Math Tutorial Lab). Additionally, all students who
took Algebra 1 in the 8
th
grade and received a D or Fail, and received an FBB or
BB on the 7th Grade CST examination must be enrolled in a second elective
mathematics class (Math Tutorial Lab). Schools may enroll additional students in
intervention classes as needed.

Class schedule for the intervention program
Intervention is during the school day and will take the form of a second
mathematics class in addition to the core Algebra 1 class (See table below).

Traditional Bell Schedule
Fall Semester Spring Semester
Algebra 1A (310301) Algebra 1B (310302) Core +
Elective Class Math Tutorial Lab HS A
(310221)
Math Tutorial Lab HS B
(310222)

For schools utilizing a block bell schedule, there are a variety of programming
options which can be used to differentiate by the level of student need:

Block bell schedule
Fall Semester Spring Semester

Mester 1 Mester 2 Mester 3 Mester 4
Core +
Elective
Class
Math Tutorial
Lab HS A
(310221)
Algebra 1A
(310301)
Algebra 1B
(310302)
Math Tutorial
Lab HS B
(310222)
Core +
Elective
Class
Math Tutorial
Lab HS A
(310221)
Algebra 1A
(310301)
Math Tutorial
Lab HS B
(310222)
Algebra 1B
(310302)
Core +
Elective
Class
Math Tutorial
Lab HS A
(310221)
Math Tutorial
Lab HS B
(310222)
Algebra 1A
(310301)
Algebra 1B
(310302)

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 130

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
MEMORANDUM

MEM-5419.0
Office of Curriculum, Instruction and School Support Page 3 of 3 March 01, 2011

Program Materials for Math Tutorial Lab: Refer to Attachment A to see a list
of program materials for Math Tutorial Lab.

Teachers for the intervention program
Mathematics credentialed teacher will teach the intervention class using the
computer-based ALEKS program. Also for mathematics intervention class using
materials other than ALEKS, the school must assign a credentialed mathematics
teacher to the class.

Grading of students in the intervention program
A student’s grade in the intervention class should reflect progress made in the
intervention program, not proficiency in the Core Mathematics class.

Credits for students enrolled in the intervention program
Students will receive 5 elective credits for one semester of Math Tutorial Lab HS
A, and 5 elective credits for one semester of Math Tutorial Lab HS B.

RELATED
RESOURCES:
MEMO 5409.0 Guidelines for the implementation of the LAUSD Mathematics
Diagnostic Assessments in Grades 5 and 8.
ASSISTANCE: For questions regarding this information, please contact Shirley Guzman, Philip
Ogbuehi, or Caroline Piangerelli at the Pre-K-12 Mathematics Branch of the
Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and School Support at (213) 241-6444 or by
email at shirley.guzman@lausd.net, philip.ogbuehi@lausd.net, or
caroline.piangerelli@lausd.net

For ongoing support for the intervention program please visit
http://www.lausd.net/math and choose the INTERVENTION tab on the left of
the screen.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 131
Appendix H
AUSD ORDERING INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALEKS

ATTACHMENT A
Ordering Instructions for ALEKS Software license subscriptions for Math Intervention
What is ALEKS?
Assessment and LEarning in Knowledge Spaces is a Web-based, artificially intelligent assessment and learning
system. ALEKS uses adaptive questioning to quickly and accurately determine exactly what a student knows and
doesn't know in a course. ALEKS then instructs the student on the topics she is most ready to learn. As a student
works through a course, ALEKS periodically reassesses the student to ensure that topics learned are also retained.

How to Order?
Each individual school site shall be responsible for funding and entering a decentralized purchase order known as a
PD BPO in IFS-GUI. When entering a PD BPO, please follow these steps:

1. Starting from the Navigator window, double click on the Business Areas icon to display the various
business areas. Next, click on the Purchase Order (PD/PC/PG) business area. The Decentralized
Purchase Order business function icons appear; double click on the PD - Purchase Order icon.

2. Select NEW for new document. In the Document ID field, type the 3-character Area code, the BPO prefix
followed by the Local District number 1 – 8 (schools) or X (offices), and the # symbol.

3. Follow the usual process of preparing a PD BPO order. For more information visit:
http://notebook.lausd.net/portal/page?_pageid=33,159170&_dad=ptl&_schema=PTL_EP

4. Additional information to use when placing your order:
a. Vendor: ALEKS Corporation (Vendor# 194511)
b. Commodity description: ALEKS Math Intervention License Subscription (include subscription
start date and end date, Example: 7/1/10 to 6/30/11 or 9/1/10 to 6/30/11)
c. Commodity code: Use 7857000000
d. Quantity: Enter the number of student subscription licenses to be purchased
e. Pricing: Use discount code “QALAUSD6/30”
i. For 12 months subscription (year round): $28.00 per student license
ii. For 10 months subscription (traditional): $24.50 per student license

5. Process the PD BPO for approval. If the PD BPO is over $10,000, a second level “review and release” is
needed from the Procurement Management Branch. Please email the PD BPO number and the AREA used
to: psg-contracts@lausd.k12.ca.us or fax a screen print of the PD BPO to: 562-654-9047. Include
“ALEKS” on the subject line and add your name and contact number in case a procurement staff member
needs to reach you for clarification.

6. Conflict of Interest Certification Form. In addition to the above requirements, a BPO Conflict of Interest
Certification form, available at the PSD website at http://psg.lausd.net/ and is required for purchases over
$78,500 (Competitive State Bid Limit). A hierarchy of certification signatures are required prior to “review
and release” by the Local District Office or Purchasing Branch. Please see the Procurement Manual
(http://psg.lausd.net/manual.asp) for more information.

7. Print your BPO and ask the principal to sign it. Fax copies of the PD BPO to ALEKS Corporation, Attn:
Judy Quick; fax: 714-377-7857 or email at: jquick@theschooltechpeople.com. Keep copies of your order
and all supporting documentation (including the Conflict of Interest Certification Form when applicable)
for future audits.

