University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

School accountability and reform in Oregon: effecting system change with Achievement Compacts

(USC Thesis Other)

School accountability and reform in Oregon: effecting system change with Achievement Compacts

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 1
SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM IN OREGON: EFFECTING
SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS
by
Sherine Smith
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2014
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 2

Table of Contents
List of Tables 4
Abstract 5
Chapter 1: Overview 7
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 14
Importance of the Study 14
Limitations of the Study 15
Delimitations 16
Assumptions 16
Definition of Terms 16

Chapter 2: Literature Review 21
The Economic Impact of Education 21
Figure 1: Comparison of unemployment rates and median weekly
earnings in 2012 according to level of education 26
Human Capital in Education 27
Students 28
Education Professionals 30
Summary of Centrality of Human Capital in Education 35
Accountability in Education 35
Education Reform Efforts in the United States 35
Education Reform Efforts in Oregon 38
OEIB Intent and Role in Reform 46
Summary of Accountability in Education 49
Educational Improvement 49
Chapter Summary 71

Chapter 3: Methods 73
Research Questions 75
Purposeful Sample and Population 75
Instrumentation and Data Collection 76
Data Analysis 81
Chapter Summary 82

Chapter 4: Findings 83
Achievement Compact Data 84
College and Career Readiness Targets 85
Progression Toward College and Career Readiness Targets 89
Achievement Compact Descriptions 90
Public Investment in the District 92
Findings by Research Question 96
Research Question 1 96
Research Question 2 99
Research Question 3 102
Research Question 4 106
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 3

Research Question 5 108
Chapter Summary 109

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Implications 110
Overview of the Study 110
Discussion of Findings Relative to the Literature Review 111
Whole-System Approach Toward Education Reform 113
Achievement Compacts as a Tool to Institute Long-Term
Systemwide Change 115
Use of Data to Leverage Whole-System Change 117
Research-Validated Strategies 118
Limitations 119
Recommendations for Future Research 119
Conclusion 120

References 124
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 4

List of Tables
Table 1: College and Career Readiness Targets (Percentages) 88
Table 2: Progression Toward College and Career Readiness Targets
(Percentages) 93
Table 3: Public Investment in the District 95
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 5

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how one school district in Oregon
responded and reacted to the loose-tight coupling effected through state Achievement
Compacts as a possible model to improve student achievement in other states.
The following research questions were posed:
1. Are compacts an effective accountability tool to transform the loosely coupled
Oregon education system into a loose-tight system to help school districts to achieve the
40/40/20 goal?
2. How did the target school district create its compacts?
3. What goals did this school district delineate in its compacts?
4. What changes did this school district implement to meet the goals set in its
compacts?
5. What progress has this school district made toward the goals in its compacts?
A large school district in Oregon was chosen as the focus of this study to obtain
information on how it created and implemented the achievement compacts. A case study
approach was used to gain the perspective of the superintendent, along with a review of
various documents. The interview questions were semistructured.
Four themes emerged from the findings of this study: (a) the necessity for a
whole-system approach toward education reform in Oregon, (b) the use of Achievement
Compacts as a tool to institute long-term systemwide change, (c) the use of data to
leverage whole-system change, and (d) the importance of specific research-validated
strategies to improve student outcomes. The selected district has not been significantly
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 6

impacted by the implementation of Achievement Compacts because it was using a
focused, collaborative approach to improve student learning and used data to inform
instruction prior to the genesis of Achievement Compacts. However, Achievement
Compacts may become a useful tool to engage the community in discussion,
understanding, and support of the educational goals set by the district in the future.
It is important that the leaders at all levels of an education system be familiar with
the research addressing effective, whole-system change, including the necessity of
adequate funding and resources focused on building the capacity and institutional
knowledge needed to systematically improve school outcomes for students.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 7

Chapter 1
Overview
The American education system has been under strong pressure to reform for
many years (U.S. Department of Education [USDE], 2013). The federal accountability
measure, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), was passed in 2002 (USDE,
2013). This law instituted specific targets to be met by each school, with student
performance on standardized tests as the most direct measure. Currently, schools are
ranked according to performance by their students and strong sanctions may be imposed
for schools that do not reach the expected achievement level set by NCLB (USDE, 2013).
This law reflects the general consensus in the United States that American schools
must be reformed to enable students, and ultimately the United States, to be competitive
in the world market and attain high standards of living (Barrett, Ravitch, Weingarten, &
Brill, 2011). The World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) from
2012-2013 ranked the United States seventh in the list of the top 10 performers, a decline
from fifth in the previous year (Schwab, 2012). The World Economic Forum reported
that the countries ranked above the United States were Switzerland, Singapore, Finland,
Sweden, the Netherlands, and Germany, with the United Kingdom, Hong Kong SAR, and
Japan rounding out the top 10. Singapore, Finland, Sweden, and the Netherlands in
particular have excellent education systems. The Forum noted that the United States
provides an excellent university system, but it did not cite the K-12 system in the United
States for its educational outcomes (Schwab, 2012).
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 8

