University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Reallocating resources to reform schools: a case study of successful school turnarounds in five Los Angeles charter schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Reallocating resources to reform schools: a case study of successful school turnarounds in five Los Angeles charter schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

1

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS:
A CASE STUDY OF SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL TURNAROUNDS
IN FIVE LOS ANGELES CHARTER SCHOOLS

by

Megan A. Quaile

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2013

Copyright 2013 Megan A. Quaile

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

2

Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my mother, who taught me the value of service to others; to
my father, who taught me the values of honesty and persistence; and to all of the students in this
country who deserve access to the American Dream.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

3

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Lawrence Picus, for his guidance
throughout this process. He proved patient while pushing me to meet deadlines. He provided
important feedback, offering both praise and constructive feedback. And he encouraged me to
take my study in a direction I did not anticipate. I would also like to thank my cohort peers for
their willingness to share ideas. I have learned a great deal from this process. I hope to be a
better educator as a result.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

4

Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Introduction 10
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 19
Research Questions 20
Summary of Methodology 20
Limitations 21
Delimitations 21
Assumptions 22
Definitions of Terms 22
Chapter Two: Literature Review 28
School Reform Models 28
Equity-Focused School Reform Efforts 28
Standards-Based School Reform Efforts 30
School Choice Reform Efforts 33
School Turnaround Efforts 39
Teacher Effectiveness Reform Efforts 43
Strategies for Improving School Performance 46
Creating a Data-Driven Culture 47
Developing Effective Teachers 53
Teacher Selection 53
Teacher Evaluation 55
Professional Development 57
Teacher Coaching 58
Developing Effective School Leaders 60
Creating Academic Programs and Structures That Meet Student Needs 64
Setting High Expectations for Student Performance 66
Resource Allocation Strategies 68
Summary: Gap Analysis 71
Chapter Three: Methodology 72
Research Questions 72
Sample and Population 75
Study Design and Methods 78
Instruments 79
Data Collection Procedures 88
Chapter Four: Results 88
Overview of Green Dot Public Schools and Participating Campuses 89
A Gap Analysis of Strategies Designed to Improve Student Achievement 95
Creating a Data-Driven Culture 95
Developing Effective Teachers 99
Developing Effective Leaders 113
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

5

Creating Academic Programs That Meet Student Needs 121
Setting High Expectations for Student Performance 125
Optimizing Human Resources Allocations 128
Recommendations 134
Recommendation #1: Improve Professional Development Programs 134
Recommendation #2: Increase Coaching Services 135
Recommendation #3: Intensify Supplemental Supports 136
Recommendation #4: Differentiate Supports to Improve Teacher and 136
Leader Effectiveness
Conclusion 136
Chapter Five: Discussion 138
Summary of Findings 139
Limitations of the Study 143
Implications for Policy and Future Research 144
Conclusion 145
References 146
Appendix A: Teacher Evaluation Rubric Indicators 158
Appendix B: Green Dot School Leader Evaluation 160

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

6

List of Tables

Table 1: The 21 Responsibilities and Their Correlations (r) with Student 61
Academic Achievement
Table 2: 2008 Alain LeRoy Locke High School (LAUSD) Demographic and 75
Achievement Data
Table 3: 2011 Ánimo Locke 1 Charter High School Demographic and Achievement Data 76
Table 4: 2011 Ánimo Locke 2 Charter High School Demographic and Achievement Data 76
Table 5: 2011 Alain LeRoy Locke 3 Charter High School Demographic and 76
Achievement Data
Table 6: 2011 Ánimo Locke Tech Charter High School Demographic and Achievement Data 77
Table 7: 2011 Ánimo Watts Charter High School Demographic and Achievement Data 77
Table 8: Ánimo Locke 1 API Targets 97
Table 9: Student Survey Results, Fall 2012 107
Table 10: Teacher Feedback on Professional Development and Programs by 110
Indicator, Fall 2012
Table 11: Curriculum Specialist Feedback Scores, Fall 2012 112
Table 12: Teacher and Counselor Feedback on Leaders, Fall 2012 118
Table 13: Student Stakeholder Feedback on Culture, Fall 2012 126
Table 14: Teacher and Counselor Feedback on Culture, Fall 2012 127
Table 15: Locke Cluster Resource Allocation Gap Analysis 131
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

7

List of Figures
Figure A: CSU/UC Eligibility Rates by Ethnic Group, 2009–2010 13
Figure B: The Evidence-Based Model 80
Figure C: Incoming 9
th
-Grade CST Scores: % of Students Below of Far Below Basic 92
Figure D: Locke High School: Four-Year Retention Rate 92
Figure E: Locke Cluster: 10
th
-Grade Students Passing CAHSEE (First Attempt) 93
Figure F: Locke Growth API 93
Figure G: Locke High School: Number of Graduates, A-G Graduates and College Attendees 94
Figure H: Locke and Peer School Graduation and A-G Completion Rates 95
Figure I: 2012–2013 Teacher Observation Scores: Semester 1 105
Figure J: 2012 SGP Report 105
Figure K: Fall 2012 Teacher Stakeholder Feedback: Professional Development 110
and Programs
Figure L: Green Dot Leader Evaluation Scores, Fall 2012 117
Figure M: Teacher/Counselor Feedback on School Leaders: Fall 2012 118
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

8

Abstract

This study employed the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2004) as a framework
to examine how changes in school resource allocations impacted student achievement at the
three Green Dot conversion charter high schools (Ánimo Locke 1, Ánimo Locke 2, and Alain
LeRoy Locke 3) and two start-up charter high schools (Ánimo Locke Tech and Ánimo Watts)
that replaced Alain Leroy Locke High School in September 2008. In the four years since Green
Dot began managing the campus, the schools had higher enrollment and higher average daily
attendance, decreased incidences of suspension and expulsion, improved student achievement
scores, and increased graduation rates. Whereas most data suggested that the Green Dot
campuses demonstrated a marked improvement over the LAUSD-run Locke campus, the schools
were far from meeting the state mandated API score of 800.
This study examined the existing successful elements of the school model, considered
how to prioritize learning in the face of declining revenues, and recommended strategies to
further improve student learning. This study also examined the role of Green Dot Public Schools
home office supports in the success of these schools.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

9

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The release of the A Nation at Risk report in 1983 exposed a stark achievement gap
among American students and provoked a national debate about the effectiveness of our
education system. Both the moral and economic consequences of our failure to close the
achievement gap have fueled this debate for nearly 30 years. Hochshild and Scovronick (2003)
have asserted that schools are foundational to the concept of the American Dream:
Public schools are where it is all supposed to start . . . Americans expect schools not only
to help students reach their potential as individuals but also to make them good citizens
who will maintain the nation’s values and institutions, help them flourish, and pass them
on to the next generation. (pp. 1–2)

The alarm raised by our moral failure to cultivate the American Dream can only be matched by
the potential economic consequences of a broken public school system. At Stanford University,
Eric Hanushek applied a model that links trends in student achievement to growth in Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). The model first assumes that in the 15 years following the Nation at
Risk report, schools lifted lagging achievement. Second, it calculates that by 2008, the overall
GDP would have been between $1.3 trillion and $2.3 trillion higher (McKinsey, 2009). More
specifically, by closing the racial achievement gap of Black and Hispanic students, GDP would
have been between $310 billion and $525 billion higher; by closing the income achievement gap,
the GDP would have been between $400 and $600 million higher; and by closing the systems
achievement gap, the GDP would have been between $425 and $700 billion higher (McKinsey,
2009, p. 17). These models clearly illustrate that our failed schools threaten the long-term
economic health of our nation.
Three decades of research, policy development, and targeted financial support at national,
state, and local levels have rendered mixed results. In fact, American students are widely
perceived as “losing ground” compared to students internationally. The 2009 Program for
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

10

International Student Assessment (PISA) results verify this perception. First offered in 2000,
PISA is a system of international assessments administered every three years to measure 15-
year-olds’ performance in reading, mathematics, and science literacy, while measuring general or
cross-curricular competencies such as problem solving (NCES, 2010). Coordinated by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental
organization of 34 countries, the 2009 testing administration extended to 65 countries and
offered an in-depth analysis of reading literacy.
The PISA analysis revealed the following information about the United States: Students earned
an average score of 500 on the combined reading literacy scale (not measurably different from
the OECD average score of 493); 30% of students scored at or above proficiency, meaning that
students are capable of difficult reading tasks, such as locating embedded information,
construing meaning from nuances of language, and critically evaluating a text; White and Asian
students had higher average scores than the overall OECD and US average scores, while African
American and Latino students had lower average scores than the overall OECD and US average
scores; students in public schools in which half or more of students were eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch scored, on average, below the overall OECD and US average scores in
reading literacy; and, lastly, no measurable difference emerged between the average score of
students in reading literacy between 2000 and 2009 (NCES, 2010). A less detailed analysis of
the other sections of the test found that students in the U.S. scored average and below average on
science and math literacy, respectively. While it found American students primarily average by
international comparison, the PISA data exposed a persistent achievement gap between White,
middle class students and African-American, Latino, and poor students. The data further
indicated that student achievement has not improved significantly in the last decade in spite of
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

11

substantive education reform efforts.
California’s attempts to close the achievement gap have garnered similar results. With
more than six million students in elementary, middle, and high schools, California educates a
majority of students defined as under-achieving: The largest student ethnic population is Latino;
20% of children live in poverty; nearly 50% of students participate in the federal free and
reduced-priced lunch program; and 25% of students are English learners (EdSource, 2012). As
determined from the national PISA results, an analysis of both the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) and the California Standardized Test (CST) found that
California’s African American, Latino, and poor students are under-represented among students
scoring at the highest achievement levels and over-represented among students scoring at the
lowest achievement levels. Additionally, dropout, graduation, A-G completion (high school
coursework required for admission to the state’s four-year colleges), and college admission rates
reveal the persistence of the achievement gap (EdSource, 2012).
The California Department of Education (CDE) released a report in 2011 delineating low
college-ready eligibility across ethnic groups, with an average rate of 35.6% and a maximum
eligibility rate of 60.3% for Asian students. In spite of the low overall eligibility rate, a stark
achievement gap is evident. Asian American students were more than twice as likely as African
American or Latino students to graduate from high school “college ready,” meaning that they
completed the A-G coursework required for admission to four-year colleges (EdSource, 2011).
Figure A, below, indicates the levels of college readiness for the class of 2010 by ethnic group.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

12

Figure A. CSU/UC eligibility rates by ethnic group, 2009–2010.
Source: California Department of Education 2011
A longitudinal study by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that
students living in circumstances that correlate to poverty tend to produce lower than average
academic achievement; among them are students whose mothers had not graduated from high
school, students in a family that received public assistance, students raised by a single parent,
and/or students whose parents’ primary language was not English (EdSource, 2012). And
although poverty itself does not necessarily lead to low achievement, poor students are more
likely to be subjected to conditions known to impact achievement. Specifically, students who
lack access to proper nutrition, and housing and health care, or students exposed to substance
abuse or high-crime neighborhoods are more likely to suffer academically. That African
American and Latino students comprise a disproportionate number of poor students only
exacerbates the achievement gap.
Although statewide data indicate that the achievement gap persists, research conducted at
24.90%

25.10%

26.50%

28.50%

30.70%

40.90%

42.00%

47.60%

60.30%

35.60%

Eligibility
Rate

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

13

the elementary and middle school levels has demonstrated that some schools are successfully
meeting student needs. A 2005 study conducted by EdSource—in cooperation with researchers
from Stanford University, the University of California at Berkeley, and the American Institutes
for Research (AIR)—sought to answer the following question: “Why do some California
elementary schools serving largely low-income students score as much as 250 points higher on
the state’s academic performance index (API) than other schools with very similar students?”
(EdSource, 2006). The study, which surveyed 275 principals and 5,500 teachers from
elementary schools across the state to determine which policies and practices best correlated to
higher student achievement, identified four common practices: prioritizing student achievement
by focusing on student achievement goals and creating specific plans for instructional
improvement; implementing a coherent, standards-based curriculum and instructional program;
using data to improve student achievement and instruction; and, ensuring that teachers have
access to instructional resources. In addition to common practices, the study found that strong
principal leadership and district support were key to the success of high performing schools
(EdSource, 2006).
More recently, EdSource collaborated with Stanford University to conduct a large-scale
study of middle schools in California. Researchers surveyed 303 principals, 3,752 English and
math teachers, and 157 superintendents in an attempt to answer the following question: “Why do
some middle grades schools clearly outperform others on standards-based tests even though they
serve a similar student population?” (EdSource, 2010). Like the earlier elementary school study,
this research found that higher performing schools heavily focused on improving student
outcomes (although this study specifically emphasized the need for early identification and
intervention for struggling students), implemented an aligned, standards-based curriculum, and
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

14

used data to improve both student learning and teacher practice. The study further emphasized
the importance of the role of principal and district leadership in driving student achievement
growth.
However, whereas the elementary study identified teacher access to instructional
resources as a common practice among high performing schools, the middle school study
concluded that in addition to adequate instructional resources, teachers need strong
competencies, meaningful evaluation of their practice, and the support and time necessary to
improving instructional practice. The middle school research further found that the school’s
environment, organization of time and instruction, and grade configuration models were not
strongly associated with improved student outcomes (EdSource, 2010a).
The key lever in each of these studies centers on human capital. Correspondingly, a
significant body of recent national research has focused on teacher quality. In The Widget Effect,
Weisberg, Sexton, Mulhern, and Keeling (2009) have asserted that teacher quality is the most
important factor in improving student learning:
A student assigned to a very good teacher for a single school year may gain up to a full
year’s worth of additional academic growth compared to a student assigned to a very
poor teacher. Having a series of strong or weak teachers in consecutive years compounds
the impact. Give high-need students three highly effective teachers in a row and they
may outperform students taught by three ineffective teachers in a row by as much as 50
percentile points. (p. 5)

Doug Reeves (2009) has included the principal as a critical figure in school success: “Of all the
variables that influence student achievement, the two that have the most profound influence on
are teacher quality and leadership quality” (p. 67). And whereas Darling-Hammond (1997) has
upheld the concept of teacher effectiveness as a central component of successful schools, she has
emphasized the need to consider the role of human capital development in the school
improvement process: “Most schools and teachers cannot achieve the goals set forth in new
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

15

educational standards, not because they are unwilling, but because they do not know how, and
the systems they work in do not support them in doing so”(p. 8). Collectively, the research
supports Jim Collins’s (2001a) foundational concept for building successful organizations; as he
has explained: “They first got the right people on the bus . . . in the right seats, and then they
figured out where to drive it” (p. 13). To close the achievement gap, schools must first hire
people committed to that goal, then systematically build their capacity to deliver an effective
instructional program.
Statement of the Problem
Decades of national, state, and local efforts to create policies, funding sources, and
accountability systems focused on closing the achievement gap have yielded few results. In
2011, the state of California rolled out a new system for calculating graduation rates meant to
more accurately account for transfers and “other” students not considered graduates or dropouts
(due to continued enrollment or non-diploma special education status). Unfortunately, the 2011
data illustrated a continued achievement gap. Whereas the overall four-year graduation rate was
74.4% (with 18.2% dropout rate and 7.4% “other” students), only 59.0% of African American,
67.7% of Latino, and 56.3% of English learners in the class of 2011 graduated in four years.
Furthermore, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) graduations rates still lagged far
behind the state, at 56% (CDE, 2011).
In spite of daunting student achievement data and a persistent economic crisis, examples
of success in California do exist. Longitudinal studies of elementary and middle schools have
uncovered specific characteristics of high performing schools that align with a wider body of
national research. There are signs of hope at the high school level as well. The National Center
for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing (CRESST) recently completed a
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

16

four-year case study of the transformation of Alain LeRoy Locke High School, one of the lowest
performing high schools in the state of California. In 2007, Green Dot Public Schools (Green
Dot) partnered with community leaders, families, and school staff to request that Green Dot be
granted operational control of the LAUSD-run campus. The LAUSD Board of Education’s
approval marked the first time an outside organization had been authorized to manage an existing
district school (Herman, Wang, Rickles, Hsu, Monroe, Leon, & Straubhaar, 2012). That same
year, Green Dot opened two satellite campuses with 9
th
-grade academies only. The two satellite
campuses would grow one grade level per year until they became fully enrolled in 2011. In 2008,
Green Dot assumed full control of the Alain LeRoy Locke High School campus by opening three
additional 9
th
-grade academies—Ánimo Locke 1, Ánimo Locke 2, and Alain LeRoy Locke 3—
with the same plan to grow enrollment. Additionally, Green Dot opened the Locke Launch to
College campus to phase out school housing 10
th
, 11
th
, and 12
th
grade students who had
previously attended the LAUSD School. Lastly, it opened Ánimo Locke 4, a school with two
transitional academic programs meant to serve students returning from incarceration or students
requiring intensive credit recovery.
Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the CRESST study was charged with
monitoring the transformation process. Researchers adopted a quasi-experimental design to
examine how 9
th
-grade students entering 2007–2008 (Cohort 1) and 2008–2009 (Cohort 2)
performed on a range of outcomes over multiple years compared to groups of carefully matched
control students attending demographically similar high schools in LAUSD (Herman et al.,
2012). Students in the control group were matched exactly on gender, ethnicity, parent education
levels, poverty status, language classification, 8
th
-grade CST math scale scores, and whether they
attended a Green Dot feeder middle school (Herman et al., 2012). The three control high schools
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

17

identified were Fremont High School, Jordan High School, and Washington Prep High School.
Researchers evaluated the following question:
Relative to their matched counterparts in LAUSD, how well are Cohort 1 and 2 students
performing in terms of school persistence, attendance, course-taking and completion, A-
G completion rate, graduation rate, as well as achievement on standardized tests in ELA
and math in 2010-2011? (Herman et al., 2012, p. 4)

An analysis of the four years of Cohort 1 and three years of Cohort 2 data found that
students performed better on multiple indicators than they would have had they attended a
demographically comparable LAUSD school. Positive effects were more prevalent for Cohort 2
students who, compared to control students, were more likely to persist in school over time, take
and pass a total of eight or more key college preparatory courses, score higher on the California
High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) on their first attempt, pass the English section of the
CAHSEE on their first attempt, and pass both sections of the CAHSEE by the end of 11
th
grade.
Furthermore, the higher persistence rates suggested that Green Dot was retaining a greater
number of lower performing students who otherwise would have possibly dropped out of high
school, yet had maintained an advantage in overall CST scores. Lastly, when comparing students
who remained in school for four years, the Green Dot graduation rate was 24 percentage points
higher, and the college readiness rate was 34 percentage points higher than that of the control
group (Herman et al., 2012).
Green Dot’s model centered on the following six tenets:
1. Small, safe personalized schools
2. High expectations for all students
3. Local control with extensive professional development and accountability
4. Parent participation
5. Maximize funding to the classroom
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

18

6. Keep schools open later
The Green Dot model also included recommended practices, which aligned to many of the
best practices identified by the California and national studies, and early findings suggested that
it was finding success in closing the achievement gap at one of the lowest performing schools in
the state.
Purpose of the Study
This study used the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008) as a framework to
examine how changes in school resource allocations impacted the student achievement of the
three Green Dot conversion charter high schools (Ánimo Locke 1, Ánimo Locke 2, and Alain
LeRoy Locke 3) and two start-up charter high schools (Ánimo Locke Tech and Ánimo Watts)
that replaced Alain LeRoy Locke High School in September 2008. In the four years since Green
Dot began managing the campus, the schools had higher enrollment and higher average daily
attendance, decreased incidences of suspension and expulsion, improved student achievement
scores, and increased graduation rates (De Jesus, 2012). Although most data suggested that the
Green Dot campuses have demonstrated a marked improvement over the LAUSD-run Locke
campus, the schools were far from meeting the state-mandated API score of 800.
In 2008, Green Dot’s three conversion charters inherited Alain LeRoy Locke High
School’s Program Improvement status as well as its QEIA grant. Although the QEIA funds
provided an additional $1,000 per student to reduce class size and train school staff to close the
achievement gap, the requirements of the program—specifically, an average teacher experience
level comparable to that of LAUSD teacher—rendered it unlikely that the Green Dot campuses
would participate in the QEIA grant beyond the 2012–2013 school year. The impending loss of
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

19

QEIA, funds, coupled with an ominous California budget outlook, forecast that the campuses
would incur a 15% decrease in revenue in the next two years.
This study examined the existing successful elements of the school model, considered
new programs that may further improve student learning, and proposed how to prioritize learning
in the face of declining revenues. This study also assessed the role of Green Dot’s home office
supports in the success of these schools.
Research Questions
This study aimed to identify the elements—organizational structure, human capital, and
programs—necessary to create successful high schools. It investigated the costs associated with
such programs and considered how to maintain critical programs during a prolonged budgetary
crisis. Additionally, this study identified which, if any, school elements were expendable given
the anticipated reduction in school revenues. To this end, this study focused on the following
questions:
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
2. How are human resources allocated across the Locke cluster of schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices and what the
research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically reallocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Summary of Methodology
This study used a mixed-methods design to collect qualitative and quantitative data from
five Green Dot charter high schools in South Los Angeles that comprised the Locke cluster. The
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

20

schools were chosen because they had demonstrated significant increases in student achievement
since Green Dot had assumed management of the failing LAUSD-run comprehensive high
school.
Qualitative data were collected through an interview process with leaders directly
involved with budget preparation and program development. Quantitative data were collected
from the CDE to analyze student achievement data. Furthermore, the study required an
examination of documents detailing human capital allocations both at the campus and at the
home office levels. These data were compared to the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) (Odden &
Picus, 2008). The EBM utilizes research-based educational strategies to create a recommended
human resources allocation model. This study compared the Green Dot allocation model to the
EBM to consider how similarities and differences may have impacted Green Dot’s success.
Finally, recommended changes to the Green Dot model are suggested for consideration where
appropriate.
Limitations
This study collected data from one Charter Management Organization (CMO) operating
schools in Southern California. Within this CMO, only those schools considered part of the five
charters that comprised the Locke cluster were examined. The focus on five campuses within one
CMO limits generalizability.
Delimitations
The scope of this study was limited for two primary reasons: first, a small number of
CMOs had attempted to transform an existing failing school in Southern California; and second,
there were limited examples of transformation charters that boasted significant increases in

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

21

student achievement. Because this study was limited to five campuses of one CMO, the results
can only be generalized to schools with similar demographics and funding structures.
Assumptions
This study assumed the following: first, that the candidates interviewed would provide
accurate information and documentation; second, that employees completed the tasks assigned in
their position descriptions; third, that the personnel counts were accurate and represented what
was happening at the school; and, fourth, that API is a valid measure of student achievement.
Definitions of Terms
Academic Performance Index (API): API reports provide information about whether schools
meet state requirements under the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) of 1999. Using a
number index range from 200 to 1000, API measures the academic performance and growth of
schools on a variety of academic measures. It further provides scores for all significant
subgroups, including English learners, students living in poverty, ethnic groups, and students
with disabilities (CDE, 2012).
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): A report required by the federal No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) Act of 2002 that is used to measure how well individual schools and districts are doing
according to the following criteria: (a) student participation rates on statewide tests; (b)
percentage of students scoring at the proficient level or above in English-language arts and
mathematics on statewide tests; (c) in California only, API growth; and (d) graduation rate
(California Department of Education, 2010).
Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): The minimum percentages of students required to meet or
exceed the proficient level on the state assessments used for AYP. The AMOs will continue to

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

22

rise every year so that by 2014, 100% of students in all schools, LEAs, and numerically
significant subgroups must score at the proficient or above level (CDE, 2010).
Brown v. Board of Education (1954): A landmark legal decision by the United States Supreme
Court declaring that state laws establishing separate schools based on race were unconstitutional
under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
California Charter Schools Act (CCSA) of 1992: California was the second state in the country to
enact legislation intending to “provide opportunities for teachers, parents, pupils, and community
members to establish and maintain schools that operate independently from the existing school
district structure” (EdSource, 2009). The legislation sought to achieve the following goals:
improve pupil learning, increase opportunities for all students, encourage innovative teaching,
provide new professional development opportunities for teachers, and expand choice for parents
and pupils in the public school system (EdSource, 2004).
California Standards Tests (CSTs): A series of tests that measure a student’s achievement of
California’s content standards in the areas of English-language arts, mathematics, science, and
history-social sciences (California Department of Education, 2010).
Categorical Funds: Funds that are targeted to support specific groups and/or classes of students,
such as students with special needs, low-income, or English learners. There are four types of
categorically funded programs: entitlement, incentive, discretionary grants, and mandated cost
reimbursement (Timar, 2006).
Charter Management Organization (CMO): Broadly defined as an organization that operates
not-for-profit or for profit; operates or plans to operate more than one school; and provides
significant administrative, instructional, and leadership support for its schools (EdSource, 2009).
Comprehensive School Reform (CSR): A federal program that started one year before California
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

23

began the II/USP program to provide schools with resources for whole school reform models
(EdSource, 2005).
Drop Out Factories: High schools that have senior classes with 60% or less of the students that
were enrolled in their 9
th
-grade year.
End-of-High School Measures. CRESST-examined student achievement based on A-G course
completion and graduation rate.
Evidence-Based Model: An educational funding approach based on identifying individual,
school-based programs, and educational strategies that research has shown to improve student
learning (Odden & Archibald, 2009).
High Priority Schools Grant Program (HPSGP): A third year iteration of the II/USP that
focused on decile one schools, restricted district personnel from serving as program evaluators,
and offered increased funding (EdSource, 2005).
Immediate Intervention/Under-Performing Schools Program (II/USP): Provided funding for
external evaluator to work with the school community plan for reform, and subsequently
provided funds for schools to implement reform action plans (EdSource, 2005).
Local Education Agency (LEA): An educational agency at the local governmental level that
operates schools or contracts for educational services.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP): A national standardized assessment
sponsored by the US Department of Education since 1969 in an attempt to measure and compare
student achievement across the nation or against other states (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2010).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2002: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

24

Schools Act (ESEA) focused on standards-based reform and ensuring that all students reach
proficiency by 2014.

Program Improvement (PI): A formal designation required under NCLB (2002) for Title I-
funded LEAs and schools that fail to make AYP for two consecutive years (California
Department of Education, 2009).
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA): A system of international assessments
administered every three years to measure 15-year-olds’ performance in reading, mathematics,
and science literacy, while measuring general or cross-curricular competencies such as problem
solving (NCES, 2010).
Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 (PSSA): California legislation that predated NCLB
and created a system to publish and rank schools based on standardized test performance; the
policy involved monetary rewards for meeting targets and intervention programs for schools that
failed to meet targets (EdSource, 2005).
Quality Education Improvement Act (QEIA): Established in 2006, QEIA provides $3 billion over
seven years to 488 schools in California that meet the following criteria: must be ranked in the
lowest two deciles by the state's 2005 Academic Performance Index, and have high percentages
of low-income, minority, and English learners. Funds will assist schools in closing the
achievement gap.
School Assistance and Intervention Team (SAIT): A 2001 addition to the II/USP that assigned a
team of experts specializing in supporting struggling schools to schools failing to meet targets
(EdSource, 2005).