Ordering Period
The ordering period is from May 24, 10 through June 30, 2010 to receive the pricing specified above.

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 132
Appendix I
LAUSD CONTRACTOR CODE OF CONDUCT

LAUSD Ethics Office
Building Trust
Inside and Out

www.lausd.net/ethics

Ask Ethics: (213) 241-3330

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Contractor Code of Conduct
Adopted: 12/00; Revised: 11/02, 11/06
Preamble
Los Angeles Unified School District ’s Contractor Code of Conduct was adopted to enhance public trust and confidence in
the integrity of LAUSD ’s decision-making process. This Code is premised on three concepts:
• Ethical and responsible use of scarce public tax dollars is a critical underpinning of effective government
• Contracting integrity and quality of service are the shared responsibilities of LAUSD and our Contractors
• Proactive and transparent management of potential ethics concerns improves public confidence
This Code sets forth the ethical standards and requirements that all Contractors and their Representatives shall
adhere to in their dealings with or on behalf of LAUSD. Failure to meet these standards could result in sanctions
including, but not limited to, voidance of current or future contracts.
1. Contractors
All LAUSD Contractors and their Representatives are expected to conduct any and all business affiliated with LAUSD in
an ethical and responsible manner that fosters integrity and public confidence. A ―Contractor ‖ is any individual,
organization, corporation, sole proprietorship, partnership, nonprofit, joint venture, association, or any combination thereof
that is pursuing or conducting business with and/or on behalf of LAUSD, including, without limitation, consultants,
suppliers, manufacturers, and any other vendors, bidders or proposers. A Contractor ’s ―Representative ‖ is also broadly
defined to include any subcontractors, employees, agents, or anyone else who acts on a Contractor ’s behalf.
2. Mission Support
LAUSD relies on Contractors and their Representatives to support our LAUSD mission statement of ―educating students
to a higher level of achievement that will enable them to be responsible individuals and productive members of the greater
society. ‖ Contractors and their Representatives must provide high-value products, services and expertise which advance
LAUSD ’s mission or provide mission-related benefits that support our goals for the students, employees, stakeholders,
and the communities we serve.
3. Ethical Responsibilities
All LAUSD contracts must be developed and maintained within an ethical framework. LAUSD seeks to promote public
trust and confidence in our contracting relationships and we expect every individual, regardless of position or level of
responsibility, who is associated with an LAUSD procurement process or contract, to commit to exemplifying high
standards of conduct in all phases of any relationship with LAUSD.
Given that the business practices and actions of Contractors and their Representatives may impact or reflect upon
LAUSD, strict observance with the standards in this Code, all applicable local, state and federal laws, and any other
governing LAUSD policies or agreements is not only a minimum requirement for all Contractors and their
Representatives, but an ethical obligation as well.
In addition to any specific obligations under a Contractor ’s agreement with LAUSD, all Contractors and their
Representatives shall comply with the following requirements:
A. Demonstrate Honesty and Integrity – Contractors shall adhere to the highest standards of honesty and integrity in all
their dealings with and/or on behalf of LAUSD. As a general rule, Contractors must exercise caution and avoid even
the appearance of impropriety or misrepresentation. All communications, proposals, business information, time
records, and any other financial transactions must be provided truthfully, accurately, and completely.
B. Be a Responsible Bidder – Contractors shall demonstrate a record of integrity and business ethics in accordance with
all policies, procedures, and requirements established by LAUSD.
(1) Critical Factors – In considering a Contractor ’s record of integrity and business ethics, LAUSD may consider
factors including, but not limited to: criminal investigations, indictments, injunctions, fines, convictions,
administrative agreements, suspensions or debarments imposed by other governmental agencies, tax
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 133

Los Angeles Unified School District Contractor Code of Conduct
2
delinquencies, settlements, financial solvency, past performance, prior determinations of failure to meet integrity-
related responsibilities, and violations by the Contractor and its Representatives of any LAUSD policies and
Codes in prior procurements and contracts. LAUSD reserves the right to reject any bid, proposal and contract,
and to impose other sanctions against Contractors who fail to comply with our district policies and requirements,
or who violate the prohibitions set forth below in Section 6, Prohibited Activities.

C. Maintain the Cone of Silence – Contractors shall maintain a Cone of Silence during required times of the contracting
process to ensure that the process is shielded from even the appearance of undue influence. Contractors and their
Representatives risk disqualification from consideration and/or other penalties outlined in Section 8, Enforcement
Provisions, if they engage in prohibited communication during the restricted period(s).
(1) Competitive Contracting Process – To ensure a level playing field with an open and uniform competitive
contracting process, Contractors and their Representatives must maintain a Cone of Silence from the time when
an Invitation for Bid (IFB), Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for Interest and Bid (RFIB), Request for Quote,
Request for Qualification, or any other solicitation release is announced until the time a contract award
recommendation is made public by the Board Secretariat ’s posting of the board report for the contract to be
approved. During the time under the Cone of Silence, Contractors and their Representatives are prohibited from
making any contact on any part of a proposal, negotiation or contract with any LAUSD official as this could appear
to be an attempt to curry favor or influence. An ―LAUSD official ‖ is broadly defined to include ―any board member,
employee, consultant or advisory member of LAUSD ‖ who is involved in making recommendations or decisions
for LAUSD.
Schematic of LAUSD ’s Competitive Contracting Process (Illustrative Only)

1.
Solicitation
Announcement
2.
Solicitation
Release

3.
Pre-proposal
Conference
4.
Proposal
Due Date
5.
Evaluation
of Proposals
6.
Negotiations
7.
Notice of
Intent to
Award
8.
Protest
Review*
9.
Public Posting of
Board Report on
Contract to be
Approved
10.
Board Approval
or Ratification
of Contract