Other measures heighten concerns about the U.S. K-12 education system.
According to the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES; 2013), only 75.5% of
high school seniors graduated from high school during the 2008-2009 school year. This
was a slight increase from the previous year, when 74.9% of students graduated from
high school (NCES, 2013). NAEP results pertaining to California students establish that
during the 2010-2011 school year only 33% of fourth- and eighth-grade students were
assessed as Proficient in reading, while 47% of fourth graders and 43% of eighth graders
were assessed as Proficient or above in mathematics (National Assessment of
Educational Progress [NAEP], 2013). Cavanaugh’s (2004) analysis of statistics relating
to college-bound students found that only 32% of them had sufficient academic
preparation to be successful in college.
Although there is widespread agreement that the U.S. K-12 system should be
improved, there is, and has been, disagreement on the best ways to improve schools and
to provide students with the skills needed to compete in the global economy (Barrett et
al., 2011). Craig Barrett, former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Intel
Corporation, who was appointed by President Obama to lead a national education
initiative on science technology, engineering, and mathematics called Change the
Equation, argued that people must add value in the workplace to be competitive in the
global economy and achieve a high standard of living. He maintained that the U.S. K-12
system does not provide the necessary degree of educational value because it does not
have the content expertise, high expectations, and feedback systems to help students and
teachers who struggle (Barrett et al., 2011).
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 9

Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT),
acknowledged that other countries outperform the United States, but she cited results
from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) that illustrate that the
highest-performing countries have higher rates of investment in their education systems
and better, more extensive preparation of educators (Barrett et al., 2011). She explained
that American education policies only exacerbate the inadequacies in the K-12 education
system, which include deep budget cuts, top-down reforms, an emphasis on competition
instead of collaboration, a narrowed curriculum, and misuse of standardized testing.
Weingarten noted that Finland, Singapore, and South Korea, the top performers on PISA,
provide ongoing teacher preparation and development, mentoring, support for struggling
teachers, meaningful collaboration, and a well-rounded curriculum. In addition, these
countries have cultures that respect teachers. Weingarten compared this to conditions in
the United States and noted that teachers often take the blame for underperforming
schools, yet top-down policies are imposed on teachers without providing them with
training or the opportunity for input (Barrett et al., 2011).
Diane Ravitch, a professor and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education,
originally supported NCLB and the concept of charter schools (Ravitch, 2010). Her
position evolved as she became disenchanted with high-stakes testing, school closings,
privatization, and charter schools that were no better than the alternatives, as well as what
she called “utopian” goals, and “draconian” penalties. She stated that the best predictor of
low academic performance is poverty (Ravitch, 2010). Ravitch argued that the policies
mandated by Congress in the past decade and promoted by the administrations of
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 10

Presidents Bush and Obama have had a deleterious effect on the K-12 education system.
She was especially critical of the rigid prescriptions of NCLB She argued that a slavish
devotion to standardized testing discourages the creativity, imagination, and innovation
necessary to allow teachers and students to experiment, question, and use technology as
part of a rich learning experience (Barrett et al., 2011).
While NCLB has supporters and critics, there is no question that it has forced
states without accountability systems to enact such systems and to adopt reforms to meet
goals, many for the first time. Dee and Jacobs (2010) conducted a statistical analysis of
student achievement under the NCLB accountability provisions. They found that fourth-
grade students made large and broad gains in mathematics, while eighth graders made
smaller gains. They did not find improvement in reading by either group.
NCLB has not resulted in the stated goal of 100% proficiency of students in
mathematics and reading, yet the pressure to compete globally has only increased in the
past decade (Schwab, 2012). As noted on the K-12 education page of the White House
website, a high-quality education is a prerequisite to success; educational achievement
and economic progress are tightly linked and it is imperative that all students graduate
from high school ready for college and careers (White House, 2013). States have the
opportunity, along with a public mandate, to build on the progress that has been made
under NCLB, which has established a platform for the further design and implementation
of accountability systems (Dee & Jacobs, 2010).
Oregon is one of the states that has responded aggressively to this opportunity and
mandate. In the past 20 years, Oregon has experienced a series of reform initiatives
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 11