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

25

School Attendance: A measure used in CRESST Report 815 to determine the attendance
frequency of students enrolled in school.
School Improvement Grant: Authorized under section 1003(g) of Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Title I or ESEA), school improvement grants are grants to
state educational agencies (SEAs) that make competitive subgrants to those local educational
agencies (LEAs) demonstrating the greatest need for the funds and the strongest commitment to
using the funds to provide adequate resources to raise substantially the achievement of students
in their lowest-performing schools (USDOE, 2012).
School Persistence: A measure used in CRESST Report 815 to determine the number of students
who remain enrolled throughout the four years of high school.
Significant Subgroup: Defined as “at least 50 students who make up 15 percent or more of the
school’s total population with valid test scores, or at least 100 students with valid test scores”
(Californa Department of Education, 2009)
Similar Schools Ranking (SSR): A valid measure of school performance as related to schools
with similar demographics.
Socio-Economic Status (SES): A measure of an individual’s or family's relative economic and
social ranking (NCES, 2010)
Title I: A federal program that provides financial assistance to schools with high numbers and
percentages of poor children in order to help all children meet state adopted academic standards
(US Department of Education, 2010).
Title II (Teacher Quality): A federal program that provides grants to increase student
achievement and hold schools accountable for results by funding professional development for
teachers and principals.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

26

Title III: A federal program that provides language instruction funding for Limited English
Proficient and immigrant students.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

27

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483, 484) declaration that the “separate
but equal” doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson (163, U.S. 537) had no place in the field of
education marked the first federal acknowledgement of a gap in the quality of schooling
provided to American students. Since this seminal case, school reform efforts at the federal,
state, and local levels have been dominated by five distinct movements aimed at improving
equity, defining academic standards to leverage improvement, promoting school choice, turning
around chronically failing schools, and improving teacher effectiveness. Despite a half century of
these efforts, the achievement gap persists. In a recent address to the National Action Network,
President Obama asserted: “The best possible education is the single most important factor in
determining whether (our children) succeed. But it’s also what will determine whether we
succeed. It’s the key to opportunity. It is the civil rights issue of our time” (Obama, 2011).
This chapter will summarize the five major school reform efforts enacted in the past 50
years to close the student achievement gap. In addition to exploring the policy and funding
implications of the equity, standards, school choice, turnaround, and teacher effectiveness
movements, this chapter will synthesize extant research on human capital, and on instructional,
and organizational practices that serve to bolster student achievement. Further, it will explore the
need to reconstruct resource allocations efforts to support school improvement efforts.
School Reform Models
Equity-Focused School Reform Efforts
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 served as landmark legislation by officially criminalizing
race-based discrimination, most notably outlawing the formerly sanctioned separate school
systems utilized for White and Black students in the south. Soon thereafter, the Elementary and
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

28

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 instituted another tool for equity-based education
reform when it authorized the use of separate, or categorical, program funds to provide additional
educational services for specific groups of at-risk students. Title I of ESEA introduced a flagship
program to improve education for children from low-income families (Jennings, 2012). In
subsequent years, additional smaller scale programs were introduced to provide categorical
funding supports for specific student populations deemed at risk.
In 1972, Title IX of ESEA prohibited recipients of federal aid from discriminating against
females. And although it significantly impacted school and extra-curricular programming, this
policy did not provide additional categorical funding. However, the ESEA did provide
categorical funding for English Language Learners in response to the Lau v Nichols (414, U.S.
563) ruling in 1974 that children must receive appropriate instruction regardless of their native
language.
Perhaps the most rigorous equity ruling occurred in 1975, when a law was enacted to
ensure that children with disabilities received a free, appropriate public education. Later titled the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), this legislation authorized parents to sue in
cases where their children failed to receive services provided under the law. And, unlike other
equity-minded statutes, IDEA obligated school districts to pay for the range of services agreed to
in a student’s individualized education plan (IEP) irrespective of the level of federal and state
funding provided (Jennings, 2012).
The policy and funding efforts of equity-based reform have yielded mixed results.
Today, students with disabilities are primarily educated in mainstream classrooms, and they
attend postsecondary institutions at record numbers. Additionally, females now graduate high
school and enter college at higher rates than males. However, legislative efforts to improve poor
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

29

and minority student performance have proven less successful, for two reasons. First, the funding
provided through categorical programs is not sufficient to meet the intent of the policies.
Currently, more than 40% of Title 1 schools spend less money on instructional personnel than
non-Title 1 schools. And, second, guarantees of individual rights and categorical funding, by
their nature, are not designed to improve the broader education system (Jennings, 2012).
Although equity-focused reforms resulted in increased access for female and disabled students,
the achievement gap for poor and minority students has persisted.
Standards-Based School Reform Efforts
Although no universally accepted definition of Standards-Based Reform exists, research
has suggested that it includes the following features: academic expectations for students, using
assessments of student achievement to monitor performance, offering support and technical
assistance to foster improved learning, and making accountability provisions that reward or
sanction schools or students on the basis of measured performance (Hamilton, Stecher, & Yuan,
2008). This movement originated in the 1980s when the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics authored a set of national standards. Subsequent attempts to build a national set of
standards for all content areas that included assessment measures were not immediately
successful.
President Clinton advocated for standards reform; however, rather than focusing on
national standards, he encouraged an approach requiring states to develop their own standards
and assessments. In 1994, the Improving America’s Schools Act introduced the concept of
holding schools accountable for student performance on standardized assessments (Herman,
Dawson, Dee, Greene, Maynard, Redding, & Darwin, 2008). Although it compelled states to
define standards and offered an aligned assessment system, the legislation failed to require states
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

30

to provide the educational opportunities necessary for students to reach those standards
(Jennings, 2012).
The reauthorization of the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),
like the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2001, signified a turning point for the standards-
based reform movement. NCLB requires students from all subgroups (as defined by ethnic,
socioeconomic, English learner, and special education status) to achieve proficiency on state
standardized tests as of the school year 2013–14. Although the federal government does not hold
the authority to impose standards on schools, any schools accepting federal funding must adhere
to the requirements set forth by NCLB legislation (Gamoran & Long, 2006).
Under NCLB, all public school schools must make adequate progress (AYP) each year
(on state standardized tests) in raising student achievement, culminating in 100% of students
reaching proficiency by 2014. The 2011 results indicated pervasive failure, with an estimated
48% of schools missing AYP targets (up from 39% in 2010); nonetheless, in 24 states and the
District of Columbia more than half of schools made AYP. The percentage of public schools
failing to make AYP ranged from 11% in Wisconsin to 89% in Florida. In California, a
staggering 66% of schools—or 6,526 of the 9,865 schools—did not meet AYP requirements
(Usher, 2011). Faced with the reality that most schools will fall short of the 2014 mandate that
all students achieve academic proficiency, in September 2011, Secretary of Education, Arne
Duncan, announced a plan allowing “flexibility” within the NCLB policy:
This voluntary opportunity will provide educators and State and local leaders with
flexibility regarding specific requirements of NCLB in exchange for rigorous and
comprehensive State-developed plans designed to improve educational outcomes for all
students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction.
(USDOE, 2011)

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

31

By the February 2012 deadline, eleven states had received formal approval for their
flexibility plans, and an additional 26 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had
applied for waivers (USDOE, 2012). On June 15, 2012, California submitted its application for a
waiver seeking relief from NCLB mandates. Although it concedes the fatal flaw of the NCLB,
the waiver process remains steadfast in its directive to states that the achievement gap must
close.
The most recent evolution of standards-based reform was announced in June 2010, when
the National Governor’s Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSO) launched a set of common academic standards designed to accomplish the following:
The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what
students are expected to learn . . . The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to
the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success
in college and careers. (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010)

Although full implementation of Common Core standards and assessments does not begin until
2014, 45 states and the District of Columbia have committed to adoption.
Research on the efficacy of standards-based reform primarily focuses on the assessment
aspect of the movement. Multiple studies of relationships between high-stakes testing and
classroom practices have revealed that these assessments influence how teachers behave. In
some cases, the changed behaviors are positive (i.e., when schools vertically align curriculum
across grade levels); in other instances, the changed behaviors are problematic (i.e., when
schools focus time on specific test item styles or formats to the exclusion of comprehensive
pedagogy). The research further suggests that teacher autonomy over practice remains high,
whereas change to pedagogical practice remains low. Therefore, although we may conclude that
standards-based reform has induced changes in behavior, we may not presume that these changes
have had either a positive or negative impact on student learning (Hamilton et al., 2008).
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

32

Additionally, research as to whether standards-based reform has improved student
learning remains inconclusive. Although some states have enjoyed increases in student
achievement scores since the inception of NCLB, results have proven inconsistent. Furthermore,
increases on state achievement tests have not matched increases in National Assessment of
Education Progress (NAEP) scores. Perhaps due to inherent difficulties in the process of linking
achievement gains to policy initiatives, questions persist about the impact of standards-based
reform on student learning (Hamilton et al., 2008).
School Choice Reform Efforts
The concept of school choice initiated in 1955 when Milton Friedman argued that
adopting a school voucher system would increase competition and, logically, improve the quality
of education provided to children (Moe, 2008). Critics of this controversial concept retorted that
the choice system would only further advantage wealthy students who already exercised choice
by living in communities with strong school systems. More than a half century later, the debate
remains heated. Today, school choice options exist in the following formats: home schooling,
magnet schools, tuition tax credits, voucher systems, and charter schools.
The number of students opting for home schooling has risen significantly in the last
decade. In fact, a US Department of Education study estimated that 1.5 million students were
home schooled in 2007, up from an estimated $1.1 million in 2003 (NCES, 2008). A National
Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) conducted by the US Department of
Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) asked parents to cite why they had
chosen the home school option. The survey elicited the following responses: 36% of parents
cited the opportunity to provide religious or moral instruction; 21% identified concern about the
school environment; 17% noted dissatisfaction with the academic instruction available at the
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

33

local schools; 7% indicated interest in a nontraditional approach to education; 6% cited health
problems or other special needs; the remaining parents cited reasons such as such as family,
finances, and distance (NCES, 2008). Although it provides choice to families capable of properly
educating their children, home schooling fails to serve as a large-scale solution to close the
achievement gap.
Magnet Schools are federally authorized under Title V of ESEA. The US Department of
Education promotes the following goals for the federal magnet schools program: to eliminate,
reduce, or prevent minority group isolation with substantial proportions of minority students; to
develop and implement magnet school programs that will assist in achieving systemic reforms
and provide all students the opportunity to meet challenging state academic standards; to develop
innovative educational methods and practices that promote diversity and increase choice in
schools; to promote courses of instruction that will substantially strengthen students' knowledge
of academic subjects and attainment of tangible and marketable vocational, technological, and
professional skills; and, to ensure that all students in magnet schools programs have equitable
access to high-quality education that enables them to succeed academically and continue with
post-secondary education or productive employment (USDOE, 2012). In September 2010,
Secretary Duncan awarded $100 million in magnet program grants to schools in 15 states,
including California. As with home schooling, magnets schools seek to educate specific
populations of students and, by design, will not prompt large-scale education reform.
Unlike home school and magnet programs that impact a small number of students in
many states, voucher programs and tuition tax credits have been implemented in a limited
number of states. In 1995, Wisconsin became the first state to enact a law allowing public funds
to be used in Milwaukee to educate children from low-income families at public or private
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

34

schools. This program expanded to more districts in Wisconsin by 2011 (Jennings, 2012). More
recently, Ohio, Florida, and Indiana have passed laws offering a form of voucher programs.
Similarly, by 2008, 10 tuition tax credit programs were offered nationally either to give parents
tax credits for education expenses at private schools or to allow business and individuals tax
credits for contributing to scholarship organizations that provide vouchers to children (Moe,
2008). Although controversial in nature, these programs have not been broadly adopted
nationally as a school choice reform effort.
Whereas vouchers and tax credits remain limited in scope, charter schools are ubiquitous,
particularly in urban areas suffering from prevalent achievement gaps. Since the first charter
school opened in Minnesota in 1992, charter school enrollment now constitutes 4% of the total
US enrollment in elementary and secondary schools. Charter schools are typically concentrated
in urban geographic areas, with places like the District of Columbia enrolling 40% of students in
this school choice option (Jennings, 2012). By 2008 in California, charter schools represented
7% of all public schools and enrolled 4% of all students in the state (EdSource, 2009).
California was the second state in the country to pass charter school legislation. The
Charter Schools Act of 1992, which served as a political compromise to the contentious voucher
initiative, sought to accomplish the following goals: improve student learning, increase learning
opportunities for all students—especially for those identified as low achieving; encourage the use
of different and innovative learning methods; create new professional opportunities for
teachers—including being responsible for the learning program at a school; expand choice for
parents in the public school system; and hold schools accountable for meeting measurable
student outcomes (EdSource, 2004, 2009).

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

35

When charters first opened in California, most of the schools were conversion charters—
traditional public schools that changed to charter status and retained their facilities, staff, and
students. That trend has reversed in recent years; today, most California charters open as start-
ups that host their own facilities, hire their own staff, and recruit students from existing schools.
By 2008, 83% of California’s charters were start-ups, serving 73% of charter students
(EdSource, 2009). Start-up charters are widely understood as more quickly producing improved
learning because they are not constrained by issues of existing staff and school culture. A 2006
NewSchools Venture Fund study of successful charter operators unearthed widespread aversion
to takeover and turnaround strategies, with only 4 of 36 organizations interviewed expressing
interest in the reform strategy. In fact, Tom Torkelson, CEO of IDEA Public Schools, has
explained, “I don’t do turnarounds because a turnaround usually means operating within a school
system that couldn’t stomach the radical steps we’d take to get the school back on track”
(Smarick, 2010, p. 5). Nonetheless, California’s funding decreases and the cost of facilities have
forced many charter operators to rethink their approach to opening new schools.
In 2009, EdSource conducted a comparison study of charters and noncharters in
California. It found varying demographic information by school level. For example, the parent
education levels in charters are significantly higher at the elementary and middle school levels
but are similar at the high school when compared to noncharters. Additionally, charter
elementary and middle schools reported a lower portion of students enrolled in the free and
reduced-price lunch program (FRL) than that of traditional schools; yet, charter high schools
have a higher participation rate than traditional schools in the FRL program. However, at all
grade levels, charter schools enroll a higher percentage of African American and Latino students,
while serving a lower portion of Special Education students and English Language Learners than
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

36

traditional schools (EdSource, 2009). Because the demographic data vary between charter and
traditional schools in California, the study adjusted for differences when comparing achievement
data. This adjustment resulted in charter elementary students performing lower on all comparison
achievement data and middle school students performing higher on all outcomes. Additionally,
charter high school students scored almost nine points higher on the API than noncharter
students. However, when the data were disaggregated, results revealed that students scored
slightly higher on English tests and slightly lower on Math tests (EdSource, 2009). Analysis of
California charters exposes mixed results with generally small effect sizes.
Like the California study on charter performance, national research has generated mixed
results. In 2009, The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) conducted a study
of charter performance across 15 states and the District of Columbia. The study acknowledged
that state charter policies impacted school performance, and therefore, contributed to the
variance in charter school results. In general, states that offered a smaller number of charters,
employed multiple authorizers, and provided an appeals process for adverse decisions in their
laws produced lower performing charter schools. Irrespective of the legislative impact, the
national review of student level data revealed several important facts:
• Charter school students in the following states had significantly higher learning gains
than would have occurred in traditional schools: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois,
Louisiana, and Missouri. The following states demonstrated weaker learning gains:
Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas. The following states
offered mixed or insignificant results: California, District of Columbia, Georgia, and
North Carolina.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

37

• Charter students in elementary and middle grades have significantly higher rates of
learning than their traditional school peers; however, charter high school and
multilevel school students have significantly lower results.
• English Language Learners realize better results in charter schools, whereas Special
Education Students have the same learning gains as their traditional school peers.
• Students do better in charter schools over time. Although first-year charter students
tend to experience a decrease in learning, second- and third-year students see a
significant reversal to potential gains.
• African American and Latino students show significantly lower learning gains than
those of their traditional school peers; however, charter schools have stronger
academic growth for students in poverty.
• Charter school students, on average, see a decrease in academic growth in reading
(.01 standard deviation) and math (.03 standard deviations) compared to their
traditional school peers (CREDO, 2009).
The mixed results and contentious debate over charter performance persists for a number
of reasons: state policies can support or hinder the ability of charters to operate optimally;
charters do not provide a uniform academic program that would lend the movement to easier
holistic evaluation; charters chiefly serve a higher risk student population whose data should not
be compared in the aggregate to other populations; and, lastly, the political nature of charters
often reduces dialogue to over-simplified rhetoric that prohibits any useful discussion about
choice as a school reform option.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

38

School Turnaround Efforts
Recent federal reforms have attempted to connect the various school reform efforts. In
addition to focusing on the accountability aspect of standards-based reform, the federal
government has provided competitive grants to turn around chronically failing schools and to
improve teacher effectiveness. Designed as an economic stimulus package, the 2009 American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) served both as tool to provide stabilization funds to
states suffering from the economic crisis and as a vehicle to award competitive grants aimed at
improving student outcomes. The $4.35 billion Race to the Top fund rewarded states for creating
conditions for education innovation and reform that closed the student achievement gap,
improved high school graduation rates, and implemented ambitious plans in four core education
reform areas: adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to compete in the global
economy; building data systems that measure student growth and inform educators about how
they can improve instruction; recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers
and principals; and turning around the lowest-achieving schools (US Department of Education,
2012b).
Whereas Race to the Top allocated funds at the state level, the Investment in Innovation
Fund (i3) offered $650 million in competitive grants to school districts and nonprofit
organizations to expand the implementation of evidence-based practices, programs, and
strategies that significantly improve K–12 achievement and close achievement gaps; decrease
dropout rates; increase high school graduation rates; and improve teacher and school leader
effectiveness (US Department of Education, 2012a).
School turnaround efforts are closely related to the school choice movement. Under the
NCLB accountability process, schools failing to meet AYP targets for two consecutive years fall
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

39

into Program Improvement (PI) status. All students attending PI schools must be offered a choice
to attend a non-PI status school, with priority given to the lowest performing children from low-
income families. Although the policy intends to provide options to students attending chronically
low performing schools, in actuality, many urban districts do not house enough successful
schools to serve students through a transfer process. The turnaround movement responds to this
reality. In 2009, President Obama and Secretary Duncan jointly called upon states and districts to
dramatically improve the nation’s 5,000 lowest performing schools (US Department of
Education, 2009). A significant number of students are relegated to persistently low performing
elementary, middle, and high schools. In fact, close to 12% of high schools in the United States
are deemed “dropout factories” because they enroll senior classes with 60% or fewer of students
who started there as freshmen (Kowal & Ableidinger, 2011). The national call to “turnaround”
the nation’s chronically failing schools has resulted in significant investment in School
Improvement Grants (SIG). Section 1003(g) of the ESEA permits the United States Secretary of
Education to allocate SIG funds to states for the purpose of school improvement (US Department
of Education, 2009).
In 2009, the US Department of Education allocated $3.55 billion to “enable the lowest-
achieving schools” to enact rapid improvement through one of the following four intervention
models: the Turnaround Model, the Restart Model, the School Closure Model, or the
Transformation Model (US Department of Education, 2009). To adopt the Turnaround Model,
the Local Education Agency (LEA) agrees to the following changes: replace the principal, rehire
no more than 50% of the staff, grant greater principal autonomy, and implement other prescribed
and recommended strategies. To enact the Restart Model, the LEA converts or closes and
reopens a school under a charter school operator, charter management organization, or education
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

40

management organization. The third option involves school closure, in which case, the LEA
closes the school and enrolls the students in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving.
To undertake the final option, called the Transformation Model, the LEA agrees to the following
changes: replace the principal (except in specified situations); implement a rigorous staff
evaluation and development system; institute comprehensive instructional reform; increase
learning time and apply community-oriented school strategies; and provide greater operational
flexibility and support for the school (US Department of Education, 2009).
Between 1994 and 2004, a significant number of school turnaround studies were
conducted that focused on schools serving large percentages of students from low-income
families that had managed to significantly raise academic achievement results. A review of these
studies found the following set of common characteristics:
• Alignment: Tests were aligned with curriculum; curriculum was aligned to
instructional practice.
• Assessment: Students were assessed on a regular basis to determine their progress.
• Assistance: Students experiencing problems with learning required content received
prompt assistance.
• Collaboration: Teachers worked together to plan, monitor student progress, and
support struggling students.
• Data-Driven Decision-Making: Schools used student achievement data on regular
basis to make decisions regarding resource allocation, student needs and intervention,
and teacher effectiveness.
• Leadership: Administrators and teacher leaders acted to set an appropriate tone for the
school improvement process.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

41

• High Expectations: Teachers insisted that students were capable of doing high-quality
work.
• Organizational Structure: School structures like roles, teams, and planning processes
were adjusted to support the school improvement process.
• Parent Involvement: Schools reached out to families to apprise them of student
progress and to enlist their support in the overall school improvement effort
• Professional Development: Teachers received regular training to support and sustain
school improvement efforts.
• Scheduling: Master and bell schedules were adjusted to increase time for academic
work, particularly in reading and mathematics (Duke, 2006).
In response to the accountability measures of NCLB, a number of urban districts adopted
policies focused on fixing their inferior schools. On August 25, 2009, the Los Angeles Unified
School District adopted the Public School Choice Resolution (PSCR) to “mobilize the broader
Los Angeles community in supporting innovative school plans to improve academic
achievement in the District's lowest performing schools [Focus Schools] as well as open 50 new
schools between 2010-2012” (CCSA, 2011). The 2012–2013 school year marks the third round
of this reform effort.
LAUSD has adjusted the methodology for choosing Focus Schools. For the third round of
the turnaround effort, schools meeting the following eight criteria earned the status of Focus
School: PI status for three or more years; an API growth score of less than 650; less than a 10
percentage point increase in the number of students moving into the advance and proficient
bands and less than a 10 percentage point decrease in the number of students moving out of the
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

42

far below basic and below basic bands on the math and English CST; less than 100 points in net
API gain over the past five years; less than a 10 percentage point change in any group (African
American, Latino, English Language Learner, and Special Education) moving to proficiency;
and a four-year graduation rate of less than 80%, or a dropout rate of higher than 10% (CCSA,
2011). To date, 56 new and Focus Schools have opened under the PSCR resolution, and
LAUSD is accepting proposals for an additional 13 schools slated to open in the 2013–2014
school year.
Whereas national research on the impact of turnaround efforts appears to have been
relegated to case studies, the data collected from the first 18 schools participating in the
LAUSD’s PSCR process suggest that the charter schools participating in PSCR are
outperforming both the noncharter PSCR schools and the PI schools they are relieving.
According to the California Charter Schools Association, two elementary schools operated by
Aspire Public Schools outpaced three of the four relief schools on the state assessments for
English and math; Jose Castellanos Elementary Charter School (operated by Camino Nuevo
Charter Schools) outperformed all of its relieved schools in English and math; Synergy Charter
Academy significantly outperformed both the relieved LAUSD school and the new district-run
PSCR school on the same campus in English and math; and Magnolia Science Academy Bell
outperformed both district-run PSCR schools on their shared campus as well as one of the two
relieved LAUSD schools (CCSA, 2011). Much like the charter school reform effort, turnaround
school processes vary widely in implementation; therefore, the data on turnaround success will
almost certainly produce inconsistent results. However, both national and local data indicate the
presence of successful models to emulate as turnaround reform efforts continue.
Teacher Effectiveness Reform Efforts
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

43

Teacher quality has also been a central consideration in the debate over how to close the
achievement gap. The belief that teacher performance has a strong impact on student learning
has repeatedly been validated by research. In fact, Hill, Kapitula, and Umland (2010) have cited
research indicating, “teacher effects explained 11% of the variation in student test score gains”
(p. 796). Another study found that half of the variation in scores between White and African
American students was attributable to differences in teacher effectiveness. That study also found
that teachers have a cumulative effect on student achievement: “Students who spend three years
in classrooms with relatively ineffective teachers may never catch up academically to their peers
who have more effective instructors” (Koppich & Rigby, p. 3). Hundreds of studies have focused
on the influence teachers have on student achievement, and two key findings consistently
emerge: “First, teachers are important; no other measured aspect of schools is nearly as
important in determining student achievement. Second, it has not been possible to identify any
specific characteristics of teachers that are reliably related to student outcomes” (Hanushek,
20110, p. 467). Given both the knowledge that teachers have an impact and the complexity of
isolating the traits of good teachers, the teacher effectiveness movement has largely focused its
energies on providing economic incentives such as performance pay to attract and retain high
performers. Adopting performance pay as a teacher effectiveness strategy underscores two major
assumptions: first, that teacher performance impacts student learning; and second, that teachers
will be motivated to improve performance given the proper financial incentives.
Whereas teacher impact on student achievement is clear, the assertion that economic
incentives will motivate teachers to improve performance has proven less certain. Notably,
whereas teacher performance pay systems vary significantly in goals and structure, they all seek
to align compensation more closely with the district’s strategies for improving the quality of
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

44

instruction that students receive. An analysis of district attempts to adopt various performance
pay systems has revealed that financial incentives alone do not bolster teacher performance.
Early research has indicated that money may be necessary, but is not sufficient; rather, working
conditions (class size, school culture, leadership, and safety) influence both teachers’ satisfaction
with their careers and decisions about where to teach (Koppich & Rigby, 2009).
Champions of performance pay frequently point to the private sector as a model.
However, Odden and Kelley (1997) have asserted that performance pay strategies “work in only
a few private-sector organizations and do not work in education or other organizations which the
most productive work is characterized by collegial and collaborative interaction” (p. vii).
Furthermore, Adams, Heywood, and Rothstein (2009) have found that performance pay systems
were generally relegated to sales workers, executives, and finance workers whose outputs were
aligned to a specific measure (i.e., units sold). In fact, in 2005 only 6% of private sector workers
were awarded regular performance-based payments. Adams et al. (2009) concluded their
comparative research with a strong admonition that “most [education] policy makers who now
promote performance incentives and accountability, and scholars who analyze them, seem
mostly oblivious to the extensive corruption of quantitative indicators and the perverse
consequences of performance indicators that rely on such indicators” (p. 97). These studies
challenge two important assumptions about performance pay: first, that performance pay is
widespread in the private sector; and second, that the education sector can successfully adopt a
reward system that relies on basic output measures.
William Slotnik (2009) has asserted that the failure of performance pay policies often
stems from a failure to understand motivational theory:
Many past and current initiatives have been based on the belief that compensation is the
primary incentive for teachers to perform at higher levels. This belief has generated a
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

45

simplistic debate over how much is too much and how much is too little in the way of
incentives. It perpetuates a consistent misperception of about motivation because more is
involved in providing incentives to teachers than money alone. (p. 1)
Subsequent research has supported the notion that economic incentives alone will not elicit the
motivational effect necessary to improving teacher performance.
Multiple research projects conducted by the Rand Corporation suggest that for
performance pay to become an effective tool for improving teacher performance, schools must:
use high-quality achievement measures that align to curricula; supplement test scores with
additional measures of instruction or student outcomes (i.e., consideration for the number of
student enrolled in AP or college preparatory courses); provide educators with the resources to
improve practice, including professional development, coaching, and collaboration time with
peers; invest in high-quality data systems to track student outcomes (Hamilton & Li, 2009). To
serve as an effective reform, the teacher effectiveness movement must expand beyond economic
incentives and consider multiple measures to evaluate and support the improvement of teacher
performance.
Strategies for Improving School Performance
Allan Odden (2009) has argued that our failure to improve schools cannot be attributed to
insufficient funding or to a lack of knowledge about how to improve schools; rather, he has
asserted that “we lack the will and persistence” to implement what we already know (p. 22). In
the 50 years since the first public acknowledgment of an achievement gap, countless policies and
programs have endeavored to incite school improvement; yet, the achievement gap persists.
Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) have argued that simple, well-known strategies and structures drive
improvement in any organization. A consistent body of research suggests that, if implemented
effectively, the following strategies will significantly improve school performance: Creating a
data-driven culture, developing effective teachers, developing effective school leaders, creating
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

46

academic programs that meet the needs of students, and setting high expectations for student
performance.
Creating a Data-Driven Culture
Paul Bambrick-Santoyo (2010) has asserted: “Data-driven instruction is the philosophy
that schools should constantly focus on one simple question: are our students learning?” (p.
xxv). He has further described four key principles for data-driven instruction: assessment—
create rigorous interim assessments that provide meaningful data; analysis—examine the
results of assessments to find the causes of both strengths and shortcomings; action—teach
effectively what students most need to learn; and, culture—create an environment in which
data-driven instruction can thrive and persist (Bambrick-Santoyo, 2010). Like Bambrick-
Santoyo, Odden (2009) has identified the need to adopt formative and benchmark
assessments, create a cycle of continuous improvement, and build a culture receptive to data-
driven decision-making. However, Odden (2009) has further argued that schools that establish
ambitious goals show the strongest gains, in part, because they do not focus on incremental
improvements. Even when the schools that Odden (2009) researched did not reach their goals,
they made substantial improvement. The key to school improvement lies in schools’ ability to
use data to change programs and instructional practices so as to better meet the needs of
students.
Before it can adopt an improvement process focused on data-driven instruction, a
school must acknowledge the barriers that threaten the process. Research has illustrated
myriad factors that hinder the ability of schools to use data in the reform effort; however, two
issues are pervasive: cultural resistance and the ability to use data effectively. In most school
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