Contracting Process
Lobbying in this period may require registration and disclosure in LAUSD ’s Lobbying Disclosure Program, if the triggers are met.
* Note: Protests can sometimes extend past the contract approval process
(a) Prohibited Communication – Examples of prohibited communication by Contractors and their
Representatives under the Cone of Silence include, but are not limited to:
(i) contact of LAUSD Officials, including members of the department initiating a contract, or members who
will serve on an evaluation team for any contract information that is not uniformly available to all other
bidders, proposers or contractors;
(ii) contact of LAUSD Officials, including Board Members and their staff, to lobby on any aspect relating to a
contract matter under consideration, negotiation, protest or dispute;
(iii) contact of LAUSD Officials in the particular department requesting a competitive contract to discuss other
business or partnership opportunities.
(b) Exceptions – The following are exceptions to the Cone of Silence:
(i) open and uniform communications which are made as part of the procurement process such as the pre-
bid or pre-proposal meetings or other exchanges of information which are given to all proposers;
(ii) interviews or presentations to evaluation committee members which are part of the procurement process;
(iii) clarification requests made in writing, under the terms expressly allowed for in an LAUSD contracting
document, to the appropriate designated contract official(s);
(iv) negotiations with LAUSD ’s designated negotiation team members;
(v) protests which follow the process outlined by LAUSD ’s protest policies and procedures; and
(vi) requests for technical assistance approved by LAUSD contract officials (for example questions relating to
LAUSD ’s Small Business Enterprise Program, or requests for formal guidance on ethics matters from the
Ethics Office).
(2) Non-Competitive Contracting Process – To ensure the integrity of the non-competitive contracting process,
Contractors and their Representatives must maintain a Cone of Silence from the time when a proposal is
submitted to LAUSD until the time the contract is fully executed. During this designated time, Contractors and
their Representatives are prohibited from making any contact with LAUSD officials on any of the terms of the
contract under consideration as this could appear to be an attempt to curry improper favor or influence. The only
Cone of Silence
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 134

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 135

Los Angeles Unified School District Contractor Code of Conduct
4
(3) Resolution of Conflicts – When necessary, LAUSD will advise Contractors on how a disclosed conflict should be
managed, mitigated or eliminated. The Contract Sponsor, in consultation with the Procurement Services
Group/Facilities Contracts Branch, the Ethics Office, and the Office of the General Counsel, shall determine
necessary actions to resolve any of the Contractors ’ disclosed conflict(s). When it is determined that a conflict
must be addressed, a written notification will be made to the Contractor, indicating the actions that the Contractor
and LAUSD will need to take to resolve the conflict.
Examples of Managing Potential Conflicts
(4) Rhoda Warrior is a consultant from Global Consulting Firm. She has been assigned by her firm to do work for a
particular LAUSD department. Although she does not directly work with him, her husband, Antonio, is one of the
senior officials in that department.
Global Consulting must disclose this potential problem via a Meaningful Conflict Disclosure to LAUSD.
Depending on the exact nature of her work within that department, Global Consulting and the LAUSD Contract
Sponsor may need to take steps to safeguard Rhoda ’s work from any actual conflict of interest.
(5) Amartya Singh is a HR consultant from the Tip Top Talent Agency whose firm is providing temporary support to
help LAUSD improve its recruitment efforts. Amartya is himself serving as acting deputy director for the HR
division, and in that capacity has been asked to review and approve all bills for the department. In doing his work,
Amartya comes across a bill for the Tip Top Talent Agency which requires approval.
Tip Top Talent Agency must disclose the conflict and work with LAUSD to ensure that someone more senior or
external to Amarty ’s chain-of-command is the one that reviews, evaluates, or approves bills relating to Tip Top
Talent Agency. Even if Amartya decides to quit Tip Top Talent to join LAUSD, he cannot be involved with matters
relating to Tip Top Talent until 12 months have passed from the date he received his last payment from the firm.
(6) Greta Planner is a technology consultant that has been hired to design all the specifications for a group of new
technology labs. One of the services that Greta will be specifying is an automated wireless projection system. As
it turns out, Greta owns direct stock in a firm that manufactures these types of projection systems.
Greta ’s direct stock ownership constitutes a financial interest in that company. She must disclose the potential
conflict right away in writing to the LAUSD Contract Sponsor, so that the appropriate safeguards can be put in
place to prevent any actual conflict.

E. Provide Contracting Excellence – Contractors are expected to deliver high quality, innovative and cost-effective goods
and services to LAUSD, so that the public is served with the best value for its dollars.

F. Promote Ethics Standards – Contractors shall be responsible for ensuring that their Representatives, regardless of
position, understand and comply with the duties and requirements outlined in this Code and to ensure that their
behavior, decisions, and actions demonstrate the letter and spirit of this Code. Contractors may draw upon the
resources provided by LAUSD, including but not limited to those made available by the Ethics Office, the
Procurement Services Group, and the Facilities Contracts Branch. Such training resources and additional
information about LAUSD policies can be found on LAUSD ’s website (www.lausd.net).

G. Seek Advice – Contractors are expected and encouraged to ask questions and seek formal guidance regarding this
Code or other aspects of responsible business conduct from the LAUSD Ethics Office whenever there is a doubt
about how to proceed in an ethical manner. A Contractor ’s proactive management of potential ethics concerns is
necessary and vital since this Code does not seek to address or anticipate all the issues that may arise in the course
of seeking or doing business with LAUSD.
Example of Seeking Advice
(1) Abe Iznismann is President of Accelerated Sciences, a new company that makes supplemental teaching tools in
the sciences. Over the summer, Abe hired Grace Principle, a seasoned LAUSD administrator who now works in
teacher recruitment, to consult with Accelerated Sciences in developing a cutting-edge learning tool. Originally,
the company planned to sell the products only to schools in other states, but now it wants to sell the products in
California and possibly to LAUSD. Abe wants to work with Grace to develop a win-win strategy for offering the
new tools to LAUSD at a discount.
Accelerated Sciences needs to be very careful to ensure that Grace is not involved in any aspect relating to
selling the product to LAUSD, especially since Grace has a financial interest with the firm. Remember, under
California law, the mere existence of a financial interest creates a concern that will cause the good faith of any
acts to be questioned, no matter how conscientious the individuals. Before undertaking any effort to sell to
LAUSD, Abe or another manager at Accelerated Sciences should seek out advice on other safeguarding
measures to ensure that their good intentions do not inadvertently create a bad outcome for the firm or Grace.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 136