designed to improve its public education system. The Oregon Educational Act for the
21st Century of 1991 was an important turning point that resulted in development of the
Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) and the Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM), as
well benchmark assessments for students in Grades 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12 (Venezia & Kirst,
2006). The 1991 Oregon Educational Act, although targeted at K-12 education, prompted
the Oregon University System (OUS) to develop the Proficiency-Based Admission
Standards System (PASS). They worked with the Oregon Department of Education
(ODE) to align CIM and CAM with college admission criteria, with the intent for the
public universities to determine student proficiency via student portfolios along with
traditional measures (Venezia & Kirst, 2006).
Although the university system collaborated with the ODE, there was no unifying
governance system or funding mechanism to drive these efforts or to ensure alignment.
The Quality Education System (QEC) was established by the State Legislature in 2001 to
identify best practices and to create a finance model to support the state’s K-16 education
goals. However, the governance model remained static and fragmented, with decisions
made in silos at the local level, and there was notable tension between the State
Superintendent, Governor, and Legislature. The Governor and State Superintendent
disagreed over methods of implementation of NCLB and Superintendent resented the
Legislature’s attempts to act as a “super board” (Venezia & Kirst, 2006).
The Legislature, concerned that Oregon’s students were underperforming and
jeopardizing their futures as well as the future of the state, confronted the problem of the
fragmented education system by passing Senate Bill 253 (SB 253) and Senate Bill 909
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 12

(SB 909) in 2011. SB 253 established aggressive high school and college completion
goals: By 2025, 40% of students will have earned a bachelor’s degree, 40% will have
earned an Associate degree or postsecondary credential, and 20% will have earned a high
school diploma. SB 909 established the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) to
ensure all that students meet the goals delineated in SB 253 (OEIB, 2011).
The OEIB defined three key strategies to move forward: (a) creating a
coordinated public education system preschool through college, (b) focusing state
investment on achieving student outcomes, and (c) building statewide support systems.
The OEIB worked with the Legislature to pass enabling legislation, hired a new state
Chief Education Officer (CEO), Dr. Rudy Crew, and invested him with the authority to
work directly with education entities, including the authority to make final decisions on
Achievement Compacts (OEIB, 2011).
CEO Crew created a strategic plan that incorporated five objectives: (a) complete
the design and implement the P–20 structure; (b) design and implement high-impact,
cost-effective initiatives that improve achievement by all students; (c) assess, write, and
respond to policies needed to accomplish student achievement initiatives and to create the
loose/tight direction of Oregon Learns; (d) create an outcome-based budget aligned to
initiatives; and (e) work to build an informed, motivated, and engaged public. These
objectives are matched with specific, measurable objectives that are attainable, results
driven, and time bound to ensure goal attainment (OEIB, 2013c).
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 13

Statement of the Problem
The concerns about America’s potential lack of competitiveness in the
increasingly competitive global market, in conjunction with underperforming students
who are underprepared for colleges and careers, have converged to provide Oregon with
the opportunity to reform its public education system dramatically, from a loosely
coupled system to a loose-tight system, defined as firm central direction in conjunction
with maximum individual autonomy, and to achieve goals established by the Legislature,
the Governor, and the OEIB. One of the key pieces of the Oregon accountability effort is
the requirement that all education entities enter into an Achievement Compact with the
State of Oregon, via the OEIB, so that Oregon may meet the following goal:
Oregon intends to develop one of the best-educated citizenries in the world. We
have established in law the goal that by 2025, 100% of Oregonians will have
earned an education degree or certificate that represents attainment of a high
quality education. By 2025, the state will achieve the following (known as the
“40/40/20” Goal) for Oregonians: 40 percent of Oregonians will have earned a
bachelor’s degree or higher; 40 percent will have earned an associate’s degree or
postsecondary credential as their highest level of educational attainment; and 20
percent will have earned at least the equivalent of a high school diploma as their
highest level of educational attainment. (OEIB, 2013b, para. 2)
By requiring all education entities to enter compacts, Oregon is at the forefront of
states that are working diligently to ensure that all students are college and career ready
and thus able to earn a high standard of living and compete in the global market. As other
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 14

states look for successful models and best practices to emulate, it is timely, relevant, and
appropriate to examine the efforts in Oregon. It is important to understand how school
districts in Oregon respond and react to the loose-tight coupling effected through state
Achievement Compacts as a possible model for future implementation by other states.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine how a school district in Oregon responded
and reacted to the loose-tight coupling effected through state Achievement Compacts as a
possible model for future implementation in other states. One K-12 school district in
Oregon was chosen as the focus of this study to obtain information on how they created
and implemented the Achievement Compacts.
The following research questions are posed:
1. Are compacts an effective accountability tool to transform the loosely coupled
Oregon education system into a loose-tight system to help school districts to achieve the
40/40/20 goal?
2. How did the target school district create its compacts?
3. What goals did this school district delineate in its compacts?
4. What changes did this school district implement to meet the goals set in its
compacts?
5. What progress has this school districts made toward the goals in its compacts?
Importance of the Study
This study is important because the information derived from it may guide the
efforts of policy makers in other states. It may help districts to narrow their search for and
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 15