47

districts, cultural resistance is a primary barrier to using data. The act of collecting, analyzing,
and using data for ongoing decision-making and program improvement represents a major
culture shift (Lachat, 2004). There is a common perception that data analysis is collected for
“someone else’s purposes,” and beyond an annual review of state assessment data, most
schools fail to consider how their programs impact the performance of different groups of
students (Lachat, 2001).
This culture shift can be particularly difficult in a climate characterized by feelings of
teacher alienation or isolation. Teachers have long been called to adhere to policies and laws
that they had no part in creating or evaluating (Carnoy & Levin, 1985). This culture of
compliance can create alienation and foster an environment antithetical to one that empowers
teachers to analyze data, set goals, and enact the change necessary for school improvement.
In addition to provoking alienation, schools typically adopt a “freelance culture” lacking the
organization for adults to work collectively toward a common end. Goodlad has lamented that
school reform efforts often suffer from superficial implementation at the classroom level, and
that innovation quickly reverts back to behaviors that teachers have always exhibited (in
Schmoker, 1999). Unless a school intentionally works to change this culture of adult
alienation and isolation, a goal-free ethos will ensure that the achievement gap persists.
The second major barrier to the use of data for improvement lies in the abilities of
school leaders and teachers to use data to inform decisions. Although schools have access to
large amounts of data, a lack of knowledge persists in how best to transform data into action
plans that will increase student learning (Parker Boudett, 2005). Lachat has explained:
Putting student learning at the center of school accountability requires the capacity to
access and use data to monitor student performance and to evaluate the extent to which
new structures and approaches to curriculum, instruction, and assessment result in
higher levels of achievement for students. (2001, p.16)
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

48

In addition to the need to develop data analysis skills, research has found that teachers often
struggle to link data to appropriate interventions (Lachat, 2001). Schools that have
successfully used data processes to create reform have dedicated extensive professional
development and coaching to the effort.
To build a culture that values making instructional decisions based on data, schools
must provide professional development, networking opportunities, and structural supports in
the form of data management systems and personnel (Datnow & Kennedy, 2008). Research
has suggested that schools that prioritize data foster a culture of inquiry and teamwork
(Schmoker, 2009). Datnow and Kennedy (2008) have further asserted: “In some instances
where educators are confronted with evidence that challenges their views about students’
abilities, data can act as a potential catalyst for changing perceptions” (p. 10). This work is a
critical component in shifting the school paradigm from Schmoker’s notion of a teacher-
centered environment to one that focuses on student learning.
Two critical factors in creating a climate receptive to data use involve the creation of
data teams to prioritize which data are analyzed and the creation of structured reporting cycles
that define when and how often data will be addressed. In Data Use in Urban High Schools,
Lachat (2001) studied four high schools that demonstrated institutional receptivity to data use.
In several cases, schools created data teams tasked with determining which data sets a school
would prioritize. Using campus-level teams to prioritize data supported Schmoker’s (2009)
contention that teamwork is a critical component of the culture shift. Lachat (2001) further
explained that the success of the data teams in developing institutional receptivity hinges on
four factors: First, team membership must offer broad representation of personnel (i.e., the
team should not be made up solely of math teachers); second, the team must model the use of
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

49

data in its work with others; third, the team must use a project-based approach that
incorporates a focus on school-wide as well as individual use of data to create action plans;
and fourth, the team must commit to staying the course through change by focusing on
prioritized data (p. 23). When run effectively, data teams encourage institutional receptivity to
data prioritization and analysis.
Whereas data teams can serve as an invaluable contributor to culture, their work in
creating interim reporting is equally vital. Lachat’s (2001) case studies have suggested that the
culture shift on those campuses stemmed from the fact that data teams were able to provide a
core set of disaggregated data on a regularly scheduled basis. The simple understanding that
administrators and teachers would have access to multiple sources of data on a consistent
basis changed the expectation on the campus. Bensimon has asserted, “It is said what is
measured gets noticed” (2004, p. 46). The research on data teams has further suggested that
where schools spend their time indicates their values. Schools that have created structures and
dedicated time to identifying focus data have successfully enacted a culture shift.
An exploding body of knowledge now focuses on the importance of setting goals as a
critical step in closing the achievement gap. Goal setting is part of a process often referenced
as “the cycle of continuous improvement” (Parker Boudett, 2005; Schmoker, 1999; Weiss,
2007). At the school level, administrators are responsible for evaluating the extent to which
programs and practices support the students they serve. This commitment requires a school to
look at various student groups (i.e., English language learners) and assess their performance in
multiple school programs (i.e., science). Lachat (2001) has explained that putting student
learning at the center of accountability requires evaluating the extent to which new structures
and approaches to curriculum, instruction, and assessment result in higher levels of
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

50

achievement for students. For example, a middle school may identify a need to focus on
reading comprehension skills for 6th-grade English Language Learners. If it adopts a new
curricular model intended to support these students, the school would be necessary to ensure
that teachers have adequate training, set goals based on student growth throughout the year,
and create targets to get students to reading levels consistent with targets set for English-
proficient classmates. This process requires schools to link student achievement results to
instructional practices and then to disaggregate data so that results can be examined in
meaningful ways (Lachat, 2001).
Schools demonstrating institutional receptivity build a process into professional
development that allows for a cycle of inquiry. Weiss’s research has shown a process whereby
teachers adopt research-based best practices and analyze what works for their group of
students. During the process, teachers make adjustments to their practices and continuously
re-assess student understanding. This process continues until students achieve desired
learning outcomes (Weiss, 2007).
While the practice of creating measurable goals is embedded within the process for
continuous improvement, the level at which goals are set varies from school to school. In fact,
schools choose significantly different measurable goals to demonstrate how they will close the
achievement gap. Some schools create campus-wide goals tied to achievement that look more
universally at achievement. Other schools feel that school-wide goals are not as impactful, and
claim that data used at the teacher level on a daily basis have the most impact on improving
instruction, and therefore, closing the achievement gap (Datnow & Kennedy, 2008). There are
limitations to choosing one format over the other. If a school focuses solely on school-wide
goals, it is more difficult for the cycle to focus in on how individual teacher practice needs to
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

51

change to close the achievement gap. It also may limit the focus on goal setting for subgroups
of students who may be struggling more significantly than others. Conversely, if a school
focuses solely on daily teacher instructional goals, it will be more time consuming to track
data and may be more difficult to make necessary programmatic decisions.
In addition to considering the level at which a school creates measurable goals, schools
must look at goals from a growth perspective. Schmoker (1999) has extolled the importance of
both looking at multiple measures when setting goals and considering growth as opposed to
absolute performance. Datnow and Kennedy (2008) have explained that schools focused on
measurable goals imbed those goals into observation forms, teacher evaluation systems, and
departmental curriculum planning. Whether considered at the school or individual level, the
process of setting measurable goals requires a focus on improvement—with an understanding
that improvement might not be constant. Jay McTighe has asserted the importance of
acknowledging less dramatic improvement in the school reform process, explaining that the
cumulative impact of small improvements can be dramatic. He further asserted that these
incremental improvements can only be captured through the process of data analysis and goal
setting (Schmoker, 1999).
The primary assumption at the heart of data-driven decision-making rests with the notion
that the school will adopt quality measures to gauge student learning. Odden (2009) has asserted,
“Contrary to the widespread complaints in many education circles that there is too much testing
in America’s schools, the places that double performance actually add layers of testing –
benchmark as well as formative assessments” (p. 47). Odden (2009) further explained that two
fundamental beliefs are central to schools successfully using interim assessments: First, the
continuous improvement cycle requires that student knowledge and skills are measured
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

52

frequently; and second, frequent and focused formative assessments can help teachers make
practice more targeted, effective, and efficient. The process of data-driven decision-making is
central to school improvement. When schools understand their performance, set goals for
improvement, create teams focused on implementing improvement, and frequently gauge
progress, they move to a student-centered learning environment.
Developing Effective Teachers
Teacher quality has been a central consideration in the debate over how to fix our failing
schools. Jim Collins (2001a) has submitted that the most important decisions that business
people make are not what decisions, but who decisions. The Public Impact Report reinforced this
concept in the education world by asserting that individual teachers have the largest school
impact on student learning. The growing belief that effective teachers are essential to education
reform has caused a renewed interest in the following aspects of developing effective teachers:
the teacher selection process, evaluation, professional development, and coaching.
Teacher Selection. In his effort to create an interview protocol to select effective urban
teachers, Martin Haberman (2005) learned that the most powerful predictor of professional
behavior was not a personality profile but an individual’s ideology. He identified that the most
critical behaviors to be performed are not endless lists of discrete tasks but functions that involve
the performance of multiple tasks grouped in clusters. He believes that there are likely fewer than
10 functions performed by successful practitioners, and that rather than searching for individuals
assumed to be universally competent, schools need to select individuals who perform midrange
functions well. In his interview protocol, Haberman (2005) looked for the following midrange
functions: persistence, protecting students’ learning, putting theory into practice, having an
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

53

approach to at-risk students, having a professional versus a personal orientation; burnout, and
fallibility.
While Haberman focused on how to detect ideologies found in effective teachers during
an interview process, the Public Impact Report (2008) encouraged schools to hire educators
embodying a specific set of competencies. It further cited that individual teachers in high-poverty
schools can effect rapid, dramatic improvements to student learning in their classrooms. The
study suggested that a previous demonstration of competence to achieve success is one of the
best predictors of future performance in a given role. The study also delineated four competency
clusters consistently displayed by successful educators:
1. Driving For Results: This cluster of competencies focuses on a teacher’s desire to achieve
outstanding learning results and the actions required for success. Specific competencies
in this cluster include achievement, or the drive to set challenging goals and reach a high
standard of performance despite barriers; initiative and persistence, or the drive to do
more than is expected to accomplish a required task; monitoring and directiveness, or the
ability to set clear expectations and to hold others accountable for performance; and
planning ahead, or a bias toward planning to avoid problems and derive future benefits.
2. Influencing for Results: This cluster of competencies focuses on motivating others—
students, colleagues, and parents—and influencing their behavior to obtain desired
learning outcomes. Competencies in this cluster include impact and influence, or acting
to affect the perceptions, thinking and actions of others; interpersonal understanding, or
knowing others’ concerns, motives, and feelings; and teamwork, or the ability to work
collaboratively to attain goals.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

54

3. Problem-Solving: These competencies focus on teachers’ thinking to plan and deliver
instruction, and include analytical and conceptual thinking.
4. Personal Effectiveness: These competencies are concerned with a teacher’s self-
management of emotions and personal beliefs. The specific competencies include belief
in learning potential, or having faith that all students, regardless of circumstances, can
achieve at higher levels then they currently do; self-control, or the ability to maintain
calm even when provoked; self-confidence, or a strong sense of self-efficacy; and
flexibility, or the ability to adapt an approach to meet the requirements of a situation.
Although it did not recommend a specific hiring process for effective teachers, the study
did define each competency, explain why the competency is important, and offered an example
of what the competency looks like in action. The study acknowledged that competencies can be
developed; however, it logically explained that reform efforts will be more effective if schools
begin by hiring people with the desired competencies.
Teacher Evaluation. In The Widget Effect, Weisberg et al. (2009) have stated: “A
teacher’s effectiveness - the most important factor for schools in improving student achievement
- is not measured, recorded, or used to inform decision-making in any meaningful way” (p. 3).
Complaints about the teacher evaluation process stem from three main issues: first, the frequency
of observations in the evaluation process hinders a critical understanding of performance;
second, the format of the observation process renders teachers passive participants in their
development; and third, both the quality of observation tools and administrator skill call into
question the accuracy of evaluation feedback. Kim Marshall (2005) has explained that the
evaluation process prevents teacher improvement because the tools force leaders to “over-
manage the occasional lesson and undermanage the bigger picture of whether teachers are truly
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

55

making a difference in student learning” (p. 730). Weisberg et al. (2009) found that most teacher
evaluations are based on two or fewer classroom observations totaling 76 minutes or less:
Across all districts, 64 percent of tenured teachers were observed two or fewer times…
Probationary teachers receive little additional attention despite their novice status: 59
percent of probationary teachers were observed two or fewer times for an average of 81
minutes. (p. 20)

The report further found that evaluators spend no more time giving feedback to teachers
identified as poor performers. The infrequency of observations—especially as it pertains to new
and underperforming teachers—suggests that the observation and feedback system is not valued
as a critical component of the teacher development process.
Aseltine, Faryniarz, and Rigazio-DiGilio (2006) have identified that a weakness in
conventional teacher evaluation systems stems from the fact that “outside of any pre- and
postobservation conferencing, teachers rarely participate in analyzing and drawing conclusions
from data or, more importantly, from student performance data” (p. 13). Most observation cycles
fail to require a component of teacher reflection (other than participation in the pre- and
postconferences) through data reflection processes like student work analysis. As a result, the 76
minutes of observation remain the focus of the performance evaluation.
The most common complaint about the teacher evaluation process centers on the
accuracy of feedback provided by administrators. Research provides mixed information about
the accuracy of administrator evaluation feedback. The Widget Effect (2009) has suggested that
administrators skew evaluation scores high:
Nearly one quarter of administrators (24 percent) and nearly a fifth of teachers (18
percent) equate their district’s highest rating with a teacher who is merely effective or
even somewhat effective, rather than seeing that rating as reserved for those who are truly
exceptional. (Weisberg et al., p. 13)

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

56

These numbers support the report’s general conclusion that educators expect exceptional
evaluation ratings irrespective of actual performance.
Conversely, studies correlating supervisor evaluations with student achievement data
proffer a more optimistic view. Research dating back to the 1970s has found a significant
positive correlation between student achievement scores and evaluations by supervisors. As
recently as 2005, Jacob and Lefgren assessed a positive “relationship between teacher
performance ratings, as identified on a detailed principal evaluation, and teacher effects, as
measured by student achievement gains” (in Podgursky & Skinner, 2007, p. 933–934). In
addition to positively correlating principal evaluation with teacher impact on student
achievement, this meta-analysis of research supported the conclusion that principal evaluations
serve as an important independent source of research. In spite of positive correlations between
evaluation scores and student achievement data, teacher evaluation systems must include tools
that clearly measure observed practice, offer opportunities for teacher reflection, and incorporate
student data (i.e., interim assessment results). Lastly, supervisors must undergo extensive
training to properly use evaluation tools.
Professional Development. Odden (2009) has defined professional development as a
practice that produces change in a teacher’s classroom instruction that can, in turn, be linked to
improved student learning. He further summarized a body of research suggesting that the
following structural features exist in effective professional development:
1. Effective professional development is campus-based, job-embedded, and ongoing. In
fact, it provides opportunities for teachers to practice incorporating new strategies in
their daily work.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

57

2. Professional development should focus both on increasing a teacher’s own content
knowledge and determining how students best learn that content.
3. Professional development should be extensive, totaling close to 200 hours annually.
4. Professional development should be linked to key components of the education
system, including: student content and performance standards, teacher evaluation, and
school goals.
5. Effective professional development is organized around groups of teachers
collaboratively engaging in the process of improving performance. (p. 60–61)
Revisiting Professional Learning Communities at Work also espouses the importance of
providing teachers with ongoing, job-embedded opportunities for learning (DuFour, DuFour, &
Eaker, 2008). In fact, the authors elevated the concept of professional development to
Professional Learning Communities, or “educators committing to working collaborative in
ongoing processes of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the
students they serve” (p. 14). DuFour et al. (2008) have described six essential traits of
professional learning communities: shared mission, vision, values and goals; a collaborative
culture with a focus on learning; collective inquiry into best practice and current reality; action
orientation, or learning by doing; a commitment to continuous improvement; and, an orientation
toward results. Whether a school chooses to adopt a professional development or a professional
learning community model, teachers must work collaboratively to apply learning to practice on a
recurring basis.
Teacher Coaching. Bambrick-Santoyo (2012) has argued that teacher coaching is a
critical lever in the school improvement process: “It [coaching] takes two steps: spending much
more time coaching, and using much more effective coaching strategies” (p. 61). His research
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

58

identified the following core ideas for coaching: a teacher receiving weekly observations and
feedback will develop as much in a year as most teachers do in 20 years; observation and
feedback is most effective when leaders track dates of observations, feedback received, and
whether feedback improved practice; the primary purpose of observation should not be to judge
but rather to find the most effective ways to coach teachers to improve student learning; teachers
learn best then they focus on one piece of feedback at a time—less feedback, more frequently
will maximize teacher improvement; feedback should be relegated to changes teachers can make
in one week; and the inclusion of student data (i.e., interim assessment) in a feedback session
allows coaches to help teachers support the specific learning needs of students. Bambrick-
Santoyo (2012) outlined the following six steps to effective coaching feedback:
1. Provide Precise Praise: Begin each session by describing one or two specific strengths
of the lesson.
2. Probe: As a targeted open-ended question focused on the core topic of the feedback.
3. Identify Problem and Concrete Action Step: State the specific weakness of the lesson
and provide a clear, measurable, observable action step that will improve the issue.
4. Practice: Role-play, model, or simulate how the teacher could improve the lesson.
5. Plan Ahead: Design or revise an upcoming lesson to include this new action step.
6. Set a Timeline: Determine a deadline by which the action will be accomplished. (p.
78)
The best practices identified in each of the key components of teacher effectiveness—selection,
evaluation, professional development, and coaching—correlate highly with the conceptual
framework examined in developing a data-driven culture. The similarities support Pfeffer and
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

59

Sutton’s (2000) argument that simple and well-known strategies guide improvement in any
organization.
Developing Effective School Leaders
Kay Psencik (2011) has argued, “Few jobs present as many challenges to an individual’s
intelligence, problem solving, and emotions as the principalship” (p. 24). An effective principal
must skillfully manage a multitude of tasks each day, sometimes addressing 50 to 60 interactions
in a given hour. In addition to dealing with hundreds of decisions, principals must focus on
developing learning communities in a culture that prioritizes learning, manage staff energy, build
consensus, and hold high expectations to facilitate change—but they must also be accountable to
students, staff and the larger community (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
Todd Whitaker (2003) conducted a study of 163 middle schools to understand the key
differences between an effective and less effective principal. His research revealed the following
key difference: “Effective principals view themselves as responsible for all aspects of the
school” (p. 15). These principals work collaboratively with stakeholders in decision-making
processes; however, they view themselves as the ultimate problem-solvers, even in
circumstances where issues are external.
Although the concept of ownership is critical, principals must exhibit a multitude of skills
to effectively execute their duties. Marzano et al. (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of a research
on school leaders, identified 21 key responsibilities, and correlated those duties with student
achievement. The results are illustrated in the table below.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

60

Table 1

The 21 Responsibilities and Their Correlations (r) with Student Academic Achievement
Responsibility
The extent to which the
principal…
Average
r
95%
Correlation
Interval
Number of
Studies
Number of
Schools
1.
Affirmation
Recognizes and celebrates
accomplishments and
acknowledges failures
.19 .08 to .29 6 332
2.
Change Agent
Is willing to challenge and
actively challenges the status
quo
.25 .16 to .34 6 466
3.
Contingent
Rewards
Recognizes and rewards
individual accomplishments
.24 .15 to .32 9 465
4.
Communication
Establishes strong lines of
communication with and
among teachers and students
.23 .12 to .33 11 299
5.
Culture
Fosters shared belief and a
sense of community and
cooperation
.25 .18 to .31 15 809
6.
Discipline
Protects teachers from issues
and influences that would
detract from their teaching time
and focus
.27 .18 to .35 12 437
7.
Flexibility
Adapts his or her leadership
behavior to the needs of the
current situation and is
comfortable with dissent
.28 .16 to .39 6 277
8.
Focus
Establishes clear goals and
keeps those goals in the
forefront of the schools
attention
.24 .19 to .29 44 1619
9.
Ideals/Beliefs
Communicates and operates
from strong ideals and beliefs
about schooling
.22 .14 to .30 7 513
10.
Input
Involves teachers in the design
and implementation of
important decisions and
policies
.25 .18 to .32 16 669
11.
Intellectual
Stimulation
Ensures faculty and staff are
aware of the most current
theories and practices and
makes the discussion of these a
regular aspect of the school’s
culture
.24 .13 to .34 4 302
12.
Involvement in
Curriculum,
Instruction, and
Assessment
Is directly involved in the
design and implementation of
curriculum, instruction, and
assessment practices
.20 .14 to .27 23 826
13.
Knowledge of
Curriculum,
Instruction &
Assessment
Is knowledgeable about current
curriculum,
.20 .14 to .27 23 826
14.
Monitoring/
Evaluating
Monitors the effectiveness of
school practices and their
impact on student learning
.27 .22 to .32 31 1129
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

61

Table 1, continued

Responsibility
The extent to which the
principal…
Average
r
95%
Correlation
Interval
Number of
Studies
Number of
Schools
15.
Optimizer
Inspires and leads new and
challenging innovations
.20 .13 to .27 17 724
16.
Order
Establishes a set of standard
operating procedures and
routines
.25 .16 to .33 17 456
17.
Outreach
Is an advocate and
spokesperson for the school to
all stakeholders
.27 .18 to .35 14 478
18. Relationships
Demonstrates an awareness of
the personal aspects of teachers
and staff
.18 .09 to .26 11 505
19.
Resources
Provides teachers with
materials and professional
development necessary for the
successful execution of their
jobs
.25 .17 to .32 17 571
20.
Situational
Awareness
Is aware of the details and
undercurrents in the running of
the school and uses this
information to address current
and potential problems
.33 .11 to .51 5 91
21.
Visibility
Has quality contact and
interactions with teachers and
students
.20 .11 to .28 13 477
Source: School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results, Marzano et al. (2005)

Although each of the 21 responsibilities considerably impacts student achievement,
situational awareness has the strongest correlation to learning. Primarily associated with the
work of Hersey and Blanchard, situational leadership calls on the principal to adapt leadership
behavior to a follower’s willingness to perform a given task. Situational leadership encompasses
four overarching leadership styles:
1. Telling Style: A leader directs the follower’s actions without much concern for
personal relationships when followers lack both the skills and the will to perform a
given task.
2. Participating Style: When followers want to perform a task but lack the skills to do
so, a leader interacts in a friendly manner while still providing clear direction to
support followers in completing a given task.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

62

3. Selling Style: In cases where a follower is capable but unwilling to perform a task, the
leader must use persuasion to encourage followers to complete a task.
4. Delegating Style: In cases where followers are both willing and able to complete a
given task, the leader provides little or no interference, or trusts followers to complete
a task. (Marzano et al., 2005, p. 17–18)
Whitaker (2003) and Marzano et al. (2005) have delineated the “change leadership skills”
necessary to turning around low-performing schools. Michael Fullan (2011) has defined a
change leader as a person who recognizes what is needed to bring about lasting, substantive
changes in systems at all levels. To this end, leaders need a deep understanding of how to
motivate human beings. Fullan (2011) has cited the following seven core practices of change
leaders as central to their success:
1. Be Resolute: Change leadership is a lengthy process; consequently, patience and
persistence are critical qualities.
2. Motivate the Masses: Effective change leaders combine moral purpose with empathy;
they create conditions for others to develop ownership through doing.
3. Collaborate to Compete: Collaboration encourages “pressure and support” where the
benefits of collective commitment and the push for greater performance serve as
motivators.
4. Learn Confidently: Effective leaders are confident learners with a growth mindset.
5. Know Your Impact: Effective leaders are skillful in their use of data, as it is possible
to be misled by numbers.
6. Practice Drives Theory: The effective change leader actively participates as a learner
in helping the organization improve.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

63

7. Sustain Simplexity: Effective leaders practice change leadership practices
simultaneously, which enables them to successfully tackle complex problems.
The key components for developing effective teachers—selection, evaluation,
professional development and coaching—exist for school leaders as well. In fact, a report by the
National Association of Elementary School Principals (2008) has explained, “Principals must
have time and resources to develop the knowledge and skills they need to lead high performance
schools, as well as the resources to function effectively as instructional leaders in their buildings”
(Psencik, 2011, p. 1). Whereas the processes for selecting and evaluating school leaders can
mirror that used for teachers, the concepts of providing professional development and coaching
to leaders are less frequently considered, in part, because leaders often do not have processes for
professional development and support built into their schedules. However, Psencik (2011) has
argued that principals, like adults, are social learners who learn best when collaborating with
others. Furthermore, she has contended that leaders will be more successful when they have an
immediate application for what they are learning and effective strategies for reflecting. Districts
seeking to develop effective change leaders must incorporate ongoing, job-embedded
professional development and coaching into the work schedule of principals and other school
leaders.
Creating Academic Programs and Structures That Meet Student Needs
Schools looking to dramatically improve performance must begin by creating a new
instructional vision. Odden and Archibald (2009) have noted that schools that have effectively
brought about change have focused on issues under their control. In fact, all of the schools they
studied adopted a new curriculum and instructional programs as a beginning step in the change
process. Odden (2009) explained:
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

64

Schools and districts that produce high levels of student performance focus on what they
can effect, which is everything that happens in schools: the assignment of teachers,
academic expectations, the organization of curriculum and instruction, the curriculum
program and textbooks, and effective instructional practice. (p. 27)

Whereas it serves to provide improved materials and a focus on effective pedagogical practice,
the process of adopting new curriculum and instructional program serves as a symbol of the need
for change.
Struggling students must be considered when adopting a new academic program. Odden
(2011) has argued that irrespective of the quality of instruction in the classroom, some students
will need additional time if they are to meet proficient standards:
The schools and districts that have doubled performance offered a variety of
combinations of double periods [of content instruction], tutoring, extended day and
summer school extra-help programs – all strategies that extend learning time for students
struggling to achieve performance standards in core subjects but particularly in math,
reading, and writing. (p. 96)

When designing academic programs, one must consider how course offerings during and outside
of school can serve as an effective intervention.
In addition to considering a new curricular program that supports struggling students,
educators must focus on how instructional time is used in schools. Silva (2007) has contended
that improving the quality of instructional time is as important as increasing the quantity of time
in schools. She further noted that not all time in schools is equal because a good part of the day
may not focus on instruction (i.e., lunch, passing periods, and assemblies). Silva (2007) offered
four designations to school time to help illustrate how time is spent. Similarly, the Mid-Continent
Research for Education and Learning (2009) identified effective use of time as one of the
strongest factors for improved student achievement. It further categorized four types of school
time, including allocated time, or the time in the school day set aside for instruction; instructional
time, or time in class teachers spend on formal learning activities; engaged time, or time students
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

65

are paying attention and actively learning; academic learning time, or time students are engaged
and successful at the learning task at hand. Academic learning most readily correlates to student
achievement.
In addition to hiring effective teachers and leaders, school programs and time must be
designed to maximize student learning. Successful turnaround schools start by creating a new
academic vision that involves adopting new curricula and defining quality instructional practices.
To be truly impactful, the model must specifically consider how best to support struggling
students during and outside of the school day, and must carefully consider how much time is
spent on academic learning.
Setting High Expectations for Student Performance
Odden (2009) has contended that schools that have dramatically improved performance
set high expectations for all students. Bambrick-Santoyo (2012) has explained that schools need
to build strong cultures in which students receive the steady message that nothing is as important
as learning. He has further explained that although motivational speeches, school values, and
vision statements offer value, they fail if they are not centered on practice that builds proper
habits: “The answer lies in a single powerful idea: if you want a culture of excellence, you build
it by repeated practices – performed by both children and by adults” (p. 165).
In cases where culture is developing or strong, Bambrick-Santoyo (2012) has
recommended that schools build tools and systems to periodically assess school culture (i.e.,
survey and focus groups). In cases where a school needs to turnaround a dysfunctional culture,
he has offered the following six-step process:
1. Set an agreement for all hands on deck: For culture to change, everyone must commit
to taking the same actions.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