Los Angeles Unified School District Contractor Code of Conduct
5
4. Relationship Management
LAUSD expects Contractors and their Representatives to ensure that their business dealings with and/or on behalf of
LAUSD are conducted in a manner that is above reproach.
A. Employ Good Practices – Contractors and their Representatives shall conduct their employment and business
practices in full compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and LAUSD policies, including but not limited to the
following:
(1) Equal Employment Opportunity – Contractors shall ensure that there is no discrimination in hiring due to race,
color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, or disability.
(2) Health and Safety – Contractors shall provide a safe and healthy work environment and fully comply with all
applicable safety and health laws, regulations, and practices.
(3) Drug Free Environment – Contractors shall ensure that there is no manufacture, sale, distribution, possession or
use of illegal drugs or alcohol on LAUSD-owned or leased property.
(4) No Harassment – Contractors shall not engage in any sexual or other harassment, physical or verbal abuse, or
any other form of intimidation.
(5) Sweat-Free Conditions – Contractors shall ensure that no child and/or forced or indentured labor is used in their
supply chain. Contractors shall require that all goods provided to LAUSD are made in compliance with the
governing health, safety and labor laws of the countries of origin. Additionally, Contractors shall ensure that
workers are free from undue risk of physical harm or exploitation and receive a non-poverty wage.
B. Use Resources Responsibly – Contractors and their Representatives shall use LAUSD assets for LAUSD business-
related purposes only unless given written permission for a specific exception by an authorized LAUSD official.
LAUSD assets include: time, property, supplies, services, consumables, equipment, technology, intellectual property,
and information.

C. Protect Confidentiality – Contractors and their Representatives shall protect and maintain confidentiality of the work
and services they provide to LAUSD. All communications and information obtained in the course of seeking or
performing work for LAUSD should be considered confidential. No confidential information relating to LAUSD should
ever be disclosed without express authorization by LAUSD in writing, unless otherwise legally mandated.
D. Guard the LAUSD Affiliation – Contractors and their Representatives shall be cautious of how they portray
their relationship with LAUSD to the Public. Communications on behalf of LAUSD can only be made when
there is express written permission by an LAUSD official authorized by LAUSD ’s Office of General Counsel.
(1) LAUSD Name and Marks – Contractors shall ensure that all statements, illustrations or other materials
using or referencing LAUSD or its marks and logos —including the names and logos of any of our sub-
divisions, and/or any logos created by and for LAUSD —receive advance review and written approval of
the relevant LAUSD division head prior to release or use.
(2) Commercial or Advertising Message – Contractors shall ensure that no commercial or advertising
message, or any other endorsements —express or implied —are suggested or incorporated in any
products, services, enterprises or materials developed for/or relating to LAUSD unless given written
permission to do otherwise by LAUSD ’s Board of Education.
E. Respect Gift Limits – Contractors and their Representatives shall abide by LAUSD ’s gift limits and use good
judgment, discretion and moderation when offering gifts, meals or entertainment or other business courtesies
to LAUSD officials, so that they do not place LAUSD officials in conflict with any specific gift restrictions:
(1) No Contractor or their Representative shall offer, give, or promise to offer or give, directly or indirectly, any
money, gift or gratuity to any LAUSD procurement official at any time.
(2) No Contractor or their Representative shall offer or give, directly or indirectly, any gifts in a calendar year to an
LAUSD Official which exceed LAUSD ’s allowable gift limit.
Example of Respecting Gift Limits
(3) It ’s the holidays and Sue Tienda, a Contractor, wants to take a few LAUSD officials out to lunch and to provide
them with gift baskets as a token of thanks for the work they have done together.
Assuming Sue is not attempting to take out any procurement officials (since they observe a zero tolerance policy
on gifts), Sue needs to respect the Board-established gift limit for LAUSD officials. Sue should also be aware that
giving a gift totaling over $50 in a year to LAUSD officials will create a reporting responsibility for the officials, if
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 137

Los Angeles Unified School District Contractor Code of Conduct
6
they are designated Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest filers. Additionally, if there is a procurement
underway involving Sue or her firm, she should not give gifts to the LAUSD officials who are part of the evaluation
process until the contract is awarded. Finally, Sue may also want to keep in mind that a nice personalized thank-
you note can pack quite a punch!
Anyone doing business with LAUSD shall be charged with full knowledge that LAUSD ’s contracting decisions are
made based on quality, service, and value. LAUSD does not seek any improper influence through gifts or courtesies.

F. Observe Cooling Periods – Contractors and their Representatives shall observe and maintain the integrity of
LAUSD ’s Cooling Periods. A ―Cooling Period ‖ is a mechanism used by public agencies and private organizations
across the country to ensure that no unfair competitive advantage is extended due to the hiring of current or former
employees. Allowing for some time to pass before a former official works on matters related to their prior agency or a
new official works on matters related to their prior employer helps to mitigate concerns about the appearance of a
―revolving door ‖ where public offices are sometimes seen to be used for personal or private gain.
Contractors shall certify that they are upholding LAUSD ’s revolving door provisions as part of the contracting process.
In their certification, Contractors shall detail the internal firewalls that have been put in place to preserve LAUSD ’s
cooling periods. As with other public agencies, LAUSD observes three key types of cooling periods for safeguarding
the critical transitions between public service and private industry:
Figure 2 – Schematic of LAUSD Cooling Periods (Illustrative Only)

(1) Government to Lobbying Restriction (One-Year Cooling Period) – LAUSD will not contract with any entity that
compensates a former LAUSD official who lobbies LAUSD before a one (1) year period has elapsed from that
official ’s last date of employment
Example of Lobbying Restriction
Ace Impact Group wants to hire Joe Knowsfolks, a former LAUSD official, to help the company cultivate new
business opportunities with LAUSD and arrange meetings with key LAUSD officials.
To avoid the possibility of unfair advantage or improper influence, Ace Impact Group is prohibited from
utilizing Joe to contact anyone at LAUSD on their behalf until at least one year has passed from Joe ’s last
date of employment. Joe may help Ace lobby other public entities, but Joe cannot communicate with anyone
at LAUSD, either in person or in writing, on behalf of his new company.