implementation of best practices by providing a successful model. It may help
superintendents and principals to work with their stakeholders, including teachers,
students, and parents, to model their efforts on schools that established processes and
selected and implemented best practices to meet the goals delineated in their
Achievement Compacts.
Cook and Payne (2002) argued that the dominant perspectives on evaluation and
improvement in education suggest that the context of each district, school, and classroom
is so distinctive that only highly specific change strategies mapped to site-specific
circumstances are likely to modify and improve their central functions. In addition, Bryk,
Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton (2010) found that successful change
required five “essential supports”: (a) leadership as the driver of change, (b) parent-
community-school ties, (c) professional capacity, (d) student-centered learning climate,
and (e) instructional guidance. According to that research, all of these essential supports
must be present simultaneously to produce change over time. It is important to determine
whether Achievement Compacts enable education systems to incorporate the cited
elements and result in a high-quality education for all students.
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations are acknowledged:
1. The study is focused on one school district in one state; therefore, the findings
may not be generalizable to other states and school districts.
2. The method of data collection is based on interviews and document reviews;
therefore, the findings may be subjective.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 16

3. The district leadership of one school district in Oregon was interviewed;
therefore, the findings may not represent all school districts in Oregon.
4. The study is focused on the process used to achieve the 40/40/20 goals set by
the State of Oregon. The multi-year effort is in its second year; therefore, the degree of
success of the state initiative will not be known for several years.
Delimitations
The following delimitations are present in the study:
1. The study is restricted to one school district.
2. The study is focused at the district leadership level.
3. The study is focused on the first 2 years of a multi-year effort.
Assumptions
The following assumptions are made in this study:
1. The methods and procedures selected for this study are appropriate for the
subject of the study.
2. The persons to be interviewed for this study will be honest and forthcoming in
their responses.
3. All documents to be collected from the school district and the OEIB will be
complete and accurate.
Definition of Terms
40/40/20: By 2025, 100% of Oregonians will earn a high school diploma, 40%
will earn a postsecondary credential, 40% will obtain a bachelor's degree or higher, and
the remaining 20% or less will have earned a high school diploma or its equivalent, all of
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 17

which will achieve better results for students, more resources for teachers, and a greater
return for the taxpayers’ investment (OEIB, 2013b).
Achievement compacts: Agreements between the OEIB and every K-12 school
district, education service district, community college, university system, individual
university, and the Oregon Health Sciences University, as established and required by
Senate Bill 1581. These two-way partnership agreements challenge educators across
Oregon to set targets on key student outcomes and encourage broad collaboration to
adopt transformational practices, policies, and budgets to help students to achieve the
educational outcomes valued by Oregonians (OEIB, 2013f).
Achievement Compact Advisory Committee (ACAC): A district committee
established by the governing board of a school district, comprised of teachers,
administrators, and other appropriate education personnel employed by the district
(OEIB, 2013f).
Certificate of Initial Mastery and Advanced Mastery (CIM/CAM): Measures of
academic performance awarded to students based on benchmarks of the academic content
standards and requirements. The CIM and CAM subject area endorsements are based on
a series of performance-based assessments and content assessments benchmarked to
mastery levels (ODE, 2013c).
Chief Education Officer (CEO): A professional educator hired by and acting on
behalf of the OEIB to oversee the integrated public education system from
prekindergarten through college, as well as career readiness. The position was established
by SB 909. Dr. Rudy Crew was the first CEO (OEIB, 2013e).
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 18

Early Learning Council (ELC): A council created by SB 909 that is part of the
overarching education initiative; its purposes are to guide efforts to integrate and
streamline existing state programs for at-risk youth and to ensure that all children are
ready to learn when they enter kindergarten. The director and council members are
named by the Governor (OEIB, 2013e).
Global Competitiveness Index (GCI): A tool used by the World Economic Forum
to quantify the impact of key factors that contribute to creating conditions for
competitiveness, with particular focus on the macroeconomic environment, the quality of
the country’s institutions, and the state of the country’s technology and supporting
infrastructure (Schwab, 2012).
Loose/tight coupling: The act of the process to achieve the intention or outcome.
For the OEIB, this means tight on achieving outcomes but loose on the process used to
achieve the outcomes (Weick, 1976).
No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The 2001 federal reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which focused on assessment,
accountability, and teacher quality. The NCLB holds districts and schools accountable for
increasing student achievement for all students, including subgroups comprised of
minorities, English learners, socioeconomically disadvantaged students, and students
with disabilities (USDE, 2013).
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA): An international
assessment that measures 15-year-old students’ reading, mathematics, and science
literacy. PISA also includes measures of general or cross-curricular competencies, such
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 19