66

2. Start with staff most invested in change: In keeping with Collins’s (2001a) notion of
“getting the right people on the bus,” the culture change process should begin with
staff members capable and willing to meet the challenge.
3. Train invested staff by modeling, intervening, and weaning: Rather than simply
discussing expectations, school leaders must taking a coaching approach to actively
building the skills of staff members.
4. Deliver professional development for the rest of the staff: Once a key team is trained
to actively take the transformation steps, full professional development should be
offered to staff.
5. Put aside instruction for one or two days and rest: It may be necessary to dedicate one
to two days teaching students about new expectations. During this time, leaders and
teachers leading the culture reform effort should serve as active coaches to staff
members by observing classrooms and offering support where necessary.
6. Evaluate your progress: Create a school culture rubric that objectively assesses
progress and facilitates a results-sharing, reflection, and next-steps process with staff.
In some cases, inviting an outside team to evaluate school progress may prove
beneficial.
Bain and Herman (1990) have asserted, “School leaders and other educators must have
the profound belief that all children can learn and must have high expectations for the academic
performance of all students” (p. 41). Building a school culture with high expectations for student
performance requires schools to establish a vision, operationalize that vision into minute-by-
minute routines, practice implementing the vision, and routinely evaluate the school’s progress
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

67

with expectations. As is the case with student achievement, establishing and maintaining high
expectations must be data-driven and monitored by a cycle of continuous improvement.
Resource Allocation Strategies
As evidenced by an exhaustive body of research, the education reforms enacted in the
past half century have put into focus the need for two principal improvements: schools must
adopt a common set of educational standards, and states must enact reforms to ensure that all
students have access to quality educational programs. And although federal, state, and local
policies have offered funding inducements to spur change, the call for reform requires a more
comprehensive restructuring of school finance. In spite of inconsistent performance, the United
States spends more on education than any other country, with an annual budget of more than
$800 billion. Increasing funding to enact the improvements required to close the achievement
gap may be necessary; however, shifting the focus from equity to adequacy must happen first. In
the 1990s, arguments over the disparities in education funding gave way to the concept of
adequacy, a process of ensuring that sufficient funds are allocated to educate the average child to
state standards while providing additional funds for students with special needs (Odden & Picus,
2004). Since then, the following four models have been devised to support schools in creating
adequate budgets: the Successful School District Approach, the Cost Function Approach, the
Professional Judgment Approach, and the Evidence-Based Approach (Odden, 2003).
The Successful School District Approach seeks to identify model districts where students
meet proficiency standards. The adequacy level is calculated by finding the weighted average of
expenditures per pupil in those districts. In most cases, benchmark districts have an average size,
are demographically homogenous, and spend less than an average school in the state (Odden,
2003). Furthermore, although it is easily understandable and logical to the public, the model
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

68

does not specify a process to adjust for individual characteristics of a district (Picus & Blair,
2004); as a result, this adequacy model cannot readily adapt to smaller rural or large urban
districts.
The Cost Function Approach utilizes a complex statistical framework in its attempt to
estimate the costs necessary to attain a certain level of performance, while controlling for
specific characteristics of the district and students (Picus & Blair, 2004). Unfortunately, when
applying the statistical analysis to urban districts, this approach can result in two to three times
the average spending level (Odden, 2003). Although it takes the step of controlling for specific
characteristics, this approach is complicated to the public and may result in unrealistic spending
models.
Unlike the Successful District and Cost Function Approaches, both the Professional
Judgment and the Evidence-Based Approaches link spending to the educational strategies that
best serve to improve student performance. In effect, they derive adequate funding by
understanding both research-based best practices and specific school needs. The Professional
Judgment approach convenes a group of educational experts, and then asks them to identify the
educational strategies necessary to ensure that students in the district (accounting for grade level,
special needs, etc.) meet proficiency. The approach then assigns costs to each of these strategies
and estimates the average cost of an adequate education. Although the approach is easily
understandable to the public and provides the specificity necessary for districts to create a model
aligned to their particular district needs, expert judgments vary widely across teams, and
recommended strategies are not always linked to performance levels (Odden, 2003). In spite of
the questionable reliability of the approach, a number of states—including Kentucky, Maine,

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

69

Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming—have
adopted this model (Picus & Blair, 2004).
The Evidence-Based Model (EBM), developed by Allan Odden and Lawrence Picus, was
used in this study. Although the Professional Judgment approach relies on an ever-changing
group of experts to determine the strategies required for the prototypical school model, the EBM
includes the strategies in its model. The EBM first seeks to identify research-based programs and
strategies proven to support schools in meeting state proficiency standards. Under the EBM,
prototypical school models are created, resources needed at the school level are projected, and
the costs of district and central office supports are estimated to derive the adequacy cost (Odden
& Picus, 2010). Throughout this process, a study committee of officials exercises professional
judgment both to validate the research-based recommendations and to make any necessary
modifications (Odden & Picus, 2010). Once approved, the adequacy model is applied to the
actual schools in that state, making adjustments for special populations (Picus & Blair, 2004).
Although no explicit research confirms the impact of the EBM on student performance,
Odden and Picus (2010) have asserted that schools and districts that have “doubled” student
performance on tests over four-to-six years have used strategies similar to those found in the
Evidenced-Based Model. The EBM’s strength lies in the fact that it utilizes research-based
strategies for improving student achievement; its weakness stems from two primary issues. First,
as Picus and Blair (2004) have explained: “It’s drawback lies in the extend that research-based
modeled won’t work in absolutely every situation. In other words, using the evidence-based
approach may not lead to models that improve student performance in all situations” (p. 6). A
second concern stems from the model’s assumption that sufficient resources are available to fully
execute the recommendations adequacy model (Odden & Picus, 2010). In many financially
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

70

troubled states—including California—education leaders need to prioritize the highest leverage
elements of the model because the funds simply do not exist to fully implement this critical
reform.
Summary: Gap Analysis
The process of comparing Green Dot’s strategies for school improvement to the EBM
and then crafting recommendations for continued improvement is known as a gap analysis.
Clark and Estes (2008) have utilized a gap analysis framework that supports organizations in
diagnosing three primary barriers to success: people’s knowledge and skills, their motivation to
achieve a given goal, and organizational barriers—such as a lack of necessary equipment or
processes. Research on school improvement overwhelmingly relies on enhancing human capital
through selection, professional development, and coaching process. It further calls schools to
create structures that will both motivate stakeholders and support student learning. To properly
execute the school transformation process, schools must assume significant financial and human
capital investments.
Schools seeking to close the achievement gap are further threatened by the current
economic situation. California currently ranks 47
th
in per-pupil education funding, spending
approximately $3,000 less per student than the national average (Baron, 2012). Additionally,
charter schools in California receive, on average, $395 less per pupil than traditional public
schools (Taylor, 2012). Although it poses obvious challenges, limited funding may also serve as
a catalyst for reform. Schools forced to enact spending cuts have an opportunity to reallocate
resources and align priorities to practices known to improve student learning.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

71

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This study examined five charter high schools—Ánimo Locke 1, Ánimo Locke 2, and
Alain LeRoy Locke 3, Ánimo Locke Tech, and Ánimo Watts—that have found academic
success in a community that has historically under-educated students during a time plagued by
draconian funding cuts. The pressures to both improve student outcomes and remain fiscally
viable provide an opportunity for schools to reallocate resources to prioritize high-leverage
strategies for improvement. This study analyzed how Green Dot Public Schools allocated
resources at the campus and home office level in its effort to transform Locke High School from
one of the lowest performing schools in the country into a model of education reform.
Furthermore, this study compared Green Dot’s resource allocation strategies to the EBM to
identify areas of alignment between the two models. It further identified opportunities for Green
Dot to reallocate resources to better align with EMB, and thereby support continuous
improvement in the Locke cluster of schools.
Research Questions
The study addressed the following research questions:
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
The study examined the specific strategies employed in the Green Dot education model. For
example, all Green Dot campuses provided a 10-day summer bridge program for incoming
freshman students. During this time, students took diagnostic exams to determine placement in
the academic program. Students reading below grade level took the traditional English course as
well as an additional literacy course. Students with deficient math skills took both Algebra 1 and
a math support course geared at supporting skills development while providing A-G coursework.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

72

The study considered how these practices compared to the EBM, evaluated their success in
improving student achievement, and recommends changes that may further improve student
learning.
2. How are human resources allocated across the Locke cluster of schools?
The study delineates how resources were allocated on each of the five campuses, which
resources were shared across schools in the Locke cluster level budget, and what specific
resources the Green Dot home office provided. Each year, the principal and School Advisory
Council (SAC) guide schools through a budgeting process intended to encourage site-level
decision-making within the defined constraints of the education model (e.g., literacy intervention
courses) and the teacher and classified union contracts. SACs made decisions about how to
prioritize educational resources like textbooks and technology and then sent a budget to the
Green Dot Board of Directors for final approval. Additionally, the leaders of the five schools
collaboratively created a cluster budget to share costs that could be more efficiently spread
across the schools. The primary drivers of the cluster budget were athletics, welcome center
personnel, and security. Lastly, the Green Dot home office provided resources intended to
support the school transformation effort. The home office assigned a number of personnel to
provide direct services on the school site, including cluster directors (area superintendents),
cluster business managers, maintenance personnel, curriculum specialists, Special Education
program administrators, and mental health staff. The cluster director was charged with evaluating
and training principals and ensuring the effective delivery of the education model. The cluster
business manager supported schools in meeting budget, enrollment, and attendance targets, acted
as a resource during the SAC budgeting process, and provided operational training to school
office staff. While schools hired their own cleaning staffs, Green Dot provided an operations
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

73

team to focus on repairs and larger capital projects. Additionally, Green Dot provided a number
of services directly to teachers and counselors in the form of curriculum specialists and special
education program administrators who provided coaching and program implementation
oversight. Lastly, Green Dot employed mental health professionals who provided assessment and
counseling services directly to students in need.
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices and what the
research suggests is most effective?
The study compared current resource allocation practices to research to determine existing gaps.
It further considered whether allocations that were deemed necessary in the early months of the
transformation—like investments in security—were necessary after the school culture had been
established. Because the study investigated the charter school model, and the EBM primarily
considers traditional public district models, clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of
resources to ensure that unclear nomenclature does not skew the research will be important.
4. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
Although the five schools comprising the Locke cluster showed significantly higher student
achievement than the previously existing Alain LeRoy Locke High School and at the time of this
study outperformed its district peers, data indicated that the transformation was far from
complete. After providing a comparative analysis to the research-based best practices for
improving student achievement, this study recommended further improvements to resource
allocations so the Locke schools could meet Green Dot’s mission to prepare all students for
college, leadership, and life.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

74

Sample and Population
At the time of this study, Green Dot Public Schools served more than 10,000 students in
14 high schools and four middle schools in Los Angeles and Inglewood, California. Compared to
local districts, Green Dot served a similar population of special education students, while serving
a higher number of English Language Learners and a significantly higher number of poor
students as defined by FRL status (CDE). While Green Dot operated both start-up and
independent charters, the organization identified eight of its campuses as transformation schools
because they opened with the specific purpose of turning around existing low-performing
LAUSD schools. In addition to the five Locke campuses, in 2011, Green Dot opened two middle
schools on the former Henry Clay Middle School campus, and opened a high school on the
former David Starr Jordan High School site. This study limited its focus to transformation
schools that had existed long enough to provide evidence of student achievement gains. The
table below shows demographic and student achievement data from the final year that LAUSD
operated Alain LeRoy Locke High School. An additional five tables illustrate student
achievement and demographic data about the five Locke campuses from the 2010–2011
academic year.
Table 2

2008 Alain LeRoy Locke High School (LAUSD) Demographic and Achievement Data
Enrollment in Grades 9–11 1987
Similar Schools Rank 2
CAHSEE Pass Rate (10
th
Grade) 47% (ELA) & 45% (Math)
School-Wide API 515
Ethnic/Racial %
Enrolled
API 10
th
-Grade CAHSEE
Pass Rate (ELA/Math)
African American or Black 33 473 43/38
Hispanic or Latino 67 533 48/49
English Learners 29 514 19/31
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 63 522 47/46
Reclassified English Proficient 27 Not Available 79/68
Special Education 12 358 14/11
Source: California Department of Education
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

75

Table 3

2011 Ánimo Locke 1 Charter High School Demographic and Achievement Data
Enrollment in Grades 9–11 445
Similar Schools Rank 3
CAHSEE Pass Rate (10
th
Grade) 63% (ELA) & 55% (Math)
School-Wide API 607
Ethnic/Racial %
Enrolled
API 10
th
-Grade CAHSEE
Pass Rate (ELA/Math)
African American or Black 14 605 65/29
Hispanic or Latino 82 606 64/61
English Learners 41 596 38/38
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 98 606 64/57
Reclassified English Proficient 27 Not Available 96/93
Special Education 9* 659 Not Available
*Not a numerically significant group.
Source: California Department of Education

Table 4

2011 Ánimo Locke 2 Charter High School Demographic and Achievement Data
Enrollment in Grades 9–11 446
Similar Schools Rank 4
CAHSEE Pass Rates (10
th
Grade) 64% (ELA) & 73% (Math)
School-Wide API 608
Ethnic/Racial %
Enrolled
API 10
th
-Grade CAHSEE
Pass Rate (ELA/Math)
African American or Black 29 526 45/57
Hispanic or Latino 64 653 73/81
English Learners 26 653 42/61
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 97 608 65/74
Reclassified English Proficient 28 Not Available 96/96
Special Education 18 352 11/32
Source: California Department of Education

Table 5

2011 Alain LeRoy Locke 3 Charter High School Demographic and Achievement Data
Enrollment in Grades 9–11 399
Similar Schools Rank 2
CAHSEE Pass Rate (10
th
Grade) 51% (ELA) & 68% (Math)
School-Wide API 556
Ethnic/Racial %
Enrolled
API 10
th
-Grade CAHSEE
Pass Rate (ELA/Math)
African American or Black 33 496 44/56
Hispanic or Latino 58 600 56/76
English Learners 26 596 28/66
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 90 561 51/68
Reclassified English Proficient 23 Not Available 79/86
Special Education 16 385 22/0
Source: California Department of Education
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

76

Table 6

2011 Ánimo Locke Tech Charter High School Demographic and Achievement Data
Enrollment in Grades 9–11 421
Similar Schools Rank 3
CAHSEE Pass Rate (10
th
Grade) 73% (ELA) & 59% (Math)
School-Wide API 611
Ethnic/Racial %
Enrolled
API 10
th
-Grade CAHSEE
Pass Rate (ELA/Math)
African American or Black 25 519 57/40
Hispanic or Latino 68 645 76/64
English Learners 24 644 58/43
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 77 622 75/62
Reclassified English Proficient 26 Not Available 88/76
Special Education 5* 408 Not Available
*Not a numerically significant group
Source: California Department of Education

Table 7

2011 Ánimo Watts Charter High School Demographic and Achievement Data
Enrollment in Grades 9–11 402
Similar Schools Rank 2
CAHSEE Pass Rate (10
th
Grade) 54% (ELA) & 62% (Math)
School-wide API 611
Ethnic/Racial Percent Enrolled API 10
th
-Grade CAHSEE
Pass Rate (ELA/Math)
African American or Black 26 526 46/52
Hispanic or Latino 69 653 56/46
English Learners 21 653 29/57
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 92 608 54/65
Reclassified English Proficient 25 Not Available 84/73
Special Education 6* 352 Not Available
*Not a numerically significant group.
Source: California Department of Education

Although the Green Dot operated campuses showed significant improvement compared
to the previously existing Alain LeRoy Locke High School, these data reveal varied outcomes
from one campus to the next. Some differences in student populations can be explained by
programmatic emphases offered on campuses. For example, Ánimo Locke 1 served a higher
population of English Language Learners, in part, because the campus offered a program for
beginning speakers. Ánimo Locke Tech and Ánimo Watts served lower proportions of Special
Education students because of space constraints on their satellite campuses. However, in spite of
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

77

programmatic variations, the student outcomes were inconsistent. As a result, this study also had
to analyze the fidelity of the implementation of programs to better understand why results varied,
and to make effective recommendations for future improvements.
Study Design and Methods
This mixed-methods study incorporated three sources of quantitative data: data were
collected from the CDE to analyze student achievement outcomes; data delineating state and
federal funding levels were collected to prioritize recommendations from the EBM in situations
where all strategies could not be funded; and, lastly, data outlining the human resources allocated
at the campus-, cluster-, and home office–level to support the Locke schools were compared to
the EBM. Green Dot’s human capital allocations were entered into a simulation created by
Odden and Picus (2010) that utilizes the EBM-recommended practices. EBM-recommended
practices consider staff allocations for all subjects and specialized programs. The model also
considers intervention plans for struggling learners, class size, professional development, and
administrative staffing. Green Dot data on these topics were then compared to the EBM human
capital allocations to determine instances of alignment and gaps.
Patton (2002) has asserted: “Qualitative methods facilitate study of issue in depth and
detail” (p. 14). This study collected qualitative data from both surveys and structured one-on-one
interviews. Each year, close to the end of the semester, two surveys were administered. First,
students took a survey—aligned to Green Dot’s teacher evaluation indicators—that solicited data
on both the success of each individual classroom and student satisfaction with the school in
general. In addition to the student survey, Green Dot administered a survey to teachers and
counselors on each site. Aligned to the administrator evaluation indicators, the staff survey
sought feedback on the following aspects of the school: individual administrator performance,
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

78

effectiveness of professional development programs, and quality of implementation of the
school’s mission, vision and culture.
School administrators and home office personnel involved in the Locke transformation
project (Vice President of Human Capital, Cluster Director, and Ánimo Locke 1 Principal)
participated in a structured interview process employing open- and closed-ended questions. The
questions elicited insights into the decision-making processes at the campus and home office
level. It further provided a detailed picture of existing programs, fidelity and quality of
implementation of these programs, goals for student achievement, and plans for continuous
improvement. The qualitative data collected provided a clearer illustration of the practices
employed on campuses to improve student outcomes and further clarified roles and
responsibilities in an effort to effectively apply the EBM to a charter organization.
Instruments
The quantitative instruments were collected from the CDE and Green Dot. Student
achievement data were analyzed through a review of CDE School Accountability Report Cards
(SARC) as well as API analysis reports created by the Green Dot Knowledge Management
Department. The Knowledge Management Department also provided reports detailing school
master schedules, bell schedules, class size, and calendars. The Green Dot Human Resources
Department provided a detailed report of human resource allocations to Locke at the campus,
cluster, and home office levels. Additionally, the Green Dot Finance and Accounting Department
provided detailed campus, cluster, and organizational budgets that specified revenue streams and
expenditures.
Four qualitative instruments were employed to further the research study. First, the EBM
uses research-based school improvement strategies to create a recommended human resource
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

79

allocation model. This model recommends specific allocations for a given number of students. It
further allows for flexibility for schools serving higher-than-average numbers of special needs
and struggling students. The model below provides an illustration of the EBM.

Figure B: The Evidence-Based Model.
Source: Presentation by Dr. Lawrence O. Picus, October 2011
The human resources allocation model illustrated above has been translated into a simulation
spreadsheet by Dr. Picus to allow schools to conduct a comparison analysis between their
allocations and the EBM.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

80

The second qualitative tool employed was the student survey administered at the end of
each semester. The Measure of Teacher Effectiveness Project (2011), called the MET Project,
funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation found, “Students seem to know effective
teaching when they experience it . . . Most important are students’ perception of a teacher’s
ability to control a classroom and to challenge students with rigorous work.” Green Dot initially
chose a survey sample from the MET Project that aligned to the Charlotte Danielson indicators
of effective teaching. Since its first administration, Green Dot had employed focus groups of
teachers and education team members to review the data and update survey items to provide
clearer information.
In November 2012, a paper student survey was administered to all students enrolled as of
October 22, 2012. This survey required students to respond using a Likert scale (Strongly Agree,
Agree, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree) to 24 statements aligned to the teacher evaluation
indicators. It also required students to respond to six statements focused on their overall
satisfaction with the school. Students did not complete a different survey for each teacher;
instead, they were chosen at random to survey two teachers. As a result, teachers received
feedback from an average of 40 students, with a minimum participation level of 25 students. The
following survey statements were analyzed:
1. In this class, my teacher expects my full effort
2. In this class, we learn a lot almost every day
3. My teacher explains the objective
4. My teacher asks students to explain more about answers they give
5. My teacher believes in my ability
6. My classmates behave the way my teacher wants them to
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

81

7. I can ask the teacher for help when I need it
8. I know how each lesson is related to other lessons
9. In this class my teacher makes me feel s/he really cares about me
10. I like the ways we learn in this class
11. My teacher gives us clear directions for each activity
12. My teacher checks to make sure we understand the lesson
13. My teacher explains things in another way if I don’t get it
14. My teacher gives us time to explain our ideas
15. My teacher pushes us to keep trying when the work gets hard
16. My teacher makes lessons interesting
17. My teacher helps me understand how to do better
18. My teacher sets clear expectations for my behavior in this class
19. Our class stays busy and doesn’t waste time
20. My teacher wants us to use our thinking skills, not just memorize things
21. My teacher takes the time to summarize what we learn each day
22. Students in this class treat the teacher with respect
23. Transitions between activities occur quickly without wasting time
24. I know what I need to do in order to be successful
25. The school has high expectations for me to succeed academically
26. This school is preparing me for college
27. This school is preparing me for my future
28. Teachers and administrators treat me with respect
29. I feel safe at this school
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

82

30. I would recommend this school to a friend
The third data collection tool employed was the teacher and counselor survey. Like the
student survey, it was administered twice annually close to the end of each semester. Unlike the
student survey, all teachers and counselors were encouraged to respond. The survey asked staff
to respond to 25 statements focused specifically on administrator quality. Principals and assistant
principals received individual stakeholder feedback on their performance. In addition, staff
members were asked to respond to eight questions focused on professional development and
programs and a final 10 questions focused on the overall mission, vision, and culture of the
school. The following survey responses were analyzed from the November 2012 survey
administration:
Individual Leader Evaluation: Instructional Leadership
1. Leader maintains school-wide focus on high standards of student achievement
2. Leader is knowledgeable of effective teaching, including curriculum standards
and design
3. Leader uses data to increase student achievement
4. Leader creates a learning culture that communicates “college for certain”
5. Leader effectively coaches teachers to improve instruction
Individual Leader Evaluation: People Management
6. Leader holds employees accountable for results
7. Leader builds a collaborative, well-functioning team
8. Leader communicates well with staff
9. Leader gathers input, collaborates, and provides leadership opportunities as
appropriate
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

83

10. Leader recognizes and rewards individual and group behavior
Individual Leader Evaluation: Resource Management
11. Leader works with staff and community to match priorities with spending
12. Leader manages the school’s resources effectively (textbooks, equipment)
13. Leader facilitates meetings that align with goals, allow for input, and maintain
focus
14. Leader establishes systems for effective school operations (e.g., field trips,
facilities requests)
15. Leader adheres to federal, state, district, and Green Dot regulations, policies and
procedures.
Individual Leader Evaluation: Problem-Solving
16. Leader resolves conflict in a fair and consistent manner
17. Leader is an effective decision-maker
18. Leader implements and effective Student Code of Conduct
19. Leader sets and tracks school-wide goals to improve school performance
20. Leader anticipates obstacles and engages in short- and long-term planning to
minimize emergencies
Individual Leader Evaluation: Community Leadership
21. Leader effectively communicates the school’s mission and vision
22. Leader engages parents in their student’s school experience
23. Leader works collaboratively with the community to ensure a safe school
environment
24. Leader promotes a positive school culture
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

84

25. Leader is customer service oriented
Professional Development
21. Professional development at my school site has helped me improve instructional
practice
22. The school uses data to identify strengths and weaknesses and make plans for
continuous improvement
23. Green Dot Collaboration Days help me to improve my instruction
24. The school provides opportunities for me to collaborate with peers during PD
and conference periods
25. The school provides me with the support and training I need to effectively work
with EL students
26. The school provides me with the training and support I need to manage student
conduct effectively
27. The school provides effective intervention programs for students achieving
below grade level
28. New teachers at my school receive adequate support from leaders and
experienced teachers
The structured interview instrument included open- and closed-ended questions derived
from a framework designed by Odden and Picus (2008) to uncover school reform strategies and
analyze how they relate to student achievement. The following open-ended questions were
included:

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

85

1. In 2008, Green Dot Public Schools assumed management of the Locke campus in an
attempt to transform it into a college preparatory academy. Can you please describe
the major differences between Alain LeRoy Locke High School in 2007 and today?
2. What evidence can you cite to illustrate that the schools in the Locke cluster are more
effective than the former Locke HS?
3. What challenges persist?
4. Please describe the current school human capital resources allocations, including
administration, teachers, and classified staff.
5. Please describe any human capital resources that are shared among the campuses.
6. What types of district resources are provided for the Locke cluster?
7. Describe the professional development program.
8. Which data are employed to benchmark turnaround progress?
9. Can you describe the planning process that began the year before Green Dot took
management of the school?
10. What were the strategic priorities during years zero and one of the Locke cluster?
Please be sure to note priorities related to instruction.
11. How did those strategic priorities evolve during years three, four, and five of the
Locke cluster? Please be sure to note priorities related to instruction.
12. What will the strategic priorities be for the next two years of the turnaround process?
Please be sure to note priorities related to instruction.
13. If Green Dot were to take over another LAUSD comprehensive high school next year,
what aspects of the Locke turnaround process would you make certain are in place?