(2) Government to Industry Restriction
(a) Insider Advantage Restriction (One-Year Cooling Period) – LAUSD will not contract with any entity that
compensates any current or former LAUSD official to work on a matter with LAUSD, if that official, within the
preceding 12 months, held a LAUSD position in which they personally and substantially participated in that
matter.
Example of Insider Advantage Restriction
Risky Business is a small boutique firm that helps public agencies, including LAUSD, develop strategies for
managing and overcoming their unfunded liability. Risky Business wants to extend an offer of employment to
Nooriya, a LAUSD official, whose previous responsibilities included advising LAUSD ’s Board and
management on the issue of the district ’s unfunded liability.

As part of its certification, Risky Business needs to identify what safeguards it will have in place to ensure that
Nooriya ’s work for them does not include matters relating to her prior LAUSD responsibilities for at least one
year from when she left her LAUSD job. Given that ―matters ‖ include broad policy decisions, the general rule
of thumb for avoiding any insider advantage is to have former LAUSD officials steer clear of LAUSD work for
a year.

Government to Lobbying Restriction Cease LAUSD
Employment
Government to Industry Restriction
Industry to Government Restriction
Begin LAUSD
Employment
Varies depending on prior LAUSD contracting
Year (1) One Year (2) Two
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 138

Los Angeles Unified School District Contractor Code of Conduct
7
(b) Contract Benefit Restriction (Two-Year Cooling Period) – LAUSD will not contract with any entity that employs
any current or former LAUSD official who within the preceding two (2) years, substantially participated in the
development of the contract ’s RFP requirements, specifications or any part of the contract ’s procurement
process, if the official will perform any services for the Contractor relating to LAUSD on that contract.
Example of Contracting Benefit Restriction
Technology Advances has just won a big contract with LAUSD and is looking for talent to help support the
company ’s growing work load. The firm wishes to hire some LAUSD employees: Aisha, a LAUSD technology
official, her deputy Raj who was the individual who oversaw LAUSD ’s contracting process with Technology
Advances, and Linda, an engineer who was on the evaluation committee that selected Technology Advances.
If Technology Advances hires any of these individuals, none may perform any work for the firm relating to this
LAUSD work until two years have elapsed from the date that the contract was fully executed. This case is a
good example of how the cooling period seeks to ensure that there is no benefit resulting from a public
official ’s awarding of a contract. All of the LAUSD employees in this example would be considered to have
substantially participated in the contract – Raj due to his direct work, Linda due to her role evaluating the bid
proposals, and Aisha due to the fact that supervising both employees is a part of her official responsibility.
Technology Advances should consider the implications before hiring individuals involved with their LAUSD
contracting process.

(3) Industry to Government Restriction (One-Year Cooling Period) – In accordance with California law, Contractors
and/or their Representatives who act in the capacity of LAUSD officials shall be disqualified from making any
governmental decisions relating to a personal financial interest until a 12-month period has elapsed from the time
the interest has been disposed or severed.
Example of Industry to Government Restriction
Sergei Konsultantov is an outside contractor that has been hired to manage a major reorganization project for
LAUSD. Sergei is on the Board of Directors for several companies who do business with LAUSD.
Sergei must not participate in any governmental decisions for LAUSD relating to any private organization for
whom he has served as an employee, officer, or director, even in an unpaid capacity, if less than 12 months
has passed since he held such a status. Sergei should contact the Ethics Office before starting his work to
put a formal disqualification into effect and to seek out any other ethical safeguards he should have in place.

(4) In rare and unusual circumstances, LAUSD ’s General Superintendent or his/her designee upon a showing of
good cause may waive the Insider Advantage Restriction in writing with notification to the Board of Education,
prior to approving a contract or its amendment.

G. Safeguard Prospective Employment Discussions – Contractors and their Representatives shall safeguard any
prospective employment discussions with current LAUSD officials, especially when the official is one who may
participate ―personally and substantially ‖ in a matter relating to the Contractor.
Example of Safeguarding an Employment Offer
(1) Audit Everything, a firm that does work for LAUSD, has been really impressed by Thora Revue, an audit manager
that oversees some of their audits. Audit Everything is interested in having Thora work for their firm.
Before Audit Everything begins any prospective discussions with Thora, they should let her supervisor know of
their interest and ask what safeguards need to be put in place. For example, if Thora does not outright reject the
idea and is instead interested in entertaining the offer, she and her manager will have to work with the Ethics
Office to put into effect a disqualification from any further involvement relating to the Contractor before any actual
employment discussions are allowed to proceed. Any Contractor who engages in employment discussions with
LAUSD officials before a disqualification has been completed is subject to the penalties outlined in this Code.

H. Conduct Political Activities Privately – Contractors and their Representatives shall only engage in political support and
activities in their own personal and voluntary capacity, on their own time, and with their own resources.