as problem solving. PISA emphasizes functional skills that students have acquired as they
near the end of compulsory schooling. The program is coordinated by the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization
representing industrialized countries and conducted in the United States by the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES). PISA was first administered in 2000 and is now
administered every 3 years (PISA, 2013).
Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB): A board with 12 members who
represent Oregon educators, business, and the community. The Board was created by
Governor John Kitzhaber to create a seamless, unified system for investing in and
delivering public education from early childhood through high school and college so that
all Oregonians are well prepared for careers in the state economy (OEIB, 2013f).
Oregon Education Investment Team (OEIT): A group created by Governor John
Kitzhaber in 2011 to engage the public, legislators, and stakeholders in the creation of a
new investment and budget process for education in Oregon. Key to this effort was
passage of SB 909, which created the OEIB (OEIB, 2013f).
Senate Bill 253 (SB 253): A bill passed by the Oregon Senate that established
aggressive high school and college completion goals, referred to herein as 40/40/20.
Senate Bill 909 (SB 909): A bill passed by the Oregon Senate in 2011 that created
the OEIB and outlined specific charges to develop an education investment strategy to
(a) improve defined learning outcomes from early childhood through public schools,
colleges and universities; (b) hire a CEO to oversee the unified public education system;
(c) establish a statewide student database from early childhood through higher education
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 20

that encourages accountability for outcomes; (d) provide better information for policy
makers, educators, students, and their families to ensure progress along the entire
educational path; (e) establish an Early Learning Council to streamline and strengthen
early childhood services to at-risk youth to ensure that all children are ready to learn
when they enter kindergarten; and (f) report to the Oregon Legislature on progress and
legislation for 2012 (OEIB, 2013f).
Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581): A bill that authorized and directed the OEIB to enter
into Achievement Compacts with every K-12 school district, education service district,
community college, university system, individual university, and the Oregon Health
Sciences University (OEIB, 2013e).
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 21

Chapter 2
Literature Review
This chapter provides an overview of the literature related to continuous
improvement in schools and the use of best practices as a return on the public’s financial
investment in education. Although there is significant research related to school
improvement, in practice, educational organizations struggle to identify and incorporate
appropriate strategies to improve their local schools. The following research analysis
examines the most effective school improvement strategies that produce the public’s
expected return on investment in education. This chapter is organized into four areas:
(a) Economic Impact of Education: a brief summary of the economic impact of education
on the individual and society; (b) Human Capital in Education: a review of the centrality
of human capital in education reform efforts; (c) Accountability in Education: a review of
education reform efforts in the United States, education reform efforts in Oregon, and the
intent and role of the OEIB in reforming the education system in Oregon; and (d) Educa-
tional Improvement: a review of the research that identifies the elements necessary to
produce educational improvements for students.
The Economic Impact of Education
Many studies have examined the impact of education levels on the economy of
the United States, as well as other countries. In general, these studies have found that a
person with a higher level of education has a higher standard of living and that countries
whose populations have a higher level of education tend to have higher standards of
living (Hanushek & Woessmann, 2011). Hanushek and Woessmann found that cognitive
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 22

skills had a significant impact on individual earnings and therefore had a direct effect on
the distribution of income and the economy, which underscores the importance of a high-
quality education.
Statistics about education and income in the United States paint a troubling
picture. A report by the Alliance for Excellent Education (2008) included the following
information: (a) Only 40 of every 100 ninth-grade students enrolled in college, (b) of
those 40 students, only 27 remained enrolled for their sophomore year, and (c) of those
27, only 18 graduated from college. The report concluded that, if students who dropped
out of school in 2008 had graduated, they would have earned an additional $319 billion
over the course of their working years. Levin, Belfield, Muennig, and Rouse (2007)
found that high school dropouts had a lower median income than those who completed
had high school. Dropouts earned approximately $23,000 per year, and graduates or those
with General Educational Development (GED) certificates earned approximately $42,000
per year. This equates to a difference of approximately $630,000 over the course of a
lifetime.
Levin et al. (2007) found that high school dropouts were a negatively influence on
the economy because they used Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare programs at higher
rates, had higher rates of criminal activity, and contributed approximately $240,000 less
in taxes over the course of a lifetime. Statistics (Chapman, Laird, Ifill, & Kewal-Ramani,
2011) showed that a higher percentage of dropouts were unemployed, compared to those
who had graduated from high school. A study conducted by Northeastern University
(Northeastern University Center for Labor Market Studies, 2009) found that, on average,
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 23