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

86

14. If Green Dot were to take over another LAUSD comprehensive high school next year,
what would you do differently?
15. Would it be okay to contact you with additional questions?
Multiple measures of qualitative data were employed in an attempt to provide a more
robust illustration of each school’s strengths and weaknesses. Whereas the data collection tools
implemented to collect feedback from students, teachers, and leaders differed, they provided
valuable insights into the quality of implementation of the model on each site.
Data Collection Procedures
The Green Dot Public Schools Chief Executive Officer, Marco Petruzzi, authorized this
study. He further authorized the following department heads to gather and submit requested data:
the Chief Financial Officer provided budget reports; and, the Vice President of Employee
Solutions provided all human resources and knowledge management reports. The following
administrators participated in structured interview sessions: the Vice President of Human
Capital, the Cluster Director, the Cluster Business Manager, and principals of two of the Locke
campuses.
All quantitative and qualitative data were sorted and compared to the EBM. In addition to
revealing areas of alignment and finding gaps between the Green Dot model and EBM, the study
uncovered patterns and trends that existed between the schools. Lastly, the study proffered
recommendations that Green Dot may consider as it continues the school transformation process.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

87

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

This chapter will present findings of the study of Green Dot Public Schools’ effort to
transform the failing LAUSD-run Alain LeRoy Locke High School into a model of successful
education reform. Multiple sources of quantitative data were assembled and analyzed to
complete this study, including student achievement data, demographic information, budget
apportionments, teacher effectiveness scores, human resources allocations, and myriad
organizational documents describing positions and programs. In addition, multiple sources of
qualitative data were collected and studied to better understand issues of implementation,
including feedback from the following sources: student surveys, teacher and counselor surveys,
administrator surveys, and key leader interviews. These data were then compared to the research-
based practices known to improve school performance, including creating a data-driven culture,
developing effective teachers, developing effective school leaders, creating academic programs
that meet the needs of students, and setting high expectations for student performance. Lastly,
Green Dot’s human resource allocations were compared to the Evidence-Based Model (EBM) to
illustrate how its staffing compares to a model proven to improve student achievement. The first
section of this chapter provides an overview of Green Dot and the schools that participated in the
study. The second section of this chapter presents a gap analysis of the findings as they relate to
each of the four research questions:
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
2. How are human resources allocated across the Locke cluster of schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices and what the
research suggests is most effective?
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

88

4. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
The final section of this chapter offers recommendations for Green Dot to consider as it
continues the school transformation process.
Overview of Green Dot Public Schools and Participating Campuses
At the time of this study, Green Dot Public Schools was serving over 10,000 students
across 14 high school and four middle school campuses in Los Angeles and Inglewood,
California. Green Dot opened its first school, Ánimo Leadership Charter High School, in 2000.
In the next few years, Green Dot opened four additional phase-in, independent charter high
schools. In 2006, Green Dot redirected its focus on the turnaround effort by attempting to take
control of the LAUSD-run Jefferson High School. When the bid to acquire the school failed,
Green Dot opened five phase-in, independent high schools in the Jefferson neighborhood in an
attempt to “turnaround” Jefferson High School by offering students a quality option in the
neighborhood.
Chad Soleo, current cluster director at Locke, served as a teacher and administrator at the
LAUSD-run Locke campus before leaving to become the founding principal of one of the Green
Dot campuses in the Jefferson neighborhood, Ánimo Pat Brown. He cited two important lessons
learned from the Jefferson turnaround effort. First, significant shortcomings in the Green Dot
education “model” became clear as a result of launching five schools in the same year. The early
model was relegated to uniforms consisting of collared shirts and trousers, common graduation
requirements, and the adoption of a literacy intervention program, Read 180, for incoming
freshmen reading below grade level. As a result, a school’s success was largely dependent upon
the principal’s ability to hire quality teachers, develop meaningful policies and procedures, and
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

89

implement a successful academic program. Consequently, there was a high turnover rate for
early Green Dot principals, a great deal of redundancy of work across campuses, significant
variation in master schedules and course offerings, inconsistent academic outcomes, and a
confused Green Dot brand. In addition to highlighting the loosely defined model, the Jefferson
transformation effort made clear the need for more sophisticated community engagement
processes. Outside of a door-knocking, signature-gathering campaign, Green Dot did little to
help the community understand that it was offering a positive opportunity to the children of the
Jefferson community (C. Soleo, personal communication, March 15, 2013).
By the time it assumed control of Alain LeRoy Locke High School in 2008, Green Dot
recognized the need to develop a robust education model and create an improved community
engagement effort. Each of the key leaders interviewed acknowledged that the Green Dot model
has significantly evolved in the past six years and can now provide the level of support necessary
to transform failing schools. Each key leader further acknowledged that the inconsistent results at
the Locke campuses could partly be attributed to the lack of “model” offered in the early months
of the turnaround effort (K. Hurley, personal communication, March 12, 2013; P. Gutierrez,
personal communication, March 14, 2013; C. Soleo, personal communication, March 15, 2013).
Compounding the challenges of working with a rapidly evolving education model, the
Locke cluster encountered challenges that had not existed on previous Green Dot campuses,
specifically: a larger and higher need special education population, higher transiency rates, and
low entry achievement scores trending negatively in recent years. For example, the 2011–2012
School Accountability Report Cards (SARC) revealed a significant difference in the numbers of
special education students on the founding campus and Alain LeRoy Locke 3, with populations
of 4.35% and 17.64%, respectively. In addition to the percentage of population, the Locke
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

90

campuses served the full spectrum of special education students, with significant numbers of
Special Day Program (SDC) students who required more intensive supports.
Transiency rates also had a significant impact on enrollment. Whereas the founding
campus filled its school with just over 600 students and enjoyed a waiting list of several hundred
students each year, Locke accepted students throughout the school year. According to the
founding Locke cluster director, Kelly Hurley, as many as 100 students could transfer in or out
of the Locke campuses on any given month (K. Hurley, personal communication, March 12,
2013). This lack of stability in the student population presented significant academic and cultural
challenges (K. Hurley, personal communication, March 12, 2013). Whereas most schools
administer diagnostic exams to incoming students to ensure proper placement in academic
programs and to create intervention plans for students requiring intensive supports, the Locke
schools had to undergo this process throughout the school year, often without basic student
record information. Additionally, most schools begin the process of building culture—by setting
behavioral expectations and building school spirit—through the Summer Bridge and advisory
programs. With a large number of students enrolling midyear, the Locke schools had to build
culture through a modified orientation program. Advisors were called upon to support students in
understanding school expectations and values on an individual basis.
The challenges of special needs students and an unstable enrollment were further
exacerbated by a trend of declining entry achievement. A review of the 8
th
-grade CST scores
indicated that students entered Locke with significant academic deficiencies, particularly in
math. Furthermore, the trend data over the last four years indicated that entry-level student
achievement was declining. Figure C, below, shows the percentage of incoming 9
th
-grade
students who scored Below Basic or Far Below Basic on their 8
th
-Grade CST exams.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

91

Figure C. Incoming 9
th
-grade CST scores: % of students below or far below basic.
Source: Green Dot Presentation, January 17, 2013
In spite of challenges with the Green Dot model, changing demographics, and declining
entry academic achievement, the Locke cluster of schools had shown significant growth in
relation to both the LAUSD-run Locke campus of 2008 and its current peer schools. Before
reviewing student achievement or graduation data, it is important to note that Green Dot had
significantly increased retention rates in the last five years. Figure D shows that the four-year
retention rate had more than doubled since Green Dot began operating the Locke campuses.

Figure D. Locke High School: Four-year retention rate.
Source: Green Dot Presentation, January 17, 2013
In addition to moving these campuses toward the mission to “prepare all students for
college, leadership, and life,” these data suggest that Green Dot was graduating a significant
number of students who might otherwise have dropped out of high school. Notably, students
73%

59%

67%

55%

79%

50%

82%

55%

Math
ELA

Class
of
2013

Class
of
2014

Class
of
2015

Class
of
2016

24%

55%

Class
of
2007:
LAUSD
Class
of
2012:
Green
Dot

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

92

likely to drop out of school typically earn lower achievement scores than their peers. In spite of
retaining a larger portion of likely low achieving students, Green Dot showed promising growth
in both first-time CAHSEE pass rates and overall API scores. Figure E shows the percentage of
10
th
-grade students passing the English and math sections of the CAHSEE on their first attempt
across the five campuses.

Figure E. Locke cluster: 10
th
-grade students passing CAHSEE (first attempt).
Source: Green Dot Presentation, January 17, 2013
In addition, Figure F indicates the final two years of the LAUSD-run Locke API scores as well
as the combined API scores during Green Dot’s first three years of management.

Figure F. Locke growth API.
Source: Green Dot Presentation, January 17, 2013
46.8%

45.4%

47.2%

48.7%

56.7%

55.6%

60.1%

63.5%

ELA
Math

LAUSD
2008

2009

2010

2011

511

515

539

565

600

LAUSD

2007

LAUSD

2008

2009
2010
2011

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

93

The positive trends with retention and student achievement were actualized in graduation
and college attendance rates. During its first four years of operating the Locke cluster of schools,
Green Dot doubled the number of students graduating and tripled the number of students
graduating with the A-G coursework required for entry in the California University system.
Figure G shows the growth in graduation, college-ready graduation, and college entrance rates
for students attending Locke from 2008 to 2012.

*The number of college attendees from the final year that LAUSD operated Locke (2008) was
not available.

Figure G. Locke High School: Number of graduates, A-G graduates, and college attendees.
Source: Green Dot Presentation, January 17, 2013
In addition to outperforming the LAUSD-run campus, the Locke cluster of schools
showed strong results compared to peers. The 2012 CRESST study—which contrasted cohorts of
Locke High School students in the 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 school years to peers at LAUSD’s
Fremont, Jordan, and Washington Prep High Schools—found that Green Dot students were 1.5
times more likely to graduate and 3.7 times more likely to graduate college-ready than their peers
at area schools. Figure H shows the relative performance of the Locke cluster to its peer schools.
261

85

374

150

275

390

248

285

528

247

388

513

222

419

Graduates
A-‐G
Graduates
College
Attendees

LAUSD
2008

Class
of
2009

Class
of
2010

Class
of
2011

Class
of
2012

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

94

Figure H. Locke and peer school graduation and A-G completion rates.
Source: CRESST Study
Whereas student achievement and graduation data varied across the five campuses, Green
Dot had shown marked improvement in aggregate student achievement scores, retention levels,
and graduation rates both in comparison to the former Locke High School and in relation to
current peer schools.
A Gap Analysis of Strategies Designed to Improve Student Achievement
This study compared Green Dot’s practices to the research-based recommendations of the
EBM, and then crafts recommendations for continued improvement. Clark and Estes (2008) have
defined gap analysis as diagnosing both the human causes (knowledge, skills, and motivation)
and the organizational barriers that thwart success. This section will utilize quantitative and
qualitative data to uncover the strengths and weaknesses in the current practices in the Locke
cluster.
Creating a Data-Driven Culture
Odden (2009) and Bambrick-Santoyo (2010) have distilled the critical elements of
creating a data-driven culture to five main components:
1. Goal Setting: Set ambitious school-wide goals that lay the foundation for a cycle of
continuous improvement;
80%

48%

55%

13%

Graduation
Rates
A-‐G
Requirements

Locke

Peer
Schools

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

95

2. Assessment: Create rigorous interim assessments that provide meaningful data;
3. Analysis: Examine the results of assessments to find the causes of both strengths and
shortcomings;
4. Action: Teach effectively what students most need to learn;
5. Culture: Create an environment in which data-driven instruction can thrive and
persist.
Analysis of Green Dot practices revealed that structures existed to promote the five elements of a
data-driven culture on all Locke campuses.
In 2009, Green Dot adopted a process to create academic targets for each campus that
would lead them to a goal score of 800 on the API. After identifying a set of key metrics, Green
Dot sought to find “gold standard” schools in California to serve as benchmarks. The “gold
standard” schools met the following criteria: similar regional demographics (Southern
California); challenging demographics (FRL rates of 60% or greater); and high academic
achievement (an API of 800 or higher). The search yielded four potential benchmark schools;
however, because each of the schools had lower special populations (ELL and SPED) than the
average Green Dot campus, extended time was allotted for schools to reach their 800 API target.
In the case of the Locke campuses, schools were given a six-year pathway to reach the academic
gold standard target. The Green Dot Knowledge Management department created the targets,
provided periodic training for school leaders on how to interpret the targets, and adjusted annual
metrics if a given year’s results were higher or lower than expected. Schools leaders were then
expected to share these targets with stakeholders, providing training and creating a climate that
understood and embraced the ambitious goals. Table 8 shows a sample target document shared
with schools in fall 2012.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

96

Table 8
Ánimo Locke 1 API targets
Ánimo Locke #1 Targets (Revised 9/2/12)
Data Analyzed

2011-12
Target
2011-12
Outcome
2011-12 Yearly
Target Status
2012-
13
2013-
14
2014-
15
2015-
16
2016
-17
9
th
-graders graduating in
4 yrs 50% 51% Achieved 57% 63% 69% 75% 75%
Grads accepted to 4-year
university 70% 55% Not Achieved 62% 68% 74% 80% 80%
API
649 674 Achieved 706 738 770 800 800
CAHSEE proficiency
(ELA) 44% 33% Not Achieved 40% 47% 53% 59% 65%
CAHSEE proficiency
(math) 42% 48% Achieved 55% 62% 69% 75% 75%
CST proficiency (ELA)
29% 24% Not Achieved 31% 37% 43% 49% 55%
CST proficiency (math)
16% 22% Achieved 21% 26% 30% 35% 35%
EAP earned exemption
(ELA) 3% 10% Achieved 14% 17% 20% 20% 20%
EAP earned exemption
(math) 3% 4% Achieved 7% 10% 13% 15% 15%
Source: Green Dot Knowledge Management Report
In addition to setting school-wide goals, Green Dot offered a benchmark assessment
program intended to engage teachers in the process of analyzing data and adjusting instruction to
better meet the needs of students. In 2007, Green Dot contracted with Action Learning Systems
(ALS) to create quarterly assessments aligned to state standards in the four core content areas:
English, history, math and science. The Data Director selected the repository for hosting the
exams and providing data reports to teachers. After each testing window, Green Dot set aside a
full day of professional development to support teachers in the analysis of data and planning for
adjusting instruction. Teachers across all campuses in each subject area were released from
teaching for a full day to analyze benchmark data and plan together. The program faced a
number of challenges in its first two years, including the following: the loose Green Dot “model”
resulted in schools using different educational materials and pacing guides; 12 full days of
professional development planning for hundreds of teachers were left to three cluster directors;
and, campus follow-up with professional development was inconsistent because administrators
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

97

were not required to take part in the professional development (K. Hurley, personal
communication, March 12, 2013).
Although put structures in place to define an academic model, Green Dot also made
changes to the professional development program centered on building a data-driven culture. In
2009, Green Dot created the Teacher Leader Facilitator program (TLF). A group of
approximately 25 highly skilled teachers were trained each year to facilitate professional
development sessions for their content area peers. The increase in the number of professional
development providers allowed Green Dot to facilitate the benchmark collaboration sessions on
half days instead of periodically releasing teachers from their regular teaching schedule. And,
because school was not in session, school leaders were able to attend the sessions so they could
better understand what was expected for campus follow-up sessions.
In 2012, the TLF program shifted its focus from benchmark data analysis to providing
training needed for transition to the Common Core. To ensure that data analysis was ingrained in
each school’s culture, Green Dot created the Green Dot Instructional Leadership Team (GDILT).
Department chairs from each school—approximately 90 people—attended summer and quarterly
training focused on how to lead departments. GDILT members were trained to lead their
departments in a data analysis protocol. Whereas the TLF members did not represent all
campuses, the shift of responsibility for benchmark analysis to the GDILT ensured that there
would be data analysis “experts” on all campuses and in all departments.
To promote the successful development of a data-driven culture on each campus, Green
Dot provided differentiated supports to campuses where needed. For example, curriculum
specialists were available to attend department meetings to cofacilitate the data analysis process
where needed. In addition, the Locke cluster director explained that all five campuses intended to
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

98

move to a bell schedule that would provide a second session of campus-level professional
development each week (C. Soleo, personal communication, March 15, 2013). This session was
designed specifically for departments and grade levels to conduct data analysis protocols (using
benchmark assessments or student work analysis) and collaboratively create plans for student
improvement.
Developing Effective Teachers
This study’s analysis of effective teaching centered on four main issues: the teacher
selection process, evaluation, professional development, and coaching. In 2010, Kelly Hurley
was promoted from his position as cluster director for the Locke campuses to the Vice President
of Human Capital. This new position sought to focus on improving hiring practices across the
organization. Although the Green Dot home office had owned the teacher recruiting process and
employed an online application system for several years, schools were primarily responsible for
the selection of their teachers. Both teacher evaluation data and interview results indicated that
schools varied greatly in their ability to hire effective teachers. Because one of the Green Dot
tenets espouses the importance of local control, Green Dot sought to create a hiring process that
allowed for centralized screening, with final hiring decisions made at the campus level. To this
end, creating a common set of standards for quality teaching was first necessary. Therefore, the
hiring process was aligned to the teacher evaluation rubric. It was then necessary to provide
intensive training to campus hiring teams to safeguard against poor decision-making. The hiring
process involved the following steps:
1. Candidates submit an online application that requires the inclusion of basic
information, the completion of short answer questions, and the submission of letters
of references as well as proof of credential.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

99

2. Upon completing the application, candidates are directed to an online Haberman
assessment designed to correlate an individual’s ideology to that of a successful urban
educator.
3. Members of the Green Dot Human Capital department screen all resumes and review
online Haberman scores. Candidates meeting a minimum threshold are then referred
to a more in-depth, in-person Haberman interview conducted by retired principals.
4. Candidates earning a passing score on the Haberman are next invited to participate in
a 60-minute behavioral interview conducted by the Human Capital team that assesses
pedagogical knowledge as well as alignment with the Green Dot mission. This
assessment is aligned to specific indicators of the teacher evaluation rubric.
5. Candidates passing the Human Capital interview are “green lit” for campus
consideration. A hiring team consisting of administrators and teachers facilitates the
campus level hiring process. The components of this process include a 20-minute
scenario-based interview and a 20-minute teach session. While the hiring team
debriefs the teaching session, candidates are asked to complete a written reflection
focused on how they would improve the lesson; a concluding debrief session with the
candidate reviews the written reflection and answers any remaining questions. All
components of the campus interview are aligned to the evaluation rubric.
Additionally, teams are asked to input scores for each segment of the interview into
the on-line hiring system.
6. While a candidate is preparing for the campus-level hiring process, the Human
Capital department begins conducting reference checks. Upon both successful
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

100

completion of the reference check process and a request to hire from the principal, the
Human Capital team facilitates the onboarding process.
Although the process for teacher selection was robust and allowed for initial screening at
the home office level, the Vice President of Human Capital acknowledged the need to provide
targeted support to specific campuses, particularly in the Locke cluster. In fact, on two of the
Locke campuses, additional Human Capital training had been provided to the hiring teams (K.
Hurley, personal communication, March 12, 2013). Additionally, Green Dot Curriculum
Specialists had been invited to participate in the campus-level interview processes.
Green Dot was midway through the process of overhauling its teacher evaluation system.
With the support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010 marked the launch of The
College-Ready Promise (TCRP), a coalition of four Charter Management Organizations (CMOs)
committed to implementing teacher and administrator effectiveness reforms that would lead
students graduating from high school to be ready for college. The coalition—the Alliance
College-Ready Public Schools, Aspire Public Schools, Green Dot Public Schools, and
Partnerships to Uplift Communities—served more than 30,000 students in 93 public schools. A
significant portion of this initiative centered on creating a teacher evaluation system that
incorporated two innovations: first, it considered multiple measures to determine performance
levels; second, it prioritized teacher reflection and input during the performance evaluation
process.
Over the course of the three years previous to this study, Green Dot had created structures
to allow for regular and meaningful teacher input into the development of this evaluation
process. Although all teachers had participated in professional development sessions and
completed regular surveys offering feedback, over 35% of the organization’s teachers had taken
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

101

leadership roles by participating in nine recurring focus groups, serving as school liaisons, or
holding seats on the advisory panel and the evaluation committee. During the 2011–2012 school
year, Green Dot piloted the teacher evaluation process, and in May 2012, teachers fully ratified
the teacher observation system and use of student surveys in the union contract (SGP scores, peer
surveys, and family surveys continued in pilot mode for two years). Although it had not yet been
tied to compensation, the teacher performance evaluation system offered the following
components:
• The observation rubric replaced the California Standards for the Teaching Profession
(CSTP) with the rubric founded on Charlotte Danielson’s model. The full teacher
evaluation rubric is available in Appendix B.
• Student surveys—aligned to the evaluation rubric indicators—were administered
twice per year for each teacher.
• Each year, teachers received a student achievement score called a Student Growth
Percentile (SGP). SGP matched students based on a number of characteristics (i.e.,
SES, ethnicity, CELDT, CST proficiency) with a pool of thousands of students
attending TCRP and LAUSD schools. It then compared their growth from one state
test administration to the next in relation to the growth of that student’s peers. A SGP
score was derived from the SGP scores of a cohort of that teacher’s students.
• By September 30 of each school year, all teachers worked with evaluators to
complete a Professional Growth Proposal (PGP) that incorporated a reflection on past
experience, goal setting, and action plans.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

102

• During the first semester, campus leaders conducted a minimum of two informal
observations with face-to-face feedback sessions. The feedback sessions incorporated
a progress check on the performance indicators identified in the PGP.
• During first semester, campus leaders conducted a formal observation process that
included a preconference, observation, and postconference. Before the postconference
discussion, teachers uploaded student work artifacts from their lesson observation,
provided a narrative reflection on the lesson, and used the scripted evidence of the
lesson provided to score their own observation. During the postconference, the
campus leader and teacher discussed the student work analysis, reflection, and all
scores of interest.
• At the end of semester one, the campus leader and teacher used the PGP as a guide to
reflect on observation data and student survey data. At that time, they collaboratively
agreed upon a focus for the second semester evaluation. Teachers earning scores of
proficient and advanced on various rubric indicators could choose not to be evaluated
on those indicators for the second semester.
• The second semester observation and evaluation process included two informal
observations and the formal observation cycle; however, the focus could be narrowed
depending on the performance level and choice of the teacher.
• Teachers participated in a peer evaluation process that included a survey focused on
professional interactions rather than teacher observations of others in the classroom.
• Each spring, schools conducted a parent survey focused on overall school
satisfaction. Each teacher and administrator in the school shared responsibility for this
score.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

103

• The overall teacher performance score consisted of the following metrics: 40%
observation, 40% SGP, 10% student feedback, 5% parent feedback, and 5% peer
feedback. Teachers of nontested subjects may have had a different performance
breakdown (depending on their subject); furthermore, any SGP calculations were
based on a whole school score.
• Before evaluating a teacher, each administrator had to become “certified” on the
evaluation rubric. This process involved a leader watching a video, collecting
evidence, and scoring that evidence. Additionally, the evidence collected had to be
accurate, free of bias, and sorted by indicator. Within a small margin of error, scores
had to align with the expert scores.
• Teachers had an appeal process if they believed that they had not been scored
properly. This process required them to produce evidence that contrasted observation
scores.
The Vice President of Human Resources asserted that the goal of the hiring process was to assess
a candidate’s skills with multiple tasks, and to have that person interact with multiple people (K.
Hurley, personal communication, March 12, 2013). Include a centralized screening process was
important, so that schools only invested time with viable candidates. He further identified two
key benefits to the current model: there was a clearly defined process aligned to the rubric, and
the teaching and reflection portions of the interview allowed the hiring panel to see live action
and unplanned reflection.
Recent data produced as a result of the teacher evaluation process indicated that teacher
effectiveness was a challenge on the Locke campuses in relation to that of other Green Dot
schools. Although the data varied across campuses, teacher observation scores, student growth
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

104

percentiles, and student survey results frequently scored below the Green Dot average. Although
the Ánimo Locke 1 campus had shown above-average performance on teacher effectiveness
measures, Ánimo Locke 2 and Alain LeRoy Locke 3 performed consistently lower than the
Green Dot average on all measures. Figure I shows the fall 2012 evaluation scores of teachers on
each campus to the Green Dot average. Additionally, Figure J shows 2011–2012 SGP data by
school.

Figure I. 2012–2013 teacher observation scores: Semester 1.
Source: Green Dot Knowledge Management Report

Figure J. 2012 SGP report.
Source: Green Dot Knowledge Management Report
Although teacher evaluation scores and SGP scores were generally aligned by campus, the data
revealed significant disparities in teacher effectiveness across the campuses. Two Locke
campuses—Ánimo Locke 1 and Ánimo Locke Tech—boasted results within the average range.
2.81

2.37

2.46

2.69

2.31

2.73

Ánimo

Locke
1

Ánimo

Locke
2

Ánimo

Locke
3

Ánimo

Locke

Tech

Ánimo

Watts

Green
Dot

60

33

42

55

48

56

Ánimo

Locke
1

Ánimo

Locke
2

Ánimo

Locke
3

Ánimo

Locke

Tech

Ánimo

Watts

Green
Dot

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

105

Conversely, two campuses—Ánimo Locke 2 and Alain LeRoy Locke 3—produced data
signifying considerable deficits in teacher effectiveness. Teacher evaluation scores at Ánimo
Watts were significantly lower than the other Locke campuses and Green Dot. These data did not
align with student achievement results; however, the cluster director identified that Ánimo Watts
had hired a significant number of new teachers for the 2012–2013 school year (C. Soleo,
personal communication, March 15, 2013). He attributed lower-than-expected teacher
evaluation scores to the number of new hires.
Consistent with the findings of the 2009 MET Project report, student survey results
provided feedback that generally aligned with teacher observation feedback. The chart below
shows an average of scores by indicator as well as an overall score. In addition, each statement
on the student survey was correlated to an indicator on the teacher evaluation rubric. Table 9
shows the fall 2012 student survey results by campus and in comparison to the Green Dot
average.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

106

Table 9
Student Survey Results, Fall 2012

Survey Statements
Ánimo
Locke 1
Ánimo
Locke 2
Ánimo
Locke 1
Ánimo
Locke
Tech
Ánimo
Watts
Green
Dot
In this class, my teacher expects my full effort
(2.1)

3.45 3.42 3.40 3.39 3.47 3.51
In this class, we learn a lot almost every day
(3.2)
3.22 3.13 3.08 3.13 3.04 3.22
My teacher explains the objective (3.1)

3.20 3.17 3.2 3.15 3.22 3.23
My teacher asks students to explain more about
answers they give (2.1)
3.22 3.16 3.19 3.20 3.15 3.29
My teacher believes in my ability (2.3)

3.25 3.27 3.23 3.21 3.25 3.33
My classmates behave the way my teacher
wants them to (2.2)
2.90 2.78 2.74 2.80 2.46 2.83
I can ask the teacher for help when I need it
(2.3)
3.37 3.32 3.34 3.31 3.33 3.41
I know how each lesson is related to other
lessons (3.1)
3.14 3.06 3.07 3.03 2.98 3.15
In this class my teacher makes me feel s/he
really cares about me (2.3)
3.17 3.12 3.10 3.00 3.06 3.18
I like the ways we learn in this class (3.3)

3.11 3.01 3.00 3.05 2.93 3.10
My teacher gives us clear directions for each
activity (2.4)
3.31 3.23 3.26 3.27 3.24 3.35
My teacher checks to make sure we understand
the lesson (3.4)
3.21 3.14 3.17 3.15 3.13 3.23
My teacher explains things in another way if I
don’t get it (3.4)
3.21 3.17 3.14 3.13 3.10 3.21
My teacher gives us time to explain our ideas
(3.3)
3.15 3.09 3.11 3.06 3.03 3.32
My teacher pushes us to keep trying when the
work gets hard (2.1)
3.32 3.24 3.22 3.20 3.25 3.32
My teacher makes lessons interesting (3.2)

3.08 2.96 2.96 3.02 2.85 3.08
My teacher helps me understand how to do
better (3.4)
3.25 3.14 3.14 3.14 3.13 3.24
My teacher sets clear expectations for my
behavior in this class (2.2)
3.27 3.25 3.21 3.30 3.23 3.34
Our class stays busy and doesn’t waste time
(2.4)
3.04 2.87 2.83 2.88 2.64 2.92
My teacher wants us to use our thinking skills,
not just memorize things (3.2)
3.28 3.20 3.17 3.21 3.19 3.30
My teacher takes the time to summarize what
we learn each day (3.3)
2.97 2.90 2.91 2.88 2.81 2.95
Students in this class treat the teacher with
respect (2.2)
3.10 3.02 2.93 2.98 2.83 3.06
Transitions between activities occur quickly
without wasting time (2.4)
3.03 2.90 2.88 2.95 2.71 2.96
I know what I need to do in order to be
successful (3.1)
3.43 3.36 3.37 3.32 3.32 3.43
Average Scores 3.20 3.12 3.11 3.12 3.06 3.21
Source: Green Dot Knowledge Management Report
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

107

In general, the student stakeholder feedback aligned to other teacher effectiveness indicators,
with Ánimo Locke 1 performing close to the Green Dot average, and Ánimo Locke 2 and Alain
LeRoy Locke 3 performing significantly below the Green Dot average. Student survey results on
the Ánimo Locke Tech and Ánimo Watts appeared, low considering other teacher effectiveness
indicators. Higher-than-normal numbers of new teachers on the campus may account for lower
student feedback scores.
Whereas the teacher evaluation data indicated that the Locke campuses required
additional support to develop effective teachers, an analysis of professional development
practices showed both that Green Dot provided adequate structures for professional development
and that the Locke teachers rated their professional development opportunities similarly to that
of their peers on other campuses. Odden (2009) cited five components necessary for effective
professional development: must be campus-based, job-embedded, and ongoing; should focus
both on increasing a teacher’s own content knowledge and determining how students best learn
that content; must be extensive, totaling close to 200 hours annually; must be linked to key
components of the education system, including: student content and performance standards,
teacher evaluation, and school goals; and must be organized around groups of teachers
collaboratively engaging in the process of improving performance.
At the time of this study, the Locke campuses fell short of the professional development
hours recommended by Odden (2009). With 10 full days of professional development, four half
days of Green Dot–wide collaboration, and approximately 75 minutes per week of campus
professional development, teachers averaged approximately 125 hours or professional
development annually. All teachers new to Green Dot participated in an additional 40 hours of
professional development during the summer, bringing them closer to the recommended practice
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

108

of 165 hours of professional development. The aforementioned move to a bell schedule that
allowed for two weekly development sessions per week was meant to increase teacher
professional development time by an additional 45 hours per year. This change would grow
teacher learning opportunities to approximately 170 hours for veteran educators and 215 hours
for teachers new to the organization.
The content of the professional development sessions aligned well to the research-based
best practices. Each year, schools leaders participated in a three-hour program review session
with members of the Green Dot Education Team. During this meeting, multiple sources of data
(student achievement, teacher performance, stakeholder feedback) were reviewed and
recommendations for a strategic focus were created. After the initial recommendation was
identified, school leaders worked with their department chairs to develop a year-long
professional development program. At the conclusion of each professional development session,
an exit slip was administered. This feedback was used to adjust future sessions to better meet the
needs of the adults. On the Locke campuses, professional development sessions had recently
been linked to indicators on the teacher evaluation rubric. In 2012, Green Dot identified the
following three focus areas to be addressed at organization-wide professional development:
academic discourse, group structures, and questioning. Most of the Locke campuses chose a
focus similar to that of the Green Dot Education Team; however, while the focus was unified,
practices like the development of Professional Learning Communities (PLC) or the enactment of
peer observation protocols allowed schools to both differentiate for teacher skill level and to see
the best practices in action.
Notably, although teacher evaluation of professional development programs was
generally low in relation to the Green Dot average, overall professional development scores by
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

109

campus did not correlate readily with other indicators of school success—like student
achievement or teacher evaluation data. For example, Ánimo Locke 1 had the highest SPG and
teacher evaluation scores; however, three Locke campuses rated professional development more
positively than that campus did. Figure K shows the average teacher stakeholder feedback scores
for Professional Development and Programs collected in fall 2012. Additionally, Table 10
indicates the average school scores by indicator.