I. Make Philanthropy Voluntary – Contractors and their Representatives shall only engage in philanthropic activities
relating to LAUSD on their own time and with their own resources. LAUSD views philanthropic support as a strictly
voluntary opportunity for Contractors to demonstrate social responsibility and good citizenship. No expressions of
support should be construed to have a bearing on current or future contracts with LAUSD. And no current or potential
contracting relationship with LAUSD to provide goods or services is contingent upon any philanthropic support from
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 139

Los Angeles Unified School District Contractor Code of Conduct
8
Contractors and their Representatives, unless otherwise designated as part of a bid or proposal requirement in an
open, competitive contracting process to solicit a specific type of support.
(1) Guidelines for Making a Gift to a Public Agency – Contractors who wish to provide philanthropic support to
LAUSD shall abide by the ethical and procedural policies and requirements established by LAUSD which build
upon the ―Gifts to an Agency ‖ requirements established in California ’s Code of Regulations Section 18944.2. For
outside entities to make a gift or payment to LAUSD in a manner that maintains public integrity, the following
minimum requirements must be met:
(a) LAUSD must receive and control the payment;
(b) LAUSD must use the payment for official agency business;
(c) LAUSD, in its sole discretion, must determine the specific official or officials who shall use the payment. The
donor may identify a specific purpose for the agency ’s use of the payment, so long as the donor does not
designate the specific official or officials who may use the payment; and
(d) LAUSD must have the payment memorialized in a written public record which embodies the requirements of
the above provisions and which:
- Identifies the donor and the official, officials, or class of officials receiving or using the payment;
- Describes the official agency use and the nature and amount of the payment;
- Is filed with the agency official who maintains the records of the agency ’s Statements of Economic
Interests (i.e. the Ethics Office); and
- Is filed as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days of receipt of the payment by LAUSD.
5. Disclosure Obligations
LAUSD expects Contractors and their Representatives to satisfy the following public disclosure obligations:

A. Identify Current and Former LAUSD Officials – To ensure against conflict or improper influence resulting from
employment of current or former LAUSD employees, Contractors and their Representatives shall disclose any of their
employees, subcontractors or consultants who within the last three years have been or are employees of LAUSD.
The disclosure will be in accordance with LAUSD guidelines and will include at a minimum the name of the former
LAUSD employee(s), a list of the LAUSD positions the person held in the last three years, and the dates the person
held those positions. Public agencies that provide contract services are not subject to this requirement.
(1) In rare and unusual circumstances, LAUSD ’s General Superintendent or his/her designee upon a showing of
good cause may waive this disclosure requirement in writing with notification to the Board of Education, prior to
approving a contract or its amendment.

B. Be Transparent about Lobbying – Contractors and their Representatives shall abide by LAUSD ’s Lobbying Disclosure
Code and register and fulfill the associated requirements, if they meet the trigger(s). LAUSD ’s lobbying policy seeks
to enhance public trust and confidence in the integrity of LAUSD ’s decision-making process by providing transparency
via a public record of the lobbying activities conducted by individuals and organizations. A ―lobbying activity ‖ is
defined as any action taken with the principal purpose of supporting, promoting, influencing, modifying, opposing,
delaying or advancing any rule, resolution, policy, program, contract, award, decision, or other proposal under
consideration by LAUSD officials.

For further information on LAUSD ’s lobbying policy, Contractors and their Representatives shall review the resource
materials available on the Ethics Office website (www.lausd.net/ethics). Failure to comply with LAUSD ’s Lobbying
Disclosure Code can result in fines and sanctions including debarment from contracting with LAUSD.
C. Fulfill the State-Mandated Statement of Economic Interests ( ―Form 700 ‖) Filing Requirement – Contractors and their
Representatives shall abide by the financial disclosure requirements of California ’s Political Reform Act (Gov. Code
Section 81000-91015). Under the Act, individual Contractors and their Representatives may be required to disclose
economic interests that could be foreseeably affected by the exercise of their public duties in a disclosure filing called
the Statement of Economic Interests or Form 700. A Form 700 serves as a tool for aiding public officials at all levels
of government to ensure that they do not make or participate in making, any governmental decisions in which they
have an interest.
(1) Applicability – Under the law, individual Contractors and their Representatives are considered public officials and
need to file a Form 700 as ―consultants ‖, if the services they are contracted to provide fit the triggers identified by
the Political Reform Act. Meeting either of the test triggers below requires a Contractor ’s Representative(s) to file
a Form 700:
(a) Individual Makes Governmental Decisions – Filing is required if an individual is involved in activities or
decision-making such as: obligating LAUSD to any course of action; authorizing LAUSD to enter into, modify,
or renew a contract; granting approval for contracts, plans, designs, reports, studies or other items; adopting
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 140

Los Angeles Unified School District Contractor Code of Conduct
9
or granting approval on policies, standards or guidelines for any subdivision of LAUSD; or negotiating on
behalf of LAUSD without significant intervening review.
(b) lndividual Participates in the Making of Governmental Decisions for LAUSD and Serves in Staff-like Capacity
– Filing is also required if an individual is performing duties for LAUSD on a continuous or ongoing basis
extending beyond one year such as: advising or making recommendations to LAUSD decision makers without
significant intervening review; conducting research or an investigation; preparing a report or analysis which
requires the individual to exercise their judgment; or performing duties similar to an LAUSD staff position that
is already designated as a filer position in LAUSD ’s Conflict of Interest Code.
(2) Filing Timelines – Individuals who are legally required to complete a Statement of Economic Interests
form must submit a filing:
(a) upon commencement of work with LAUSD,
(b) on an ongoing basis thereafter in accordance with the April 1
st
annual deadline, and
(c) upon termination of work with LAUSD.
(3) Process – Contractors and their Representatives shall coordinate with their LAUSD Contract Sponsor(s) to
ensure that they meet this state mandate in the manner required by law. Form 700s must be received by the
LAUSD Ethics Office to be considered properly filed in accordance with the Political Reform Act.
(4) Disqualifications – Individuals who must file financial disclosure statements are subject to the requirements of the
Political Reform Act as is the case with any other ―public official ‖ including disqualification when they encounter
decision-making that could affect their financial interests. Contractors and their Representatives shall be
responsible for ensuring that they take the appropriate actions necessary, so as not to violate any aspect of the
Act.
Examples of Form 700 Filers and Non-Filers
(5) Maria Ley is an attorney for the firm of Legal Eagles which serves as outside counsel to LAUSD. In her capacity
as outside counsel, Maria provides ongoing legal services for LAUSD and as such participates in the making of
governmental decisions. Maria ’s role involves her in advising or making recommendations to government
decision-makers and also gives her the opportunity to impact decisions that could foreseeably affect her own
financial interests.
Maria would be considered a consultant under the Political Reform Act and would need to file a Form 700.
(6) The Research Institute has been hired by LAUSD to do a major three-year policy study which will help LAUSD
decide the shape and scope of a major after-school tutoring initiative, including the total funding that should be
allocated. As part of the Institute ’s work, their researchers will help LAUSD design and decide on some additional
contracts for supplemental survey research. The Institute knows that all the principal researchers on their team
will have to be Form 700 filers because their work is ongoing and will influence LAUSD ’s governmental decision.
However, the Institute is unsure of whether their trusty secretary, Bea Addman, would have to be a filer.
Bea does not need to file. Even though she will be housed at LAUSD for the three years and act in a staff-like
capacity, she will provide clerical support primarily and will not participate in making any governmental decisions.
(7) Bob Builder works for a construction company that will be supporting LAUSD ’s school-building initiative on a
continuous basis. Bob will direct activities concerning the planning and construction of various schools facilities,
coordinate land acquisition, supervise teams, set policies, and also prepare various budgets for LAUSD.
Bob meets the trigger defined under the law because as part of the services he will provide, he has the authority
to affect financial interests and commit LAUSD to government actions at his discretion. Additionally, in his role,
he will be performing essentially the same tasks as an LAUSD Facilities Project Manager which is a position that
is already designated in LAUSD ’s Conflict of Interest Code. Therefore, Bob is required to file a Form 700.
6. Prohibited Activities
A Contractor, its Representative(s) and all other agent(s) acting on its behalf are prohibited from engaging in the following
activities:
GENERAL PROHIBITIONS
A. Acting in a manner that would be reasonably known to create or lead to a perception of improper conduct that could
result in direct or indirect damage to LAUSD or our reputation
B. Acting with the purpose or intent of placing an LAUSD official under personal obligation to any Contractor or its
Representatives
C. Conducting business with or on behalf of LAUSD in a manner that would be reasonably known to create or lead to a
perception of self-dealing
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 141