54% of dropouts ages 16-24 were jobless in 2008 and 40% were jobless for a full year in
2008.
Although a higher percentage of males are high school dropouts, female dropouts
ages 16-24 were 9 times more likely to become single mothers than those in this age
bracket who graduated from college. In addition, close to 23% of Black male dropouts
were incarcerated and male dropouts of all races and ethnicities were 47% more likely to
be incarcerated than their counterparts who had graduated from college (Northeastern
University Center for Labor Market Studies, 2009). Pleis, Lucas, and Ward (2009) found
that dropouts 25 years and older reported worse health than those in the same age cohort
with high school diplomas, regardless of level of income. These statistics illustrate that
low levels of education have a detrimental impact on the individual and society, both in
the short and long terms.
A recent report by America Achieves (AA; 2013) stated that American students
who were ranked in the middle section of economic and social advantage (a segment of
the school population typically believed to have little difficulty in achieving a higher
standard of living) was not doing as well as counterparts in other nations. Drawing on
2009 PISA data, AA found that these middle-ranked American students were
significantly outperformed by 24 countries or regions in mathematics and 15 in science.
Among the third quartile of students, the contrast was starker: American students were
outperformed by students from 25 countries or regions in science and 31 in mathematics.
Although the United States at one time led the world in the number of students
graduating from high school and the percentage of 25- to 34-year-olds with a
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 24

postsecondary degree, the nation’s position slipped to 22nd and 14th, respectively (AA,
2013). Based on these data, AA concluded that American students, even those who were
socioeconomically middle class, were not ready to compete in the global economy.
These statistics reflect the educational disparities in America. According to the
2009 McKinsey Report on the economic impact of the achievement gap, these disparities
are, in effect, the equivalent of a permanent national recession. The authors found that
shortfalls in academic achievement resulted in significant consequences for individuals,
including lower earnings, poor health, and higher rates of incarceration (McKinsey &
Co., 2009). They reported that lagging achievement as early as fourth grade appeared to
be a powerful predictor of high school and college graduation rates, as well as lifetime
earnings.
If the United States closed the gap between its educational achievement levels and
those of better-performing nations such as Finland and Korea, GDP in 2008 could
have been $1.3 trillion to $2.3 trillion higher. This represents 9 to 16 percent of
GDP.
If the gap between black and Latino student performance and white student
performance had been similarly narrowed, GDP in 2008 would have been
between $310 billion and $525 billion higher, or 2 to 4 percent of GDP. The
magnitude of this impact will rise in the years ahead as demographic shifts result
in blacks and Latinos becoming a larger proportion of the population and
workforce.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 25

If the gap between low-income students and the rest had been similarly narrowed,
GDP in 2008 would have been $400 billion to $670 billion higher, or 3 to 5
percent of GDP.
If the gap between America’s low-performing states and the rest had been
similarly narrowed, GDP in 2008 would have been $425 billion to $700 billion
higher, or 3 to 5 percent of GDP. (McKinsey & Co., 2010, pp. 5-6)
The authors of the McKinsey Report (McKinsey & Co., 2009) argued that,
because many Americans are undereducated, the U.S. economy does not produce adults
with the skill set needed to contribute, compete, and thrive. American workers could be
greater assets to the economy if they were able to develop, master, and adapt to new
productivity-enhancing technologies and methods; this skill deficit reflects the disparities
in the educational system (McKinsey & Co., 2009).
The U.S. Census Bureau, which estimates how much money a person might make
over the course of a career, has found that educational attainment is far and away the
most important social characteristic to predict earnings (Julian, 2012). Data from the
2012 American Community Survey show that the difference between high school
graduates and college graduates over the course of their work lives is about $1 million
and another $1 million for those who obtain a doctorate; overall, how far one goes in
school can add up to a difference of about $3.2 million. In addition, the unemployment
rate for persons without a high school diploma is much higher than for those who have a
high school diploma or some level of college attainment. According to the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics (2012), the median weekly earnings of individuals ranged from $471 per
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 26

week for those without a high school diploma to $1,735 per week for those with a
professional degree. Figure 1 summarizes these data.

Figure 1. Comparison of unemployment rates and median weekly earnings in 2012
according to level of education. Source: Education Pays: Labor Force Statistics From the
Current Population Survey, by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012, retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm#education
In summation, there is strong evidence that the ultimate financial, physical, and
mental well-being of individuals, and therefore the welfare of society, is highly
dependent on the quality and level of education provided to students. There is widespread
consensus among educators, politicians, business people, and the general public that the
various education systems in the United States must be improved if the country is to
compete in the global economy. The quality and level of education in the United States
has become a pressing concern for business and industry as they seek to hire and retain
literate problem solvers who can think creatively and work both independently and
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 27

collaboratively. Business and industry know that they cannot compete unless they support
and invest in education for the general populace, both financially and symbolically. This
issue resonates at both the local and national levels, as demonstrated by accountability
efforts implemented in the years since the publication of A Nation at Risk. At a more
granular level, schools and districts feel the urgency to deliver a high-quality education,
while students and parents feel the pressure of attaining high levels of education to
provide the foundation of a successful life in college, careers, or the military. The level of
understanding of the fiscal and economic impact of a high-quality education on the
individual and society has never been higher.
Human Capital in Education
Economist Burton Weisbrod (1966) argued that it is imperative to look beyond
tangible capital, such as land, labor, factories, machines, and goods, to explain economic
growth and development. He argued that human capital, an intangible resource, is
nevertheless essential to economic growth and productivity. Weisbrod defined human
capital as an investment by the individual in information, health, education, and training
to improve his or her personal productivity. He noted that human resource development
provides the most opportunity, as well as challenge, to engage in farsighted social
leadership. Weisbrod argued that human capital is essential to raising individual and
economic productivity, as well as improving social progress, and he placed special
emphasis on the importance of education as an investment in the individual and the
economy.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 28