Figure K. Teacher stakeholder feedback: Professional development and programs,
fall 2012.
Source: Green Dot Knowledge Management Report
Table 10
Teacher Feedback on Professional Development and Programs by Indicator, Fall 2012
Survey Statements Ánimo
Locke 1
Ánimo
Locke 2
AL
Locke 3
Ánimo
Locke Tech
Ánimo
Watts
Professional development at my school site has helped
me improve instructional practice
2.26 2.34 2.89 2.92 2.53
The school uses data to identify strengths and
weaknesses and make plans for continuous improvement
3.00 2.59 3.00 2.96 2.95
Green Dot Collaboration Days help me to improve my
instruction
2.65 2.45 2.60 2.83 2.63
The school provides opportunities for me to collaborate
with peers during PD and conference periods
2.96 2.34 3.10 2.83 3.00
The school provides me with the support and training I
need to effectively work with Special Education students
2.39 1.97 2.37 2.57 2.90
The school provides me with the support and training I
need to effectively work with EL students
2.70 2.48 2.25 2.13 2.32
The school provides me with the training and support I
need to manage student conduct effectively
2.30 2.28 2.63 3.00 2.05
The school provides effective intervention programs for
students achieving below grade level
2.48 1.86 2.60 2.57 2.47
New teachers at my school receive adequate support
from leaders and experienced teachers
2.43 2.50 2.37 2.17 2.43
Source: Green Dot Knowledge Management Report
2.57

2.31

2.65

2.67

2.59

2.71

Ánimo

Locke
1

Ánimo

Locke
2

Ánimo

Locke
3

Ánimo

Locke

Tech

Ánimo

Watts

Green

Dot

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

110

Even though results varied widely from campus to campus, average scores showed that
teachers wanted more support in working with English Language Learners and with students
achieving below grade level. Additionally, teacher stakeholder feedback survey data suggested
the need to increase new teacher supports.
To address data suggesting that new teachers lacked necessary supports, Green Dot
developed a coaching model that rolled out in the 2012–2013 school year. The Curriculum
Specialist (CS) had three main areas of focus: developing curriculum, providing professional
development, and coaching teachers. Using the College Ready Teaching Framework (CRTF), the
CS provided direct services to teachers in the form of observation, data analysis, and coaching
debrief. Due to budget constraints, 10 curriculum specialists served a teaching pool of over 525
teachers. To maximize the impact of the Curriculum Specialists, coaching supports focused on
new teachers as well as on critical literacy and math intervention programs. Three levels of
coaching supports were offered to teachers:
1. Targeted Supports: Offered primarily to new teachers; teachers were observed a
minimum of twice per week and received the equivalent of 60 minutes of coaching.
2. Basic Supports: Offered to high-performing new teachers as well as those responsible
for key intervention courses; teachers were observed a minimum of twice per month
and received the equivalent of 60 minutes of coaching.
3. Limited Supports: All teachers were welcome to request the support of a Curriculum
Specialist on an as-needed basis.
Curriculum Specialists followed the Bambrick-Santoyo (2012) observation feedback
protocol, a process aligned to both the administrator feedback process and the teacher evaluation
rubric. In addition to providing verbal feedback, Curriculum Specialists provided a numerous
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

111

coaching services, depending on the needs of the teacher. Such services may have included
coplanning, coteaching, modeling lessons, video observation, rehearsal coaching, and the use of
the MotivAider timer tools. Teacher progress in the coaching program was reviewed on a
quarterly basis. In some cases, a high-performing new teacher may have moved from Targeted to
Basic level coaching. In other cases, at the request of school administrators, struggling teachers
receiving Basic or Limited coaching services may have begun receiving Targeted services.
Because the program was new, student achievement and evaluation data were not yet available;
however, teachers receiving coaching services were asked to provide anonymous feedback twice
annually. Table 11 shows the feedback scores provided to the Curriculum Specialists in Fall
2012.
Table 11
Curriculum Specialist Feedback Scores, Fall 2012
Strongly Agree (4); Agree (3); Disagree (2); Strongly Disagree (1) Average
CS analyzes my teaching practice in an accurate manner and draws appropriate and data-
based conclusions regarding strengths and areas of growth.
3.52
CS provides practical, specific, and evidence-based suggestions that will improve my
practice.
3.55
I implement the suggestions the CS provides.
3.44
CS helps me analyze data to determine instructional priorities.
3.30
CS facilitates clear, well-organized, engaging and relevant PD.
3.45
CS fostered a professional, positive relationship with me and helped me feel comfortable
with the observation and feedback process.
3.67
CS is responsive to my requests and needs.
3.71
Source: Green Dot Knowledge Management Report

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

112

Teacher scores and comments indicated a high level of satisfaction with the nascent coaching
model. As the program evolves, it is important for Green Dot to track additional measures—
including teacher observation data and SGP scores—to more fully comprehend the impact of the
coaching model on teacher effectiveness.
An analysis of both data and interviews identified teacher effectiveness as a priority for
the Locke campuses. In the past several years, structures had been adopted to improve teacher
selection, define effective teaching, refocus professional development practices, and provide
coaching supports. Green Dot leaders had identified the need to continue to refine processes,
focus on quality of implementation, and provide differentiated supports to struggling campuses.
Developing Effective Leaders

Similar to the analysis of effective teaching, this study’s examination of effective leaders
centered on four main issues: the selection process, evaluation, professional development, and
coaching. The process for hiring school assistant principals and principals was overhauled in
2010. At the time of this study, it consisted of the following steps:
1. Candidates submitted an online application that required the inclusion of basic
information, the completion of short answer questions, and the submission of letters
of references as well as proof of credential.
2. Members of the Green Dot Human Capital department screened all resumes.
Candidates meeting a minimum threshold were then referred to a more in-depth, in-
person Haberman for Leaders interview conducted by retired principals.
3. Candidates earning a passing score on the Haberman were next invited to participate
in a 30-minute behavioral interview conducted by the Human Capital team, which
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

113

assessed pedagogical knowledge, leadership capacity, and alignment with the Green
Dot mission.
4. Candidates passing the Human Capital interview were invited to participate in a panel
interview. The panel consisted of cluster directors, the Vice President of Education,
and the Chief Academic Officer. Principals were invited to participate in this process
if they were interested in a specific candidate for an assistant principal position.
When candidates arrived at the interview, they were allotted 45-minutes to complete
an on-demand writing sample and to review three scenario-based interview questions.
Next, candidates were asked to present a 20-minute professional development session
to the panel. At least five days before the interview, candidates were provided a
prompt that described the following: the topic (i.e., group structures); teacher
performance to date on that topic; teacher evaluation rubric language clarifying
expected performance on that topic; and general parameters for the presentation.
Candidates were asked to present the session as though the panel were their staff.
The panel then debriefed the professional development presentation, reviewed the
scenarios, reviewed the writing sample, and asked any other questions needed to
assess the skill of the candidate.
5. Candidates who passed the panel interview portion of the interview were then
referred for a campus observation. Candidates shadowed a principal for a minimum
of three hours. The principal was asked to host the candidate during his/her normal
course of work; however, it was expected that candidates complete at least two
informal observations (approximately 10 minutes each) and then prepare a mock
debrief using the Bambrick-Santoyo (2012) observation feedback protocol.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

114

Principals role-played the debrief sessions with the candidates. Within 24 hours of the
interview, candidates were required to submit a written reflection of their campus
shadow experience to the hiring panel. During this time, a member of the hiring panel
solicited feedback on the experience from the host principal.
6. While a candidate was preparing for the campus-level hiring process, the Human
Capital department would begin conducting reference checks.
7. Any candidates approved for hire by the hiring panel were referred to a Community
Feedback Panel. This was not a decision-making group; however, its feedback was
considered before a final offer was proffered. The Community Feedback Panel
consisted of a cluster director, campus administrator, four teachers, four parents, four
students, and two classified staff members. Sample questions were provided to the
panel. The interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. The panel then provided
feedback on a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses. It also suggested any follow up
it would like to be considered before a candidate was hired.
Much like the hiring process employed for teachers, the leader hiring process sought
input from a number of stakeholders. It also attempted to assess a candidate’s ability to both
apply skills and reflect on recent practice. A comparison of leaders hired since the inception of
this process in 2010 to previously hired leaders yielded mixed results, in part, because the
analysis compared scores of veteran leaders to those of primarily inexperienced leaders.
However, the Vice President of Human Capital confirmed that no leaders hired since 2010 had
been placed on performance remediation plans and none had been terminated (K. Hurley,
personal communication, March 12, 2013).
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

115

Although the teacher evaluation process was in its third phase of development, planning
for a new leader evaluation began in the fall of 2012. This leader evaluation was to be adjusted
to better align to the evaluation framework employed for teachers. At the time of this study,
school leaders were evaluated twice annually. Leaders who earned a positive evaluation and met
their academic and budget targets were eligible for a bonus of up to 6% of their salary. The
evaluation rubric focused on five competencies: Instructional Leadership, People Management,
Resource Management, Problem-Solving, and Community Leadership. The rubric required three
scores: first, leaders were asked to evaluate themselves; second, stakeholder feedback scores
from teachers and counselors were provided; and third, the supervisor determined evaluation
scores. A series of specific indicators was provided within each competency. The rubric required
the individual, supervisor, and stakeholders to provide the following rating for each indicator: 4
= Exceeds Expectations; 3 = Meets Expectations; 2 = Partially Meets Expectations; and 1 = Does
Not Meet Expectations. The indicator scores were then averaged to provide a rating for each
competency. The complete evaluation rubric is available in Appendix B.
To respect the confidentiality of individual principals, leader evaluation scores were
analyzed in the aggregate. The average scores of the five Locke principals were compared to the
overall average Green Dot scores in each competency. Figure L shows the 2011–2012 leader
evaluations scores for principals in the Locke cluster, compared to the Green Dot average.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

116

Figure L. Green Dot leader evaluation scores, Fall 2012.

Source: Green Dot Knowledge Management Report

The data indicated that the Locke principals, as a group, were not as effective as other Green Dot
principals. In particular, supervisor data showed that Locke principals needed to develop skills in
the areas of Instructional Leadership and People Management.
Teacher and counselor feedback on administrator practice similarly revealed that the
Locke principals and assistant principals, as a group, were not as effective as other Green Dot
leaders. Like the supervisor data, stakeholder feedback suggested that Locke leaders needed to
develop People Management skills. However, the survey results showed Problem-Solving to be
the next greatest area of need. Figure M shows stakeholder survey results for both principals and
assistant principals compared to the overall Green Dot scores.
2.77

2.73

2.84

2.89

3.06

2.86

2.96

2.91

3.03

3.06

3.12

3.02

Instructional

Leadership

People

Management

Resource

Management

Problem

Solving

Community

Leadership

Overall
Average

Score

Locke
Prinicpals
Green
Dot
Principals

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

117

Figure M. Teacher/counselor feedback on school leaders, fall 2012.
Source: Green Dot Knowledge Management Report
Deeper analysis of the specific indicators of the stakeholder survey results found
consistently low or high scores among discrete skills within the competencies. For example,
school leaders consistently scored high on the following indicators: Leader promotes a positive
school culture; leader is knowledgeable of effective teaching, including curriculum standards and
design; leader maintains a school-wide focus on high standards for students achievement; and,
leader adheres to state, district, and Green Dot regulations, policies and procedures. Conversely,
principals and assistant principals consistently scored low on the following indicators: leader
communicates well with staff; leader anticipates obstacles and engages in short- and long-term
planning to minimize emergencies; leader works well with staff to match priorities with
spending; and leader effectively coaches teachers to improve instruction. Indicators requiring
improvement were in four of the different competency sections of the evaluation. To effectively
plan for improvement, focusing on specific indicators of the evaluation rubric—rather than on
the more general competencies—was necessary. Table 12 shows a detailed accounting of the
principal and assistant principal stakeholder feedback by indicator.

2.98

2.91

2.95

2.91

2.98

2.95

3.14

3.04

3.08

3.06

3.15

3.09

Instructional

Leadership

People

Management

Resource

Management

Problem

Solving

Community

Leadership

Overall

Locke
Leaders
Green
Dot
Leaders

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

118

Table 12
Teacher and Counselor Stakeholder Feedback on Leaders, Fall 2012
Survey Statements Ánimo
Locke 1
Ánimo
Locke 2
AL
Locke 3
Ánimo
Locke Tech
Ánimo
Watts
Instructional Leadership: Average 2.95 2.83 3.03 2.99 3.12
Leader maintains school-wide focus on high standards
of student achievement
2.96 2.91 3.10 3.16 3.30
Leader is knowledgeable of effective teaching,
including curriculum standards and design
2.99 3.02 3.12 3.05 3.22
Leader uses data to increase student achievement

2.94 2.98 3.03 2.92 3.09
Leader creates a learning culture that communicates
“college for certain”
3.02 2.56 3.00 2.92 3.05
Leader effectively coaches teachers to improve
instruction
2.84
2.70
2.91 2.91 2.92
People Management: Average 2.98 2.76 2.95 2.96 2.90
Leader holds employees accountable for results

2.94 2.91 3.07 3.00 3.00
Leader builds a collaborative, well-functioning team 3.06 2.60 2.86 2.99 2.85
Leader communicates well with staff

2.81 2.63 2.77 2.89 2.71
Leader gathers input, collaborates, and provides
leadership opportunities as appropriate
2.92 2.92 3.09 2.96 3.00
Leader recognizes and rewards individual and group
behavior
3.19 2.73 2.98 2.97 2.94
Resource Management: Average 2.85 2.75 3.14 2.95 3.05
Leader works with staff and community to match
priorities with spending
2.83 2.61 2.95 2.88 2.92
Leader manages the school’s resources effectively
(textbooks, equipment)
2.72 2.64 3.15 2.87 3.00
Leader facilitates meetings that align with goals, allow
for input, and maintain focus
2.82 2.85 3.22 2.88 3.09
Leader establishes systems for effective school
operations (e.g., field trips, facilities requests)
2.67 2.74 3.08 2.99 2.91
Leader adheres to federal, state, district, and Green Dot
regulations, policies and procedures.
3.20 2.92 3.32 3.14 3.32
Problem-Solving 2.89 2.73 2.98 2.97 2.99
Leader resolves conflict in a fair and consistent
manner
3.04 2.72 2.97 2.98 2.94
Leader is an effective decision-maker 2.88 2.87 3.07 2.87 3.07
Leader implements and effective Student Code of
Conduct
2.95 2.59 3.05 3.05 3.02
Leader sets and tracks school-wide goals to improve
school performance
2.93 2.84 2.92 3.02 3.07
Leader anticipates obstacles and engages in short and
long-term planning to minimize emergencies
2.63 2.62 2.87 2.91 2.87
Community Leadership 3.08 2.63 2.99 3.12 3.09
Leader effectively communicates the school’s mission
and vision
2.94 2.73 3.07 3.15 2.95
Leader engages parents in their student’s school
experience
2.88 2.57 3.01 3.07 3.02
Leader works collaboratively with the community to
ensure a safe school environment
2.98 2.51 2.94 3.12 3.10
Leader promotes a positive school culture

3.34 2.56 3.02 3.18 3.21
Leader is customer service oriented

3.24 2.77 2.91 3.08 3.17
OVERALL AVERAGE 2.95 2.74 3.02 3.00 3.03
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

119

Although school leaders were afforded regular opportunities for professional
development and coaching, an examination of both supervisor and stakeholder feedback data on
leader effectiveness indicated that more intensive supports were necessary to develop the
capacity of Locke leaders. A cluster director supervised five to seven principals. In the case of
Locke, the cluster director supervised five principals. Each month, the cluster directors and other
Education Team members facilitated a full day of professional development for principals; a
second day was scheduled to train assistant principals. The Education Team used multiple
sources of data to determine the focus of professional development. For example, data indicated
that leaders needed development in teacher coaching and facilitating professional development.
As a result, time was scheduled at each session to improve these skills. Additionally, the
professional development sessions attempted to meet the differentiated skills of the leaders by
implementing Professional Learning Teams (PLT). A derivation of DuFour at al.’s (2008)
Professional Learning Communities, school leaders reflected on rubric indicators to self-identify
an area of growth. They created a PLT with peers interested in developing the same skills.
Principal mentors and Education Team members helped facilitate the PLT sessions each month.
In addition to monthly professional development sessions, each quarter, campus leaders
participated in a Key Results session. During this three-hour meeting, leaders were invited to a
Green Dot campus. They were placed into groups and scheduled to observe three to four
classrooms with a specific focus (e.g., questioning). They then calibrated their observation
feedback, role-played a scenario in which they provided feedback to teachers, and provided
aggregate feedback that the school could share with teachers. The cluster director identified this
process as accomplishing two goals: first, it provided an opportunity for leaders to calibrate real-
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

120

time in-classroom observations; second, it created a space for leaders to observe other Green Dot
campuses.
Principal coaching occurred in two forms at Green Dot. First, the cluster director spent a
minimum of five hours a month on each campus providing dedicated coaching to principals and
assistant principals. These sessions varied based on the skill of the leader but typical agenda
items included the following: classroom observations and calibration, review of professional
development and strategic plans, analysis of budgets, and dealing with issues related to personnel
or student discipline. Like other stakeholders, school leaders were invited to provide feedback to
the home office twice annually. Unlike the other stakeholder survey scales that work on a four-
point scale with answers of Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree, the home
office survey works on a five-point scale with an option the option of a Neutral response. In the
fall 2012 Survey, the Locke principals provided a score of 4.27 for the following statement: My
Cluster Director gives me the support and guidance necessary for me to become a better manager
and instructional leader (Green Dot Knowledge Management Report). Although this statement
serves as one data source, it implies that principals feel that cluster director supports are
valuable.
In addition to regular coaching by a cluster director, principals in their first and second
years of service were paired with a principal mentor. Mentors were expected to meet with
mentees on a monthly basis. This meeting may have included a visit to the mentor or mentee’s
school. In addition, all mentees met with the team of mentors in the summer for five days of
professional development as well as quarterly throughout the year. At the time of this study, two
Locke principals were paired with a mentor principal.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

121

An analysis of Green Dot’s efforts to develop successful leaders indicated that structures
aligned with research-based best practices. Improvements to the hiring process, evolving
programs for coaching and professional development, and recent actions to place effective
leaders on struggling campuses all suggested that leader effectiveness was a priority. As they did
with teacher effectiveness, Green Dot leaders identified the need to continue refining processes,
to focus on quality of implementation, and to provide differentiated supports to struggling
campuses.
Creating Academic Programs and Structures That Meet Student Needs
Odden and Archibald (2009) have argued that schools enacting positive change must
focus on issues under their control—specifically curriculum and instructional programs. They
have further emphasized the importance of focusing on struggling students, citing the need to
“extend learning time for students struggling to achieve performance standards in core subjects
but particularly in math, reading and writing” (p. 96). Green Dot began its effort to transform
from a loosely defined education model with a focus on intervention courses. As mentioned
earlier, Green Dot’s early model consisted of a uniform policy, A-G graduation requirements,
and the inclusion of a reading program. And although Green Dot employed a home office person
to work with literacy and English Language Learner programs, the lack of clarity concerning
where schools had autonomy over curricular decisions made it difficult to enact systemic change.
In 2008, Green Dot created a centralized academic team that included the following positions:
Director of New Teacher Supports, Director of Counseling, Special Education Program
Administrators, Literacy Program Coordinator, and Math Program Coordinator. In more recent
years, that team expanded to include a Director of After School Programs, a team of school
psychologists and social workers, and 10 Curriculum Specialists.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

122

In 2009, Green Dot opened its first middle school campus, Ánimo Jefferson. In addition
to expanding to middle schools, this campus marked the first school that opened with a clearly
defined academic and cultural model. The three campuses that had opened since Ánimo
Jefferson did so with clear expectations for academics and student life. All previously existing
campuses, including the Locke campuses, were in a process of transitioning to the Green Dot
model.
The model creation process began with a focus on math and literacy intervention
programs. Although a literacy intervention program was “required” for all campuses, the criteria
for entry were not clear. According to one principal, some schools made decisions about the
number of sections of literacy intervention to be offered based on teacher preference. In addition
to needing to improve diagnostic testing and to create clear entry and exit criteria for the existing
program, it was necessary to look at the program itself. Scholastic’s Read 180 program had
proven successful on a number of campuses; however, the Locke campuses enrolled a number of
students with literacy skills too low to access Read 180. The Literacy Program Coordinator was
charged with finding multiple literacy options and creating a pathway that extended beyond
freshman year. At the time of this study, the schools offered Literacy Intervention and Literacy
Enrichment courses that had clearly define entry and exit criteria and curricular maps.
In addition to having a focus on literacy intervention, The Literacy Program Coordinator
led a team to create English Language Development (ELD) and Writing Programs. Ánimo Locke
1 and another Green Dot campus, Ánimo Ralph Bunche, housed the most comprehensive ELD
programs. However, all schools offered a pathway to support English Language Learners
through existing literacy or writing courses. Work to improve writing focused on two strategies:
first, Green Dot began working with the California Writing Project in 2010 to support teaching
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

123

writing across all courses; and second, Green Dot created three writing courses to support
students outside of the existing English pathway. An Advanced Composition course was offered
to freshman who do not need reading intervention. Therefore, all freshmen took a double block
of English, with the English 9 course and either a literacy or a writing course. At the sophomore
level, Academic English Essentials (AEE) was designed as an elective course focused on
supporting students who had completed Literacy Enrichment freshman year but may still have
needed support before transitioning fully to a college preparatory curriculum. AEE provided
preparation for the CAHSEE examination. Seniors could enroll in the California State
University–developed Expository Reading and Writing Course (ERWC) to support the transition
to college writing. Teachers of all of literacy and writing courses were provided a minimum of
three days of professional development as well as the basic level of coaching services from a
Literacy Curriculum Specialist.
The development of a math program had borne positive results over the previous five
years. Schools across the district realized steady achievement gains in Algebra 1, CAHSEE, and
Algebra 2. The math pathway expanded to include a freshman Math Support class that focused
on basic skills development while supporting the Algebra 1 course. In addition, sophomores still
struggling with math had an opportunity to take an Integrated Math course, meant to serve both
as a CAHSEE preparation course and a bridge between Algebra 1 and Algebra 2. Instead of
utilizing the ALS benchmark system, the Math Program Coordinator created assessments every
six weeks for the following courses: Algebra 1, Math Support, Geometry, Integrated Math, and
Algebra 2. Anyone teaching the aforementioned courses had access to the basic level of
coaching. In addition, Math Curriculum Specialists met with campus departments after each
benchmark examination to conduct the data analysis protocol and plan to adjust instruction.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

124

In addition to focusing on intervention programs, the Director of Counseling and the
Special Education Program Administrators worked to create programs to bolster services to high
need populations. The Director of Counseling had been charged with developing an advisory
program—a significant component of which included academic consultancy—as well as with
creating a counseling internship program that would allow campuses to have access to a wider
range of mental health supports. The Special Education team had developed new programs for
higher need students—one of the Locke campuses was planning on piloting a program for
Emotionally Disturbed students next fall—as well as provided more structured supports for
students in fully included settings. Both the counseling and special education teams were charged
with training general education teachers as well as counselors and special education teachers.
In 2012, Green Dot created a committee composed of teachers, campus leaders, and
Education Team members called the Common Core Transition Team. This group, commissioned
for three years, created a strategic plan to transition the 18 campuses to the Common Core. Four
Locke teachers served on this committee. Although the work completed to create a high school
model impacted all Green Dot campuses, Locke served as a catalyst for this effort. Since Green
Dot had assumed control of Locke in 2008, three of the four new schools were “turnarounds” of
existing failing schools. Students enrolling in Green Dot’s turnaround schools had higher
academic and more intensive social needs. One Locke principal identified that satisfaction with
these developments in the model, citing that she could now focus on implementation instead of
invention. By fall 2013, all Locke campuses planned to offer a program fully aligned with the
Green Dot model.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

125

Setting High Expectations for Student Performance
Bambrick-Santoyo (2012) has described a strong school culture as one in which students
receive a continuous message that nothing is as important as learning. Rather than focusing on
motivational speeches and vision statements, he has contended, the daily practice of rituals
espousing excellence are more impactful. He further suggested that schools build in systems to
periodically assess school culture. In 2008, Green Dot began working with the Safe & Civil
Schools Foundations Program. This three-year training program began with an initial training for
all school personnel. After the initial training, teams comprised of assistant principals, three to
four teachers, a counselor, and a campus aide began attending quarterly full-day trainings with
the Safe & Civil facilitator. The Foundations Program sought to support schools with the
following goals:
• Reduce unnecessary discipline referrals
• Improve school climate
• Enhance school safety
• Improve staff communication and coordination in managing behavior
• Increase positive interactions between staff and students
• Expand staff skill in effective supervision and positive behavior support
• Train staff to make data-based decisions regarding behavior and discipline. (Sprick,
2002)
In addition to offering quarterly trainings, Safe & Civil teams were tasked with meeting monthly
to create strategic plans, analyze progress toward meeting school goals, review relevant data
(e.g., student suspensions), create professional development for staff, and create advisory
lessons. The program allowed schools to customize areas of focus based on specific needs;
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

126

however, it offered a number of tools that fostered the development of school-wide expectations.
In the fall of 2012, the five Locke campuses decided to recommit to the three-year training
program in an effort to continue to build school culture.
Both the student and teacher stakeholder surveys offered a section focused on school
culture. Again, using a scale that asked respondents to Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, or
Strongly Disagree with a series of statements, stakeholders provided feedback on school culture.
Safe & Civil teams were then able to analyze these data to gauge school culture. Table 13 shows
student responses, and Table 14 shows teacher and counselor responses to statements about
school culture, as reported in fall 2012.
Table 13
Student Stakeholder Feedback on Culture, Fall 2012

Survey Statements
Ánimo
Locke
1
Ánimo
Locke
2
AL
Locke
3
Ánimo
Locke
Tech
Ánimo
Watts
Green
Dot
The school has high expectations for me
to succeed academically
3.29 2.89 2.87 3.16 3.08 3.34
This school is preparing me for college

3.29 2.82 2.91 3.09 3.07 3.32
This school is preparing me for my future

3.27 2.78 2.89 3.05 2.97 3.28
Teachers and administrators treat me with
respect
3.27 2.99 2.96 3.13 3.07 3.25
I feel safe at this school