Los Angeles Unified School District Contractor Code of Conduct
10
D. Conducting work on behalf of another client on a matter that would be reasonably seen as in conflict with work
performed for LAUSD
E. Disclosing any proprietary or confidential information, including employee or student health information, about
LAUSD, our employees, students, or contractors to anyone not authorized by a written LAUSD re-disclosure
agreement to receive the information
F. Knowingly deceiving or attempting to deceive an LAUSD official about any fact pertaining to any pending or proposed
LAUSD decision-making
G. Making or arranging for any gift(s) or gratuities that violate LAUSD ’s policies, including:
(1) Providing any gifts at all to a procurement employee;
(2) Providing any gifts in excess of LAUSD ’s gift limit in a calendar year to any LAUSD official or to a member of
his/her household; and
(3) Providing gifts without the necessary public disclosure when disclosure is required
H. Offering any favor, gratuity, or kickback to an LAUSD official for awarding, modifying, or providing preferential
treatment relating to an LAUSD contract
I. Receiving or dispersing compensation contingent upon the defeat, enactment, or outcome of any proposed policy or
action
J. Taking any action to circumvent LAUSD ’s system of controls or to provide misleading information on any documents
or records
K. Using LAUSD assets and resources for purposes which do not support LAUSD ’s work
L. Using LAUSD provided technology or systems to create, access, store, print, solicit or send any material that is false,
derogatory, malicious, intimidating, harassing, threatening, abusive, sexually explicit or otherwise offensive
M. Violating or counseling any person to violate any provisions of LAUSD ’s Contractor Code of Conduct, Lobbying
Disclosure Code, Employee Code of Ethics, and/or any other governing state or federal laws
CONTRACTING PROHIBITIONS
N. Dealing directly with an LAUSD official who is a close relative or cohabitant with a Contractor or its Representatives in
the course of negotiating a contracting agreement or performing a Contractor ’s obligation
(1) For the purposes of this policy, close relatives shall be defined as including spouse, sibling, parent, grandparent,
child, and grandchild. Cohabitants shall be defined as persons living together.
O. Engaging in prohibited communication with LAUSD officials during the Cone of Silence time period(s) of the
contracting process
(1) In a competitive contracting process, the Cone of Silence begins from the time when an Invitation for Bid (IFB),
Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for Interest and Bid (RFIB), Request for Quote, Request for Qualification, or
any other solicitation release is announced by LAUSD until the time a contract award recommendation is made
public by the Board Secretariat ’s posting of the board report for the contract to be approved.
(2) In a non-competitive contracting process, the Cone of Silence begins at the time when a proposal is submitted to
LAUSD until the time the contract is fully executed.
P. Employing any current or former LAUSD employee to perform any work prohibited by the ―Cooling Periods ‖ defined in
Section 4F of this Code
Q. Making or participating in the making of governmental decisions on behalf of LAUSD when a Contractor or its
Representatives has an existing financial interest that is prohibited under the law
R. Making any substitution of goods, services, or talent that does not meet contract specifications without prior approval
from LAUSD
S. Making false charges on claims for payment submitted to LAUSD in violation of the California False Claims Act, Cal.
Government Code § § 12650-12655
T. Requesting, attempting to request, or accepting —either directly or indirectly —any protected information regarding
present or future contracts before the information is made publicly available at the same time and in the same form to
all other potential bidders
U. Submitting a bid as a proposer or sub-proposer on a particular procurement after participating in its development (e.g.
identifying the scope of work, creating solicitation documents or technical specifications, developing evaluation
criteria, and preparing contractual instruments)

CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 142

Los Angeles Unified School District Contractor Code of Conduct
11
LOBBYING PROHIBITIONS
V. Engaging in any lobbying activities without the appropriate disclosure, if the registration trigger has been met
W. Lobbying on behalf of LAUSD, if a Contractor or its Representatives is lobbying LAUSD officials.
(1) Any person or entity who receives compensation to lobby on behalf of or otherwise represent LAUSD, pursuant to
a contract or sub-contract, shall be prohibited from also lobbying LAUSD on behalf of any other person or entity
for compensation as this would be considered a conflict of interest.
7. Issues Resolution
Early identification and resolution of contracting or other ethical issues that may arise are critical to building public trust.
Whenever possible, it is advisable to initiate the issue resolution process proactively, either with the designated
contracting contact if the issue arises during the contracting process, or with the Contract Sponsor in the case of an active
contract that is being carried out. It is always appropriate to seek out the Procurement Services Group or the Facilities
Contracts Branch to resolve an issue, if another alternative is not possible. Formal disputes regarding bid solicitations or
contract awards should be raised and addressed in accordance with LAUSD policy where such matters will be given full,
impartial, and timely consideration.
8. Enforcement Provisions
While Contractors and their Representatives are expected to self-monitor their compliance with this Contractor Code of
Conduct, the provisions of this Code are enforceable by LAUSD. Enforcement measures can be taken by LAUSD ’s
Procurement Services Group or Facilities Contracts Branch in consultation with the Contract Sponsor, the Ethics Office,
the Office of the General Counsel, and the Office of the Inspector General. The Office of the Inspector General may also
refer matters to the appropriate authorities for further action.
A. Report Violations – Good faith reporting of suspected violations of the Contractor Code of Conduct is encouraged.
Reports of possible violations should be made to the Office of the Inspector General where such reports will be
investigated and handled with the level of confidentiality that is merited and permitted by law. No adverse
consequences will result to anyone as a result of making a good faith report.
B. Cooperate on Audits and Investigations – Contractors and their Representatives shall cooperate with any necessary
audits or investigations by LAUSD relating to conduct identified in this Code. Such audits and investigations may be
conducted when LAUSD has reason to believe that a violation of this Code has occurred. Once an audit or
investigation is complete, LAUSD may contact a Contractor or their Representatives to establish remedies and/or
sanctions.
C. Comply with Sanctions – Contractors and their Representatives shall comply with the necessary sanctions for
violations of this Code of Conduct. Remedies can include and/or combine one or more of the following actions:
(1) Removal of offending Contractor or subcontractor;
(2) Implementation of corrective action plan approved by LAUSD;
(3) Submission of training plan for preventing future violations of the Code;
(4) Probation for 1-3 years;
(5) Rescission, voidance or termination of a contract;
(6) Suspension from all LAUSD contracting for a period of time;
(7) Prohibition from all LAUSD lobbying activities;
(8) Compliance with deferred debarment agreement;
(9) Debarment from all LAUSD procurement or contracting; or
(10) Other sanctions available by law that are deemed reasonable and appropriate.
In the case of a procurement in which a contract has yet to be awarded, LAUSD reserves the right to reject any bid or
proposal, to terminate the procurement process or to take other appropriate actions.
Failure to remedy the situation in the timely manner prescribed by LAUSD can result in additional sanctions. Records
of violations or any other non-compliance are a matter of public record.
Any debarment proceeding will follow due process in accordance with the procedures described in LAUSD ’s
Debarment Policy.
9. Future Code Updates
To ensure that LAUSD maintain our effectiveness in promoting integrity in our contracting processes and our use of public
tax dollars, LAUSD reserves the right to amend and modify this Contractor Code of Conduct at its discretion. LAUSD ’s
Ethics Office will post the latest version of the Code on its website. Interested parties with ideas on how LAUSD can
strengthen our Code to improve public trust in the integrity of LAUSD ’s decision-making can contact LAUSD ’s Ethics
Office in writing to share their comments. Such comments will be evaluated for future code updates.
CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE 143

Los Angeles Unified School District Contractor Code of Conduct
12
LAUSD is not responsible for notifying a Contractor or their Representatives of any changes to this Code. It is the
responsibility of a Contractor to keep itself and its Representatives apprised of any changes made to this Code. LAUSD
is not responsible for any damages that may occur as a result of a Contractor ’s failure to fulfill its responsibilities of staying
current on this Code.
10. Severability
If one part or provision of this Contractor Code of Conduct, or its application to any person or organization, is found to be
invalid by any court, the remainder of this Code and its application to other persons or organizations, which has not been
found invalid, shall not be affected by such invalidity, and to that extent the provisions of this Code are declared to be
severable.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore the relationship between the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the ALEKS Corporation using Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) as a conceptual framework to improve 9th grade Algebra 1 proficiency. Further, this study discusses the implications of high stakes testing on public schools, the impact of mathematic artificial intelligence software in schools, and the options available for outsourcing to improve school performance. In addition, this study investigates network institutional arrangements, multiple principal‐agent relationships, and partnerships. Finally, this study applies public sector transaction costs to the relationship between LAUSD and the ALEKS Corporation in an effort to evaluate its effectiveness.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Outsourcing technology and support in higher education

PDF

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

PDF

Blended learning: developing flexibility in education through internal innovation

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Determining industry values to strengthen attorney-client relationships and performance

PDF

University ready: examining the relationships between social capital and an online college access program

PDF

The role of leadership in the implementation of technology in mathematics at the community college

PDF

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

PDF

That's not what I asked for: three essays on the (un)intended consequences of California's dual-accountability system

PDF

Designing school systems to encourage data use and instructional improvement: a comparison of educational organizations

PDF

The impact of ""wall-to-wall"" small learning communities: career academy participation and its relationship to academic performance and engagement

PDF

Use of accountability indicators to evaluate elementary school principal performance

PDF

Uneven development of perspectives and practice: Preservice teachers' literacy learning in an era of high-stakes accountability

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

PDF

The relationship between state self-efficacy and state worry and sales performance

Asset Metadata

Creator Lewis, Donna Stewart (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/21/2014

Defense Date 04/10/2014

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

Tag artificial intelligence software,high stakes testing,mathematics,multiple principal‐agent relationships,OAI-PMH Harvest,outsourcing,school accountability,Transaction Cost Economics

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email donna.lewis@usc.edu,dstewartlewis@msn.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-415534

Unique identifier UC11295401

Identifier etd-LewisDonna-2522.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-415534 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LewisDonna-2522.pdf

Dmrecord 415534

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Lewis, Donna Stewart

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