Students
Education leaders have recognized for many years that investing in human capital
is critical to economic growth. In 2001, Anthony Carnevale, director of the Georgetown
University Center on Education and the Workforce and former Vice President for Public
Leadership with the Educational Testing Service (ETS), detailed the need for higher
levels of cognitive, problem solving, and behavioral skills to enable U.S. workers to
remain competitive in the global economy. He explained that new jobs in technology,
education, health care, and business require strong interpersonal and problem-solving
skills because of the intensive interaction required to respond to individual wants and
needs.
Carnevale (2001) noted that the knowledge and service economy differs
significantly from the manufacturing economy and demands a broader skill set of
workers, including innovation, creativity, quality, customization, and variety. His ideas
conform to research findings reported by Murnane, Willet, and Levy (1995), who found
that basic cognitive skills were more significant predictors of wage earnings 6 years after
high school in the 1980s than in the 1970s, reflecting changes in occupations. The
demand for higher level cognitive skills has increased significantly in the ensuing years,
which has led to the current emphasis on the so-called 21st-century skills.
In 2002, The Partnership for 21st Century Skills (P21) was formed by a coalition
of policymakers, business leaders, and educators (P21, 2013). P21 identified four
essential skills for workplace success and a thriving economy: communication,
collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking. P21 was initially formed to provide
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 29

schools with the impetus to improve educational practices to ensure that students could
become productive adults. However, in the past 10 years, the world has experienced rapid
advances in technology and competition in the global economy has intensified.
Consequently, the sense of urgency has increased and it has become imperative that all
students graduate from high school ready for college and careers that require higher level
cognitive skills (P21, 2013).
Carnevale (2001) explained that human capital is an expensive investment that
demands a more effective education system from pre-kindergarten through college to
develop the human capital of each student. He argued that college readiness begins in
preschool. Low-income students and English language learners start with a learning
deficit because they start school with only 5,000 words in their vocabulary, as compared
to higher income students, who start school with a 20,000-word vocabulary. This deficit
in school readiness requires an additional investment of funds for universal access to
preschool. Economic productivity demands human capital; to develop a high level of
human capital, the nation must provide universal access to postsecondary education
(Carnevale, 2001).
Other studies have emphasized the importance of developing human capital
through increasing the level of education in the United States. The report titled Closing
the College Participation Gap (Ruppert, 2003), published by the Education Commission
of the States, raised concerns that the United States was falling behind other
industrialized countries in college access and attainment. It also reported gaps in college
attendance and attainment based on income, ethnicity, and race (Ruppert, 2003). These
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 30

gaps further demonstrate the need to improve human capital and economic growth
through universal preschool and postsecondary education, as prescribed by Carnevale
(2001).
Education Professionals
Odden (2011a) explained that human resource management is now termed
strategic management of human capital. This allows educators to understand that
teachers are a resource to effect change and achieve goals, not just manage in the
traditional sense. According to the Consortium for Policy Research in Education
(Strategic Management of Human Capital [SMHC], 2009), it is necessary to provide
strategic management of human capital so schools can meet the goal of improving
student achievement.
In their report “Taking Human Capital Seriously: Talented Teachers in Every
Classroom, Talented Principals in Every School,” the task force members of the Strategic
Management of Human Capital Project (SMHC) described the strategic management of
human capital as the “people side” of education reform (SMHC, 2009). They elucidate
the concept as the alignment of school district organizational structure, goals, practices,
curriculum, and assessment, and the hiring, retention, and compensation of educators,
which must be done intentionally and systematically. Odden (2011a) argued that the
human resource system in education, including recruitment, selection, placement,
induction, training, evaluation, and compensation, must be restructured to implement
strategic management of human capital. However, the human capital aspect of education
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 31