2.85 2.51 2.49 2.85 2.65 3.05
I would recommend this school to a
friend
2.89 2.26 2.33 2.61 2.33 2.86
Average Score

3.14 2.71 2.74 2.98 2.86 3.18
Source: Green Dot Knowledge Management Report

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

127

Table 14
Teacher and Counselor Feedback on Culture, Fall 2012

Survey Statements
Ánimo
Locke 1
Ánimo
Locke 2
Ánimo
Locke 3
Ánimo
Locke
Tech
Ánimo
Watts
Our community (staff, parents & students)
understands the school’s mission and vision
2.79 2.31 2.70 2.83 2.74
Plans, policies and decisions made at the
school demonstrate a focus on mission
2.78 2.10 2.80 2.88 2.80
The school’s mission is focused on high
academic achievement for all students
3.26 2.28 2.90 3.13 3.10
School spirit is evident among students,
faculty and staff
3.17 1.79 2.10 2.79 2.05
The school offers opportunities for
collaborative decision-making
3.17 2.45 2.68 2.70 2.68
The school climate reflects a college-going
culture
3.09 1.93 2.37 2.83 2.84
Parents have opportunities to participate in
school events
3.04 2.83 3.05 3.21 3.25
My school is preparing students for college

3.04 2.14 2.53 2.88 2.74
My school is preparing students for
leadership
2.91 2.03 2.42 2.75 2.42
My school is preparing students for life

2.78 2.24 2.58 2.75 2.84
Average Score

3.00 2.21 2.61 2.88 2.75
Source: Green Dot Knowledge Management Report
With the exception of Ánimo Locke 1, students attending Locke rated their school culture
lower than students on other Green Dot campuses. Although students had generally positive
feelings about the college-going culture and the way adults treated them, safety was a clear
concern. Cluster director and principal interviews indicated although students felt safe in the
building, traveling to and from the campus could be a challenge. Locke students also scored the
statement “I would recommend this school to a friend” lower than average. That Locke students
were from the neighborhood and did not exercise the same choice as independent charters may
have impacted this response; nonetheless, leaders acknowledged the need to increase
expectations and improve school culture.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

128

Although Green Dot average data was not available for the teacher and counselor
stakeholder feedback report, the existing data clearly revealed varied opinions across the
campuses. As was the case with the indicators of teacher and leader effectiveness, data on school
culture indicated that Ánimo Locke 1 had the strongest school culture, whereas Ánimo Locke 2
had significant challenges with school culture. In an effort to improve school culture on the
Ánimo Locke 2 campus, Education Team members had joined both the Instructional Leadership
and the Safe & Civil teams last fall. Green Dot support was present at all planning meetings and
professional development sessions.
Optimizing Human Resources Allocations
California’s economic crisis occurred shortly after Green Dot assumed management of
Alain LeRoy Locke High School. In spite of significant reductions in state and federal revenues,
Green Dot managed to balance its annual budgets through a series of measures that prevented the
loss of instructional time. Whereas new positions were added because the organization had
almost doubled in size since the acquisition of Locke, human capital expansion plans at the home
office level had been scaled back significantly. In addition, outside of small bonuses offered to
the highest performers, home office employees had incurred pay freezes since 2009. In attempt
to ameliorate stagnant salaries, Green Dot began closing its offices for two weeks each over the
winter holiday and spring break, offering an additional 20 days of vacation to all year-long
employees.
At the school level, administrators sustained pay freezes from the 2009–2010 school year
through the 2011–2012 school year. During the time of pay freezes, most Green Dot campuses
increased their enrollments from a model of 525–550 students to a model ranging from 600–625
students in an effort to maintain fiscal viability. Acknowledging that the increased workload and
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

129

lack of pay for administrators was prohibitive, for the 2012–2013 school year, Green Dot
increased administrator salaries and added a second assistant principal to any campuses that did
not already include that role. Principals averaged a $5,253 or 5.2% increase; assistant principals
realized a $4,675 or 5.4% increase. In total, Green Dot estimated that the investment in
administration cost the organization an additional $1,250,000.
The Ánimo Classified Employees Union (ACEA) accepted pay freezes for the 2009–
2010 and 2010–2011 school years; however, it negotiated a 2% pay raise for each of the previous
two years. Contract negotiations with the teacher and counselor’s union, the Asociación de
Maestros Unidos (AMU), proved more complex. In the 2010–2011 school year, AMU agreed to
three furlough days to be taken from the 10 allotted professional development days. In addition,
it agreed to a freeze in its annual step increase. This pay freeze was conditional upon teachers
reducing the number of professional development days by three until such time as the step could
be recouped. As a result of both the furlough days and step freeze, teacher professional
development days were reduced from 10 to 6 days during the 2010–2011 school year. The
following year, no additional furlough days were negotiated—returning professional
development to seven days.
Beginning in 2012, the AMU contract was changed to include a plan to return teachers to
their rightful step by 2014. In this process, Green Dot was able to regain the “frozen”
professional development days; therefore, by the 2014–2015 school year, teachers will
participate in 10 full days of professional development. The Vice President of Human Capital
noted that teachers had moved to a performance bonus system as a pilot step in the transition to a
full multiple measures performance pay plan that should be negotiated by 2014. Bonuses were to
be paid by the TCRP grant for the next several years.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

130

Unlike most districts in California, Green Dot had avoided Reductions in Force (RIF) and
had maintained a 64,800-minute school year for students. However, to do so, it froze wages, cut
back on hiring during periods of growth, and relied heavily on fundraising. The Fiscal-Year 2013
budget projected $110,500,000 in expenses, approximated into the following categories: 66% of
costs for personnel, 24% of costs for operations, and 10% of costs for facilities. In addition, the
budget estimated $99,800,000 in revenues from local, state and federal sources. The Green Dot
Board of Directors approved the budget with the expectation that organization would close the
$10,700,000 gap with philanthropy.
Odden and Picus’s (2010) EBM seeks to link school spending to educational strategies
that best serve to improve student performance. To accomplish this aim, the EBM creates a
prototypical school model that assumes the resources needed to bolster student achievement. It is
then necessary for local committees to compare the EBM to their own situations and make any
adjustments necessary. A financial comparison of the EBM to current staffing on the five Locke
campuses found a funding gap of close to $9,000,000, with a per-pupil gap of $2,732. A closer
review of the staffing projections revealed the largest shortfalls in the following areas: extended
day and summer school staff, nonacademic pupil support, academic extra help staff, and
instructional coaches. Table 15 shows the Locke cluster’s staffing in relation to the desired staff
and the EBM recommendation.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

131

Table 15
Locke Cluster Resource Allocation Gap Analysis
Locke Cluster Position Counts Gap
Title Current Desired EB
Current –
Desired
Current -
EB
Principals 5.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0
Assistant principals 10.0 10.8 5.4 (0.8) 4.6
Instructional coaches 3.5 16.2 16.2 (12.7) (12.7)
Core teachers 124.4 120.3 129.9 4.1 (5.5)
Specialist teachers 36.6 39.7 42.9 (3.1) (6.3)
SPED teachers 18.6 21.7 21.7 (3.1) (3.1)
ELL teachers 2.4 8.7 8.7 (6.3) (6.3)
Academic extra help staff 0.0 18.2 31.5 (18.2) (31.5)
Nonacademic pupil support 18.0 44.5 44.5 (26.5) (26.5)
Nurses 0.0 4.3 4.3 (4.3) (4.3)
Extended day/summer school staff 20.0 52.5 52.5 (32.5) (32.5)
Instructional aides 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Supervisory aides 13.0 16.2 16.2 (3.2) (3.2)
SPED aides 17.0 21.7 10.8 (4.7) 6.2
Librarians 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 (5.0)
Library technicians 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Library paraprofessionals 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Secretaries/clerks 16.0 16.2 16.2 (0.2) (0.2)

During the first years of Green Dot’s operation of the Locke campuses, the organization
inherited an after-school grant from LAUSD. When the grant ended in 2012, Green Dot
attempted and failed to secure a different after-school grant utilized by the majority of other
Green Dot campuses. This loss of funds significantly reduced opportunities for after-school and
summer remediation and enrichment. Green Dot had reapplied for the grant, which could yield
approximately $250,000 per campus each year. The EBM gap for extended day and summer
school staff was $1,898,098. If it won a $1,250,000 grant for the five Locke campuses, Green
Dot would have an opportunity to significantly increase extended day and summer school
supports, moving closer to the recommended model.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

132

The second largest staffing gap between the Locke campuses and the EBM existed with
Non-Academic Pupil Support. At the time of this study, the Locke schools staffed either two or
three guidance counselors on each campus. The cluster budget further covered the costs of three
full-time psychologists and two full-time social workers. As mentioned earlier, the Director of
Counseling had created internship programs that allowed campuses to staff intern guidance
counselors, social workers, and psychologists. These nonbudgeted intern positions attempted to
support the greater than $1,500,000 gap in staffing between Green Dot and EBM
recommendations. In addition to an internship program, in 2010, Green Dot won a $1,850,000
grant to create a Wellness Center. Located on the main campus, the Wellness Center provided
wrap-around health services, violence prevention programs, legal supports, as well as a host of
referral services. Although the intern program and the Wellness Center served to enhance the
ongoing nonacademic supports provided to campuses, the leaders interviewed in this study
discussed the severity of the social-emotional needs of the students in this community, citing the
need to focus more attention on this concern.
The third largest gap in human resource allocations was in the area of Academic Extra
Help Staff. Teachers were expected to offer “office hours” for tutoring before or after school.
However, because this expectation was not in the AMU contract, a set number of hours (or
expectations for what happens during this time) was not clear. In 2012, three other Green Dot
high schools had partnered with an organization called College Spring that paired college
students with juniors and seniors for SAT and ACT preparation. The cluster director identified
that the schools were exploring this partnership as well as considering a partnership with City
Year that would provide mentors to freshman students. Both of these programs depended on
fundraising.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

133

The final substantive gap between the Locke staffing model and the EBM prototype
concerned instructional coaches. Midway through first semester, Green Dot shifted resources to
provide Locke services equivalent to approximately 3.5 of the 10 Curriculum Specialists shared
across the organization. This number paled compared to the EMB recommendation of 16.2
coaches across the five campuses. Although student achievement and teacher performance data
were not yet available to support the efficacy of the Green Dot Coaching Model, student
achievement data, teacher effectiveness data, and teacher feedback on the coaching model all
pointed to the need to increase the investment in coaching.
In spite of the nearly $9,000,000 gap in funding between the Locke staffing model and
the prototype recommended to dramatically increase student achievement, some positive
findings emerged. The Locke schools employed 4.6 assistant principals beyond the
recommended model. Both position descriptions and the evaluation system identified that Green
Dot campus leaders were expected to serve as instructional leaders and coaches. According to
the Vice President of Human Capital, Green Dot made a strategic decision to invest in assistant
principals who could serve both as teacher supervisors and coaches. Additionally, Green Dot
only fell short by 5.5 positions in Core teachers. The QEIA funding required that the three main
Locke campuses—Ánimo Locke 1, Ánimo Locke 2, and Alain LeRoy Locke 3—keep core class
sizes below 28 students. QEIA and the inclusion of myriad core intervention “electives” in the
model had pushed Locke campuses to invest in core subject instruction. Lastly, the Locke
campuses were only 0.2 of a position off of the recommendation for Secretaries/Clerks.
Although an obvious connection may not exist between office staff and student achievement, at
charter schools these personnel are largely responsible for supporting enrollment, ensuring high
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

134

daily attendance rates, and maintaining the school lunch programs. The successful execution of
each of these duties can dramatically impact a school’s annual budget.
Recommendations
Analysis of Green Dot practices revealed a number of structures aligned to research-
based best practices. Early data indicated that the recently adopted hiring practices for teachers
and leaders were producing positive results. Additionally, the teacher evaluation system
incorporated multiple measures to assess performance. Student achievement data, student survey
feedback, and observations scores positively correlated, producing a comprehensive picture of
teacher effectiveness. The development of a Green Dot academic model—thus far focused
primarily on intervention— had produced positive student achievement results and created space
for cross-campus collaboration. Teachers receiving coaching services had identified that the
program supports them to improve practice. And, in spite of a debilitating financial crisis,
schools had both maintained a focus on core instruction and sustained precrisis instructional
minutes.
The gap analysis also exposed notable areas of concern. The following recommendations
are submitted for consideration: continue to refine campus and organization-wide professional
development opportunities, increase coaching services, intensify supplemental supports like
tutoring and socioemotional counseling, and differentiate supports to improve both teacher and
leader effectiveness.
Recommendation #1: Improve Professional Development Programs
The pending transition to Locke campus bell schedules that included two professional
development sessions per week and allowed approximately 45 more hours of training per year
served as a strong first step in improving professional development programs. In addition to
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

135

extending time, it will be important to better understand why stakeholder feedback on
professional development did not positively correlate to other indicators of school effectiveness
(teacher evaluation data and SGP). Schools should invest time to better understand the specific
strengths and weaknesses of professional development by reviewing exit slips, eliciting more
detailed feedback through surveys or focus groups, and engaging campus instructional leadership
teams (ILT) in a gap analysis process. The Green Dot Education Team should facilitate a similar
process with respect to the professional development it provides. Because the existing structures
aligned well with the components that Odden (2009) has argued are critical for successful
professional development programs, focusing on the quality of implementation is important. A
gap analysis might help elucidate any skills, motivational, or organizational barriers that exist.
In addition, the pending transition to the Common Core Standards offered an opportunity for the
Locke campuses and Green Dot to enact a “reboot,” refocusing both the content and structure of
the professional development offered.
Recommendation #2: Increase Coaching Services
Multiple sources of data pointed to the fact that teacher effectiveness was wanting in the
Locke cluster, particularly on two campuses. Early indicators suggested that the teacher-
coaching program was on track for success. The EBM-recommended investment of $745,201 to
optimize coaching services to the Locke cluster was not likely feasible; however, it may be
possible for Green Dot to consider reducing contracted services, like outside security, to invest in
curriculum specialists. If it will not be possible to reallocate home office or contracted positions
to invest in this program, Green Dot should consider reallocating the time of the existing 10
Curriculum Specialists so that more supports are provided to Locke (and potentially other
turnaround) campuses.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

136

Recommendation #3: Intensify Supplemental Supports
Stakeholder feedback, interviews, and the EBM all advised the Locke campuses to
increase investments in supplemental supports like tutoring and socioemotional counseling.
Because human resource allocations were already streamlined, reallocating resources to fill these
positions may not be possible. However, it will be critical for Green Dot to aggressively seek
grant funding for after-school enrichment, tutoring, and mentor programs. Additionally, Green
Dot has an opportunity to continue to grow and refine the counseling intern and Wellness Center
services.
Recommendation #4: Differentiate Supports to Improve Teacher and Leader Effectiveness
This study reinforced Jim Collins’s (2001) evocation to get the right people in the right
positions. The data overwhelmingly showed that one Locke campus was succeeding, two
campuses had promise, and two campuses struggled to implement any of the recommended
practices. All three of the leaders interviewed addressed the disparity in educational quality
across campuses, and all identified the need to provide increased supports to struggling schools.
It will be critical that principals on struggling campuses have the additional supports needed to
improve both teacher effectiveness and school culture. This effort will require Green Dot to
reallocate Education Team resources to provide intensive supports with hiring, professional
development, teacher coaching, and teacher remediation.
Conclusion
This study sought to compare Locke campus practices and staffing allocations to
research-based practices proven to increase student achievement. In spite of weighty financial
challenges, the data analysis revealed some promising practices—many of which had been
recently enacted—that should serve to enhance student learning. The data also indicated
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

137

significant gaps that—if ignored—could prevent Locke from completing the turnaround process.
The recommendations set forth in this chapter attempt to respond to gaps preventing Locke from
actualizing its mission to prepare all students for college, leadership, and life. The next chapter
will describe implications for this study on practice while proffering suggestions for further
research.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

138

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This study focused on Green Dot’s effort to transform one of the lowest performing high
schools in California into a model of successful reform. It employed the EBM as a framework to
examine the three Green Dot conversion charter high schools (Ánimo Locke 1, Ánimo Locke 2,
and Alain LeRoy Locke 3) and the two start-up charter high schools (Ánimo Locke Tech and
Ánimo Watts) that replaced Alain LeRoy Locke High School in September 2008. The study
sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What research-based human resource allocation strategies improve student
achievement?
2. How are human resources allocated across the Locke cluster of schools?
3. Is there a gap between current human resource allocation practices and what the
research suggests is most effective?
4. How can human resources be strategically re-allocated to align with strategies that
improve student achievement?
The study began by offering an historical review of the five major school reform
movements that followed the Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483, 484)
acknowledgement of a gap in the quality of schooling provided to American students. It then
examined the following practices shown to improve student learning: creating a data-driven
culture, developing effective teachers, developing effective school leaders, creating academic
programs that meet the needs of students, and setting high expectations for student performance.
Additionally, the study adopted the Evidence-Based Model to serve as a model of the human
resource allocations necessary to enact significant gains in student achievement. It then
scrutinized the following sources of Green Dot’s quantitative and qualitative data to conduct a
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

139

gap analysis: student achievement data, demographic information, budget apportionments,
teacher effectiveness scores, human resource allocations, stakeholder satisfaction surveys, and
interview findings. Lastly, the study considered the results of the gap analysis to create
recommendations for the continued improvement of the Locke campuses.
Summary of Findings
Generally, the study found that Green Dot’s practices aligned well with the research-
based practices and staffing models known to dramatically increase student achievement.
However, the study also found that many of the practices were in the nascent stages of
development when the turnaround process began. The absence of critical best practices in the
early years of operation led to gaps in the quality of implementation from campus to campus. As
a result, at the time of this study, the Locke cluster of schools boasted one successful campus,
two campuses nearing success, and two campuses struggling to support student learning.
Green Dot had systems in place at the organization and campus level to cultivate a data-
driven culture. In 2009, Green Dot instituted a process for creating school-wide targets. By
benchmarking high-performing schools with similar demographics, Green Dot was able to map a
pathway for individual schools to reach to a gold standard target that includes an API of 800.
Moreover, Green Dot provided periodic training to school leaders so it can incorporate these
targets into its annual planning.
In addition to providing targets, The College Ready Promise (TCRP) collaborative
devised a process for looking at individual student growth through a matched pair analysis of the
CST scale score growth of students in charter and LAUSD schools. The majority of students
entering the Locke schools were achieving at rates far below grade level. Although it is
important to look at overall achievement, a growth score helps a school to more specifically
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

140

understand how well it is closing the achievement gap. The Student Growth Percentile (SGP)
measure assumes that a score of 50 is average, correlating to approximately one year of growth
(Keelen, 2012). Three of the five Locke campuses boasted SGP school-wide scores at or above
the average—with two schools scoring below average.
A data-driven culture was encouraged at the campus level as well. Teachers of core
subjects administered quarterly benchmark examinations. A training program was offered to
ensure that teachers were able to effectively analyze benchmark scores, make adjustments to
instruction to improve student learning, and create intervention programs to support struggling
students. The continued training of campus department chairs, through the GDILT program,
served to ensure that focus remained on data analysis.
In the five years previous to this study (2007-2012), Green Dot had made significant
strides in its efforts develop effective teachers by refining its hiring and professional develop
practices as well as adopting a coaching model. During the first three years that Green Dot
managed the Locke schools, hiring occurred primarily at the local level. The home office
conducted credential checks and administered the Haberman interview protocol. It then offered
recommended practices for hiring at the campus level, including a teach session and reference
checks. At the time of this study, the hiring process involved multiple screening steps at the
home office before a teacher candidate was “green lit” for a campus interview. Additionally, all
components of the interview process aligned to the teacher evaluation rubric. Furthermore,
extensive training was provided to campus hiring teams, with struggling schools receiving
Education Team supports throughout the hiring process.
Green Dot leaders identified that the move to a new evaluation rubric in 2011 had helped
the organization define good teaching and, in turn, target professional development more
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

141

effectively (K. Hurley, personal communications, March 12, 2013; P. Gutierrez, personal
communication, March 14, 2013). Although school leadership teams had typically reviewed
student achievement data in an attempt to appraise teacher strengths and weaknesses, they also
analyzed student survey data and observation data to identify specific evaluation indicators (e.g.,
Group Structures) in need of improvement. Both professional development and coaching
centered on this rubric.
In 2011, Green Dot piloted a coaching model in an effort to bring supports to specific
intervention courses in need of improvement. In 2012, that program expanded to support all
teachers new to the organization. Although the program was relatively new and data were not
available to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers receiving coaching services, teacher feedback
indicated that it was critical to the effort to improve teacher effectiveness. The study analyzed
numerous data sources to evaluate Green Dot’s efforts to improve teacher effectiveness on the
Locke campuses. Student achievement, student growth, observation, and stakeholder survey data
all indicated that the Locke campuses had mixed results. With the exception of Ánimo Locke 1’s
teacher and counselor rating of professional development programs, the results were consistent
across data sources. In each case, they indicated that one school was successful, two were
nearing success, and two campuses were struggling.
Green Dot’s efforts to develop effective leaders evolved in much the same manner as its
efforts to develop effective teachers. In 2010, a new hiring process was adopted that had yielded
improved results. At the time of this study, the evaluation system was in the process of an
overhaul. And although coaching and professional development models had existed for five
years, supports were now being differentiated to provide more resources to struggling campuses.
As was the case with the data analyzed to decipher teacher effectiveness, the leader effectiveness
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

142

data was strikingly consistent across sources (stakeholder feedback, evaluation data, etc.). Not
surprisingly, the study found that schools with effective leaders are more successful.
When it acquired the Locke campuses, Green Dot did not have the academic programs
necessary to effectively educate students (C. Soleo, personal communication, March 15, 2013).
Although Green Dot required schools to offer A-G courses, administer benchmark assessments,
include an advisory program, and offer reading intervention to freshman, campuses were
authorized to create bell schedules, determine course pathways and prerequisites, and adopt
materials. The autonomy of schools created a number of challenges in the cluster and across the
organization. Because schools ran different programs, the Education Team had trouble providing
consistent supports. It was also difficult for teachers and leaders to share best practices. As a
result, school success was largely contingent upon the success of the principal. Leaders identified
that the recent creation and development of critical academic programs—especially those
focused on intervention—had served to improve student learning and increase cross-campus
collaboration (P. Gutierrez, personal communication, March 14, 2013).
Collectively, improvements in hiring, professional development, and coaching processes
supported schools in setting high expectations for student learning. Whereas the articulation of
curriculum allowed schools to place students in appropriate academic programs, and the Safe &
Civil Schools Program served as a foundation for school culture, developing the human
resources necessary to creating effective schools has served to increase expectations (K. Hurley,
personal communication, March 12, 2013). As with all other sources of data, survey data related
to school culture indicated that three schools were doing well and two were not yet providing a
culture of high expectations.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

143

Lastly, a comparison of Green Dot’s human resource allocations to those of the
Evidence-Based Model indicated relatively strong alignment given California’s funding crisis.
In part because of the focus on intervention programs, Locke staffed close to the recommended
number of core academic teachers. In addition, the Locke schools employed beyond the
recommended number of assistant principals, in part because they were charged with teacher
coaching. The campuses further staffed their office functions well. The largest deficiencies in
staffing occurred with extended-day programming, nonacademic supports, and coaching. The
campuses identified ways to ameliorate many of these losses through internship programs and
external grants; however, a strong need to increase coaching supports remained.
The study recommends that the Locke schools continue to build on current practices by
improving professional development programs and intensifying supplemental student supports.
It further recommends that Green Dot increase coaching supports to the campuses. The strongest
recommendation stems from the clear disparity in the quality of education on the campuses. To
complete the turnaround process, Green Dot will need to provide intensive supports to the two
campuses that—data reveal—are underperforming on all levels. The primary focus of this
differentiation should be to provide supports that will improve the quality of teaching and
leading on the campuses.
Limitations of the Study
The study focused on one Charter Management Organization operating schools in
Southern California. Furthermore, it collected data from the five schools that comprised the
Locke cluster. As a result, the study tenders the following limitations. First, the sample was
limited to five charter school campuses; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to other
school districts. Second, the majority of data collected was derived from the 2011–2012 and
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

144

2012–2013 school years; consequently, it is not longitudinal and may not be useful for prediction
performance. And, lastly, the study relied on interview feedback from key leaders;
correspondingly, the study findings may be subject to leader bias.
Implications for Policy and Future Research
In spite of 30 years of reform efforts, a stark student achievement gap persists. In the past
decade, federal, state, and local policy has shifted to focus on transforming the nation’s lowest
performing schools. As with other efforts, mixed results with turnarounds will threaten the
school reform effort. The transfer of the LAUSD-run Alain LeRoy Locke High School in 2008 to
Green Dot Public Schools signaled a bold step in the turnaround effort, marking one of the first
large-scale high school transformations in the country. And although aggregate data indicate
room for improvement, and campus-level data signal issues with implementation, Locke High
School has transformed from one of the most notorious dropout factories in the country to a
school with pockets of success. Even with uneven results, this turnaround proves that students
from all neighborhoods can learn at high levels. If given the human capital and financial
resources necessary to effectively implement best practices, the nation’s lowest performing
schools can enact dramatic improvement.
Policymakers should study models of school reform and enact policies that afford schools
the resources and opportunities needed to implement proven strategies. Future research on
turnaround schools is necessary. It will be important to focus on human resources allocations, to
delineate the strategies the school employs to ensure high levels of student learning, and to assess
the quality of implementation of strategies. Leaders accepting the turnaround challenge need to
learn from the successes and mixed results of the pioneers of this effort.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

145

Conclusion
America’s failure to close the achievement gap has yielded undeniable moral and
economic consequences. And although school reform efforts at the national, state, and local
levels have garnered limited results, current models of school turnaround success do exist.
Furthermore, a growing body of research points to specific strategies shown to dramatically
improve student learning, close the achievement gap, and offer all students access to the
American Dream.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

146

References
Adams, S. J., Heywood, J. S., & Rothstein, R. (2009). Teachers, performance pay, and
accountability: What education should learn from other sectors. Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute.
Aseltine, J. M., Faryniarz, J. O., & Rigazio-DiGilio, A. J. (2006). Supervision for learning: A
performance-based approach to teacher development and school improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ayala, S. (2012, July). Green Dot FY13 Budget [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from Green Dot
Public Schools.
Bain, J. G., & Herman, J. L. (1990). Making schools work for underachieving minority students.
Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2010). Driven by Data: A practical guide to improve instruction. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2012). Leverage leadership: A practical guide to building exceptional
schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baron, K. (2012, January 13). CA spending near bottom. Thoughts on public education.
Retrieved from http://toped.svefoundation.org/2012/01/12/ca-student-spending-near-
bottom/
Bensimon, E. (2004). The diversity scorecard:
A
learning approach to institutional change.
Change (January/February 2004).

California Charter Schools Association (2011). Public School Choice. Retrieved from
http://www.calcharters.org/advocacy/public-school-choice-in-los-angeles.html
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

147

California Department of Education. (2010). Accountability progress reporting. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/
California Department of Education. (2011). CALPADS finds statewide graduation rate of
74.4 Percent. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr11/yr11rel54.asp.
California’s Children. (2010, June 30). LAUSD 2nd worst HS grad rate in US; CA ranks 41st
among states. Retrieved from http://californiaschildren.typepad.com/californias-
children/2010/06/hs-grad-rates-plumet-in-ca.html.
Carnoy, M., & Levin, H. (1985). Schooling and work in the democratic state. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2009). Multiple choice: Charter performance
in 16 states. Stanford, CA.
Center on Innovation & Improvement (2007). School turnarounds: A review of the cross-
sector evidence on dramatic organizational improvement. Lincoln, IL.
The Civil Rights Project. (2005, March 24). Confronting the graduation crisis in California.
Harvard University. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-
education/school-dropouts/confronting-the-graduation-rate-crisis-in-california/crp-
confronting-dropouts-ca-2005.pdf
Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Collins, J. (2001a). Good to great. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Collins, J. (2001b, October). Good to great. Fast Company, 51(1), 90–104.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. National governors association and state education
chiefs launch common state academic standards. Retrieved from on August 2, 2012
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

148

from http://www.corestandards.org/articles/8-national-governors-association-and-
state-education-chiefs-launch-common-state-academic-standards
Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching, second
edition. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in teacher quality.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Retrieved from
http://www.nctaf.org/documents/DoingWhatMattersMost.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318–334.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Kennedy, B. (2008). Acting on data: How urban high schools use
data to improve instruction. Center for Educational Governance, USC Rossier School
of Education. Retrieved from www.newschools.org/about/publications/acting-on-data
De Jesus, C. (2009, November). Initiative #1: Metrics and dashboard, discussion on
performance targets [PowerPoint Slide]. Retrieved from Green Dot Public Schools.
De Jesus, C. (2012, December 17). CS Locke messaging to teachers [PowerPoint Slide].
Retrieved from Green Dot Public Schools.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at
work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Duke, D. L. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 729–734.
EdSource. (2004, June). Charter schools in California: An experiment coming of age.
Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/pub_CharterPerf6-‐04_report.html
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

149

EdSource. (2005, June). Similar schools, different results. Why do some schools do better?
Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/pub_SimStu6-06_SummaryReport.html.
EdSource. (2009, June). California’s charter schools: 2009 update on issues and performance.
Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/pub_CharterPerf6-09.html.
EdSource. (2010, February). Gaining ground in the middle grades: Why do some schools do
better? Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/27380806/EdSource-‐Middle-‐
School-‐Study-‐Narrative-‐Summary.
EdSource. (2011, September). Achievement gaps persist in college eligibility rates. Retrieved
from http://www.edsource.org/data-‐achievement-‐gaps-‐college-‐eligibility-‐
rates.html
EdSource. (2012). The achievement gap in California. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_CharterPerf6-04_report.html
Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Gamoran, A., & Long, D. A. (2006, December). Equality of opportunity: A 40-year
retrospective. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Green Dot Public Schools. (2012a). Administrator feedback on the home office, fall 2012.
Retrieved from
https://greendot.us2.qualtrics.com/CP/Report.php?RP=RP_72kRhSiViQdbi3b
Green Dot Public Schools. (2012b). Executive summary school accountability report card,
2011–2012: For Ánimo Locke I College Preparatory Academy. Retrieved from
http://www.greendot.org/uploaded/uploads/SARC/SARC_LK1.pdf
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

150

Green Dot Public Schools. (2012c). Executive summary school accountability report card,
2011–2012: For Ánimo Locke II College Preparatory Academy. Retrieved from
www.greendot.org/uploaded/uploads/SARC/SARC_LK2.pdf
Green Dot Public Schools. (2012d). Executive summary school accountability report card,
2011–2012: For Alain LeRoy Locke 3 College Preparatory Academy. Retrieved from
https://www.greendot.org/uploaded/uploads/SARC/SARC_LK3.pdf
Green Dot Public Schools. (2012e). Executive summary school accountability report card,
2011–2012: For Ánimo Locke Tech College Preparatory Academy. Retrieved from
http://www.greendot.org/uploaded/uploads/SARC/SARC_ALT.pdf
Green Dot Public Schools. (2012f). Executive summary school accountability report card,
2011–2012: For Ánimo Watts Tech College Preparatory Academy. Retrieved from
http://www.greendot.org/uploaded/uploads/SARC/SARC_WAT.pdf
Green Dot Public Schools. (2012g). Teacher and counselor stakeholder feedback, fall 2012:
Ánimo Locke 1 College Preparatory Academy. Retrieved from
http://greendot.us2.qualtrics.com/CP/Report.php?RP=RP_4Yp0zc1moNDnYqN
Green Dot Public Schools. (2012h). Teacher and counselor stakeholder feedback, fall 2012:
Ánimo Locke 2 College Preparatory Academy. Retrieved from
http://greendot.us2.qualtrics.com/CP/Report.php?RP=RP_5v9HiDEnA122ei1
Green Dot Public Schools. (2012i). Teacher and counselor stakeholder feedback, fall 2012:
Alain LeRoy Locke #3 College Preparatory Academy. Retrieved from
http://greendot.us2.qualtrics.com/CP/Report.php?RP=RP_08UG57BeY2d4QMB
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

151

Green Dot Public Schools. (2012j). Teacher and counselor stakeholder feedback, fall 2012:
Ánimo Locke Tech College Preparatory Academy. Retrieved from
http://greendot.us2.qualtrics.com/CP/Report.php?RP=RP_07lYLqBq6F5ZrjT
Green Dot Public Schools. (2012k). Teacher and counselor stakeholder feedback, fall 2012:
Ánimo Watts College Preparatory Academy. Retrieved from
http://greendot.us2.qualtrics.com/CP/Report.php?RP=RP_bf8mxU6VGTFijU9
Haberman, M. (2005). Star teachers: The ideology and best practice of effective teachers of
diverse children and youth in poverty. The Haberman Educational Foundation.
Hamilon, L., & Li, J. (2009). Designing effective pay-for-performance in K–12 education. Santa
Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved from
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/2009/RAND_RB9425.pdf
Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Yuan, K. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United
States: History, research, and future directions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Hanushek, E.A. (2011). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics of Education
Review, 20, 466-479.
Herman, J. L., Wang, J., Rickles, J., Hsu, V., Monroe, S., Leon, S., & Straubhaar, R. (2012).
Evaluation of Green Dot’s Locke transformation project: Findings for Cohort 1 and 2
Students. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards &
Student Testing (CRESST).
Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., & Darwin, M. (2008).
Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-
4020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

152

from http:// ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides.
Hill, H. C., Kapitula, L., & Umland, K. (2010). A validity argument approach to evaluating
teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 794–831.
Hochschild, J. L., & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public school. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Jennings, J. (2012). Reflections on a half-century of school reform: Why have we fallen short
and where do we go from here? Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Keelen, K. (2012, December). SGP: Reflection on 3 years of data [PowerPoint]. Retrieved from
Green Dot Public Schools.
Koppich, J., & Rigby, J. (2009) Alternative teacher compensation: A primer. PACE. Retrieved
from http://gse.berkeley.edu/research/pace/reports/WP.09-‐2.pdf
Kowal, J., & Ableidinger, J. (2011). Leading indicators of school turnarounds: How to know
when dramatic change is on track. Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact.
Lachat, M. A. (2001). Data-driven high school reform: The breaking ranks model. The Center
for Resource management. Retrieved from
www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/hischlrfm/datdrv_hsrfm.pdf
Lachat, M. A., & Smith, S. (2004). Data use in urban schools. Brown University: The
Education Alliance. Retrieved from http://www.annenberginstitute.org/tools/
Marshall, K. (2005). It’s time to rethink teacher supervision and evaluation. Phi Delta
Kappan, 86(10), 727–735.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research
to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

153

McKinsey & Company (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in America’s
schools. pp. 1-23. Retrieved from http://www.hunt-institute.org/knowledge-
library/articles/2009-5-4/the-economic-impact-of-the-achievement-gap-in-americas-
schools/
Measures of Effective Teaching Project. (2010). Learning about teaching: The initial findings of
the measure of effective teacher project. Retrieved from
http://www.metproject.org/downloads/Preliminary_Findings-Research_Paper.pdf
Midcontinent Research for Education and Learning. (2009, May). Optimizing teachers’ use of
instructional time. Retrieved from http://www.MCREL.org/toolkit/res/time.asp.
Moe, T. (2008). Beyond the free market: The structure of school choice. Retrieved from
http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/2008/2/94MOE.FIN.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2010, December). From PISA 2009:
Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy
in an international context. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011004.pdf
Obama, B. (2011, April 2). Keynote address. Address to the National Action Network’s midtown
gala. New York City.
Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school finance today. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(2), 120–
125.
Odden, A. (2009a). 10 strategies for doubling student performance. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Odden, A. (2009b). We know how to turn schools around – we just haven’t done it. Education
Week, 29(14), 22–23.
Odden, A. R., & Archibald, S. J. (2009). Doubling student performance and finding the
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

154

resources to do it. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Odden, A., & Kelley, C. (1997). Paying teachers for what they know and do: New and smarter
compensation strategies to improve schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Odden, A., & Picus L.O. (2004). School finance: A policy perspective (3
rd
ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
Parker Boudett, K., City, E. A., & Murnane, R. J. (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to
using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publishing.
Pfeffer, P., & Sutton, R. (2000). The knowing-doing gap. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Picus, L .O., & Blair, L. (2004, March). School Finance adequacy: The state role. Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Podgursky, M. J., & Springer, M. G. (2007). Teacher performance pay: A Review. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 2, 909–949.
Psencik, K. (2011). The coach’s craft: powerful practices to support school leaders. Oxford,
OH: learningforward.
Public Impact for the Chicago Public Education Fund. (2008, June). School turnaround
Teachers: Competencies for success. Retrieved from
http://www.publicimpact.com/publications/Turnaround_Teacher_Competencies.pdf
Reeves, D. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

155

Reeves, D. (2009). Leading change in your school: How to conquer myths, build
commitment, and get results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The Key to Continuous School Improvement (2
nd
ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schmoker, M. J. (2001). The results fieldbook: Practical strategies from dramatically improved
schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Silva, E. (2007, January). On the clock: rethinking the way schools use time. Education Sector
Reports.
Slotnik, W. J. (2009, July). It’s more than money: Making performance-based compensation
Work. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/07/pdf/making_performance_wor
k_execsumm.pdf
Smarick, A. (2010). The Turnaround fallacy: Stop trying to fix failing schools. Close them and
start fresh. Education Next. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/the-‐
turnaround-‐fallacy/
Sprick, R. (2002). Foundations Program. Safe & Civil Schools. Retreived from
http://www.safeandcivilschools.com/products/scs_overview.php
Taylor, M. (2012, January 26). Comparing funding for charter schools and their school district
peers. Legislative Analyst. Retrieved from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/PubDetails.aspx?id=2554.
Timar, T. (2006). How California funds K-12 education. Institute for Research on Education
Policy and Practice Stanford University, 1–42.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

156

US Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.
US Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher
education. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/pre-pub-report.pdf.
US Department of Education. (2009). Obama administration announces historic opportunity to
turn around nation's lowest-achieving public schools. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/08/08262009.html.
US Department of Education. (2010). Department awards $100 million in magnet school
grants. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-‐releases/department-‐
awards-‐100-‐million-‐magnet-‐school-‐grants

US Department of Education. (2011). Letter from the education secretary or deputy
secretary. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/110923.html.
US Department of Education. (2012a). Investing in innovation fund. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
US Department of Education. (2012b). Race to the top. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf
Usher, A. (2011). AYP Results for 2010-2011. Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=403
Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national
failure to acknowledge and act on teacher differences. Retrieved from
http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf.
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

157

Weiss, J. (2007). Conditions for student success: The cycle of continuous instructional
improvement. School Finance Redesign Project, Center on Reinventing Public
Education. Retrieved from
www.newschools.org/files/ConditionsForStudentSuccess_0.pdf.
Whitaker, T. (2003). What great principals do differently: Fifteen things that matter most.
Columbus, OH: Eye on Education.

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

158

Appendix A

Teacher Evaluation Rubric Indicators
COLLEGE READY TEACHING
Domain 1: Data-Driven Planning and Assessing Student Learning
Standards Indicators
1.1 Establish standards-based learning objectives for
instructional plans
A) Selection of learning objectives
B) Measurability of learning objectives
1.2 Organize instructional plans to promote
standards-based, cognitively engaging learning
for students
A) Designing and sequencing of learning
experiences
B) Creating cognitively engaging learning
experiences for students
1.3 Use student data to guide planning A) Lesson design guided by data
1.4 Use knowledge of subject matter content/skills
and learning processes to plan for student learning

A) Knowledge of subject matter to identify pre-
requisite knowledge
B) Addresses common content misconceptions
1.5 Design assessments to ensure student mastery

A) Selection and progression assessments
B) Planned response to assessment data
Domain 2: The Classroom Learning Environment
2.1 Create a classroom/community culture of
learning
A) Value of effort and challenge
2.2 Manage student behavior through clear
expectations and a balance of positive
reinforcement, feedback, and redirection
A) Behavioral expectations
B) Response to behavior
2.3 Establish a culture of respect and rapport which
supports students’ emotional safety
A) Interactions between teacher and students
B) Student interactions with each other
2.4 Use smooth and efficient transitions, routines,
and procedures
A) Routines, procedures, and transitions
Domain 3: Instruction
3.1 Communicate learning objectives to students
A) Communication of the learning objectives of
the lesson
B) Connections to prior and future learning
experiences
C) Criteria for success
3.2 Facilitates Instructional Cycle
A) Executes lesson cycle
B) Cognitive level of student learning experiences
3.3 Implementation of instructional strategies
A) Questioning
B) Academic discourse
C) Group structures
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

159

D) Resources and instructional materials
3.4 Monitor student learning during instruction
A) Checking for students’ understanding and
adjusting instruction
B) Feedback to students
C) Self-monitoring

ONTRIBUTIONS TO SCHOOL COMMUNITY AND FAMILIES
Domain 4: Developing Professional Practice
4.1 Engage in critical reflection, constantly revising
practice to increase effectiveness
A) Accuracy
B) Use in future planning
C) Acceptance of feedback
4.2 Engage in collaborative relationships with peers
to learn and share best practices and ensure
continuity in student learning
A) Participation in a professional community
B) Professional development
C) Shared commitment

4.3 Upholding and exhibiting the CMO norms and
expectations
A) Unwavering belief in all student’s potential
B) Passion for excellence
C) Personal Responsibility
D) Respect for others and community
E) All stakeholders critical to process
Domain 5: Developing Partnerships with Family and Community
5.1 Develop two-way communication with families
about student learning and achievement
A) Initiation of meaningful communication
B) Responsiveness to parent inquiries and
communication
C) Inclusion of the family as a partner in learning
decisions
5.2 Equip families with a variety of strategies to
support their child's success and college
readiness
A) Provision of parent education efforts to support
students
5.3 Help students leverage resources in their
community that support their success in college
and beyond
A) Goal setting and advocacy
B) Knowledge of community resources
C) Support for students in accessing these
resources

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

160

Appendix B

Green Dot Leader Evaluation

GREEN DOT SCHOOL LEADER EVALUATION
INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP: Using the rating guide below, please rate performance for the following statements:
1 = DOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS; 2 = PARTIALLY MEETS EXPECTATIONS; 3 = MEETS
EXPECTATIONS; 4 = EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS
Self Superviso
r
Stakeholder Performance Indicator
MAINTAINS SCHOOL-WIDE FOCUS ON HIGH STANDARDS OF
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
§ Establishes a culture of academic achievement by regularly celebrating student
successes
§ Uses consistent systems of student accountability for discipline and academic
achievement
§ Fosters two-way communication with parents and students about individual
student progress (progress reports, academic contracts, parent conferences,
etc.)
§ Uses consistent systems of accountability to hold all staff accountable for
student achievement
IS KNOWLEDGEABLE OF EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION,
CURRICULUM, AND INTERVENTION IMPLEMENTATION
§ Guides the development and implementation of a rigorous college-prep
curriculum
§ Implements intervention programs to meet the needs of struggling students
§ Implements appropriate programming and instruction for Special Education
students
§ Implements appropriate programming and standards-based instruction for
English Learners
USES DATA TO INCREASE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
§ Is reflective about his/her practices and uses data to make adjustments as
needed
§ Provides staff training and time to analyze student achievement data, draft
plans for improvement, and monitor progress toward school-wide SMART
goals
§ Implements a variety of student intervention programs and monitors the
success of these programs on an ongoing basis through the use of student
achievement data
§ Uses multiple data sources to continuously analyze program strengths and
weaknesses
CREATES A LEARNING CULTURE THAT COMMUNICATES
“COLLEGE FOR CERTAIN”
§ Promotes a school culture that reflects a rigorous academic focus
§ Promotes a school culture in which diversity is recognized and valued
§ Facilitates academic planning with students to ensure they are on track to
meet A-G requirements by graduation
§ Ensures that all students receive support in their efforts to apply to
appropriate colleges
EFFECTIVELY COACHES TEACHERS TO IMPROVE INSTRUCTION
§ Performs classroom observations regularly and follows them with one-on-one
debrief sessions with each teacher at least once a quarter
§ Coaches teachers to effectively differentiate instruction
§ Provides multiple strategies for teachers to reflect on their teaching practices
(video observation, peer observation, modeling, etc.)
§ Guides teachers in tracking progress toward the achievement of professional
goals
AVERAGE: INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

161

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP
Self Supervisor
Reflections on Rating:

Reflections on Rating:
Next Steps:

Next Steps:
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

162

PEOPLE MANAGEMENT: Using the rating guide below, please rank performance for the following statements:
1 = DOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS
2 = PARTIALLY MEETS EXPECTATIONS
3 = MEETS EXPECTATIONS
4 = EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS

Self Supervisor Stakeholder Performance Indicator
HOLDS EMPLOYEES ACCOUNTABLE FOR RESULTS
§ Creates a culture of accountability by setting SMART goals and using data to
track progress
§ Conducts thorough and timely formal evaluations of teachers and staff
§ Identifies developing teachers and implements effective plans for measurable
improvement
§ Provides honest, accurate feedback that includes actionable recommendations
for growth
BUILDS A COLLABORATIVE, WELL-FUNCTIONING TEAM
§ Creates a culture that encourages respectful challenge and a thoughtful
exchange of ideas
§ Motivates staff to continuous improvement
§ Creates systemic opportunities for collaboration and ongoing reflection
§ Recruits and hires outstanding staff, dedicated to excellence and Green Dot’s
mission
COMMUNICATES WELL WITH STAFF
§ Oral communication is clear, concise, thorough and timely
§ Written communication is clear, concise, thorough and timely
§ Actively listens to staff concerns and encourages solution-focused dialogue
§ Exercises appropriate judgment to frame staff and/or individual conversations
GATHERS INPUT, COLLABORATES, AND PROVIDES LEADERSHIP
OPPORTUNITIES AS APPROPRIATE
§ Empowers staff to make thoughtful decisions in their area(s) of expertise
§ Exercises appropriate authority and control
§ Consistently exercises good judgment about the appropriate management
strategy to use
§ Delegates and collaborates as a way to train and motivate new leaders
RECOGNIZES AND REWARDS INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP BEHAVIOR
§ Systemically recognizes and rewards individual and group successes (public
acknowledgement, letters of commendation, etc.)
§ Uses a variety of approaches to recognize excellence
§ Shares school-wide goals with all stakeholders and celebrates success as
appropriate
§ Maintains high morale throughout the school year
AVERAGE: PEOPLE MANAGEMENT

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

163

PEOPLE MANAGEMENT
Self Supervisor
Reflections on Rating:

Reflections on Rating:
Next Steps:

Next Steps:
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

164

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Using the rating guide below, please rank performance for the following statements:
1 = DOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS
2 = PARTIALLY MEETS EXPECTATIONS
3 = MEETS EXPECTATIONS
4 = EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS
Self Supervisor Stakeholder Performance Indicator
MAINTAINS A BALANCED BUDGET
§ Creates a budget aligned with educational goals
§ Tracks expenses to ensure that spending is in line with the approved
budget
§ Finds creative ways to maximize revenue or minimize costs
§ Creates a culture of financial accountability among staff
MANAGES RESOURCES EFFECTIVELY
§ Implements a plan for student recruitment and retention that meets
enrollment goals
§ Identifies strategies to ensure that the school meets ADA goals
§ Prioritizes the adoption of school resources (textbooks, equipment) to
maximize student learning experiences
§ Effectively tracks and maintains school resources (e.g., textbooks and
equipment)
MANAGES TIME AND PRIORITIES EFFECTIVELY
§ Organizes time around school goals
§ Meets reporting deadlines
§ Facilitates meetings that align with goals, allow for input, and maintain
focus
§ Ensures that time is well-spent by staff and students
ESTABLISHES EFFECTIVE SYSTEMS FOR SCHOOL OPERATIONS
§ Creates systems and protocols that are clear and efficient (e.g., field trip
approval)
§ Creates policies that are clear, actionable, and aligned with the school’s
mission
§ Effectively manages school food services, plant and technology
operations
§ Creates systems to ensure a safe, secure and clean school environment
ADHERES TO GREEN DOT, STATE, FEDERAL & DISTRICT
(WHERE APPROPRIATE) REGULATIONS, POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES
§ Adheres to Green Dot, state, federal, and district (where appropriate)
regulations, policies and protocols
§ Creates systems and policies to maximize student safety
§ Trains staff to understand and follow regulations, policies and protocols
§ Supports the Home Office in refining and communicating policies
AVERAGE: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

165

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Self Supervisor
Reflections on Rating:

Reflections on Rating:
Next Steps:

Next Steps:
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

166

PROBLEM-SOLVING: Using the rating guide below, please rank performance for the following statements:
1 = DOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS
2 = PARTIALLY MEETS EXPECTATIONS
3 = MEETS EXPECTATIONS
4 = EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS

Self Supervisor Stakeholder Performance Indicator
RESOLVES CONFLICT IN A FAIR AND CONSISTENT MANNER
§ Creates and fosters systems that allow for respectful challenge
§ Successfully responds to and mediates conflict between and among staff
and students
§ Trains staff and students to effectively mediate conflict
§ Successfully manages divergent points of view
SEEKS OUTSIDE SUPPORT WHEN APPROPRIATE
§ Proactively anticipates the need for outside support
§ Secures support from the Home Office and community when appropriate
§ Understands when it is appropriate to take initiative to respond to
problems or obstacles
§ Understands when it is necessary to bring in outside support
IMPLEMENTS AN EFFECTIVE STUDENT DISCIPLINE POLICY
§ Implements a clear, progressive, consistent, and fair student discipline
system offering positive reinforcement and appropriate consequences for
misconduct
§ Trains staff to effectively implement the discipline and rewards systems
§ Systemically reviews data to identify strengths and weaknesses and to
implement appropriate interventions
§ Provides students with opportunities to develop as leaders and citizens
PLANS FOR PERSONAL LEADERHIP DEVELOPMENT
§ Sets the highest standards for his/herself as a leader
§ Reflects on personal performance with the intent to continuously improve
§ Actively seeks to develop new leadership skills and to learn from other
GD leaders
§ Demonstrates openness to coaching and feedback from all stakeholders
PLANS FOR SUCCESS
§ Creates processes to achieve high performance in an entrepreneurial
environment
§ Anticipates obstacles and engages is short and long-term planning to
minimize emergencies
§ Recognizes early signs of problems and creates plans for resolution
§ Follows through diligently with plans and promises
AVERAGE: PROBLEM-SOLVING

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

167

PROBLEM-SOLVING
Self Supervisor
Reflections on Rating:

Reflections on Rating:
Next Steps:

Next Steps:
REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

168

COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP: Using the rating guide below, please rank performance for the following statements:
1 = DOES NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS
2 = PARTIALLY MEETS EXPECTATIONS
3 = MEETS EXPECTATIONS
4 = EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS

Self Supervisor Stakeholder Performance Indicator
CULTIVATES THE SCHOOL’S MISSION, VISION & CORE VALUES
§ Deeply understands, embraces, and consistently acts in ways that are
aligned with the Green Dot mission, vision and core values
§ Understands, embraces, and continuously works to improve Green Dot
expectations for personal and team performance
§ Creates and executes timely, robust, and flexible action plans that respond
to school data and align with the school’s mission
§ Makes decisions with the Green Dot mission and core values in mind
ENGAGES PARENTS IN THEIR STUDENTS’ SCHOOL EXPERIENCE
§ Uses a variety of media to communicate with parents about events,
opportunities for involvement, school goals, etc.
§ Uses consistent systems of parent accountability for service hours, student
discipline, and student achievement
§ Uses the school site governance committee to solve issues with the school
community
§ Establishes systems and protocols for garnering ongoing feedback from
parents and makes adjustments as needed
BUILDS EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AND
EXTERNAL RELATIONS
§ Develops strong working relationships with local businesses, churches,
and community groups
§ Nurtures Green Dot’s reputation in the community
§ Actively seeks to understand the needs of the local community and works
to tailor programs to the needs of students
§ Works with community partners (police, neighborhood councils, etc.) to
maintain safe and secure environment at all schools.
PROMOTES A POSITIVE SCHOOL CULTURE
§ Promotes a feeling of community on campus
§ Promotes a safe and civil school culture
§ Provides ample opportunities for students to get involved in a variety of
extracurricular activities (sports, clubs, etc.)
§ Creates an environment in which diversity is respected
IS CUSTOMER-SERVICE ORIENTED
§ Consistently responds to parents, student, staff requests and home office in
a timely and appropriate manner
§ Deeply understands needs of stakeholders, uses s feedback to plan for
improvement, and finds ways to increase stakeholder satisfaction at the
school
§ Establishes effective relationships with Green Dot home office staff,
sponsoring district, and community groups
AVERAGE: COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP

REALLOCATING RESOURCES TO REFORM SCHOOLS

169

COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP
Self Supervisor
Reflections on Rating:

Reflections on Rating:
Next Steps:

Next Steps:

I have received a copy of my evaluation and had the opportunity to discuss the contents of the evaluation with my
evaluator.

_______________________________ ________________________________________________________
Campus Leader Name Principal Signature Date

_______________________________ ________________________________________________________
Evaluator Name Evaluator Signature Date

As per Green Dot policy, you have the right to respond to this evaluation in writing within 10 days. This document
and any attachments will be placed in your personnel file.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study employed the Evidence-Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2004) as a framework to examine how changes in school resource allocations impacted student achievement at the three Green Dot conversion charter high schools (Ánimo Locke 1, Ánimo Locke 2, and Alain LeRoy Locke 3) and two start-up charter high schools (Ánimo Locke Tech and Ánimo Watts) that replaced Alain Leroy Locke High School in September 2008. In the four years since Green Dot began managing the campus, the schools had higher enrollment and higher average daily attendance, decreased incidences of suspension and expulsion, improved student achievement scores, and increased graduation rates. Whereas most data suggested that the Green Dot campuses demonstrated a marked improvement over the LAUSD-run Locke campus, the schools were far from meeting the state mandated API score of 800. ❧ This study examined the existing successful elements of the school model, considered how to prioritize learning in the face of declining revenues, and recommended strategies to further improve student learning. This study also examined the role of Green Dot Public Schools home office supports in the success of these schools.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Reallocating human resources to maximize student achievement: a critical case study of a southern California school district

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal crisis: case study of elementary schools in a California school district

PDF

A gap analysis study of one southern California unified school district's allocation of resources in a time of fiscal constraints

PDF

Resource allocation practices in three charter middle schools in relation to student achievement improvement strategies

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools

PDF

The reallocation of human resources to improve student achievement in a time of fiscal constraints

PDF

Resource allocation practices in start-up charter schools in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement

PDF

A closer examination of resource allocations using research based best practices to promote student learning: case studies of Hawaiian-focused charter schools in Hawaii

PDF

District allocation of human resources utilizing the evidence based model: a study of one high achieving school district in southern California

PDF

Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school

PDF

"Creaming" students in the charter school admission process: a case study of admission practices in charter schools

PDF

Resource allocation in successful schools: case studies of California elementary schools

PDF

Personnel resource allocation strategies in a time of fiscal stress: a gap analysis of five southern California elementary schools

PDF

Allocating human capital resources for high performance in schools: a case study of a large, urban school district

PDF

A case study: a viable arts program at one elementary school in California

Asset Metadata

Creator Quaile, Megan A. (author)

Core Title Reallocating resources to reform schools: a case study of successful school turnarounds in five Los Angeles charter schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/05/2013

Defense Date 05/06/2013

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

Tag charter schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,reallocating,turnarounds

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Escalante, Michael F. (committee member), Morgan, Helen F. (committee member)

Creator Email mquaile@greendot.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-316672

Unique identifier UC11295304

Identifier etd-QuaileMega-1963.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-316672 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-QuaileMega-1963.pdf

Dmrecord 316672

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Quaile, Megan A.

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