reform is often overlooked in favor of accountability systems based on outcomes and
measures, rather than building capacity in the system (SMHC, 2009).
Few professions are as people intensive as education; therefore, skilled, talented,
and trained educators are necessary to improve student learning (Odden, 2011b). Rivkin,
Hanushek, and Kain (2005) found that the instructional skill of teachers has an
observable impact on student achievement and concluded that “teachers, and therefore
schools, matter importantly for student achievement” (p. 449).
Contrary to other researchers, Hanushek and Woessmann (2008) noted that
individual educational attainment does not necessarily result in improved economic
outcomes. They found that cognitive skills had far more impact on earnings, income
distribution, and the growth of the economy. They concluded that it is essential to hire
and train effective teachers who can build the thinking skills that students need for
personal and economic success in the future.
While maintaining that the United States should make a major investment in
human capital in the education system if it is to compete in the global economy,
Carnevale (2001) noted that K-12 teachers were comparatively low-paid professionals,
especially given the high expectations for performance and attendant demand for results.
Carnevale predicted that 200,000-300,000 teachers would be needed in coming years—an
expensive investment for the country. Nevertheless, the key to student success is skilled
and talented teachers in every classroom and an effective principal for every school
(SMHC, 2009). The field of professional education must be attractive for top college
graduates if the United States is to compete globally (Fullan, 2010).
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 32

According to the SMHC (2009), it is imperative to improve teacher quality and
principal leadership skills; true education improvement is dependent on them. Eighty-five
percent of school district budgets are comprised of salaries and benefits (Odden, 2011a).
Consequently, Odden (2011a) argued that the key to success is the way in which
employees are identified and developed by school districts; they must be of the highest
caliber and provided with ongoing professional development. Barber and Mourshed
(2007) explained that, to compete with other top-performing nations, it is important to get
the “right people,” defined as the top college graduates, to become teachers and to
develop them into effective instructors, thereby ensuring that every student performs
well.
Fullan (2010) identified teacher incentives that emphasized the importance of
human capital to improve educational outcomes. Fullan argued that it is crucial to focus
on whole-system performance and collective capacity, maintaining that a piecemeal
approach is not the solution. He noted that the world’s top-performing countries hire the
top 30% of college graduates, as compared to the United States, where the middle 30% or
lower comprise the teaching ranks. Fullan posited that better working conditions for all
teachers would attract more talented people into the education profession. He listed the
following incentives for teachers:
good salaries, suitable surroundings and facilities, a positive climate, a strong
induction program, provision of extensive professional learning, opportunities to
work with and learn from other professionals, strong supportive leadership for the
school and district, provision of helpful and meaningful feedback on classroom
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 33

practices, reasonable class sizes, long-term contractual agreements, and an
attainable moral purpose. (p. 89)
B. Levin (2008) emphasized several elements that contribute to building human
capital. He explained that the following elements are essential to lead and improve an
education system: (a) establish a vision and goals; (b) build a strong team; (c) create and
support the right culture; (d) communicate about vision, direction, and accomplishments;
(e) recruit, develop, and retain leaders; (f) build support, both internally and externally;
and (g) maintain focus on teaching and learning despite distracters.
Odden’s (2011b) work highlighted the gaps between best practices and the current
systems in place; he delineated several shortcomings in the current system. He found that
the major problems were (a) a lack of an effective human resource management system;
(b) a fundamental inability to recruit the best and brightest into the education profession;
(c) too many schools staffed with bad teachers and principals; (d) teacher shortages in
certain subjects, such as mathematics; (e) high turnover; (f) ineffective and inefficient
staff development; and (g) compensation systems disconnected from student learning.
Simply stated, although most educators want to meet the needs of students, they do not
always have the capacity to do so. They need the tools, training, and resources to
differentiate instruction that should be provided through a system designed to manage
human capital strategically (SMHC, 2009).
The SMHC (2009) made 20 recommendations to manage human capital
strategically, based on six key principles: (a) improve student and teacher performance
and close the learning gap; (b) ensure that there are effective teachers in every classroom
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 34

and effective leaders in every school; (c) provide excellent instruction and successful
learning; (d) manage human capital strategically to align systems and provide continuous
improvement; (e) restructure the career ladder and pay system; and (f) create an explicit,
transparent, and accountable system to manage human capital and achieve district goals.
The SMHC elaborated on these principles by establishing attendant expectations:
Having teachers who demonstrate effective teaching skills and content mastery
Maintaining constant, focused programs to develop and improve teaching and
instruction
Casting a wide net for teacher and principal talent: broadening and deepening the
recruiting pool to improve quality
Funding multiple routes to certification and holding all graduates to the same high
standards
Extending and improving teacher and principal induction and residency
Creating performance-based evaluations for hiring, promoting and professional
development
Raising standards for promotion and tenure
Rewarding high performance
Basing rewards on student achievement and instructional effectiveness
Aligning human resources departments and practices with district goals
Knowing how to manage education talent strategically
Using robust data systems for human resources operations and in systems to
measure teaching effectiveness and student learning (SMHC, 2009, p. 2)
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 35

By implementing these practices, school districts can meet the needs of students and
ensure high levels of learning and acquisition of skills, especially 21st-century skills,
needed to compete in the global economy.
Summary of Centrality of Human Capital in Education
In summation, Weisbrod’s argument that human capital is essential to raising
individual and economic productivity has been widely recognized by other researchers.
The United States, to remain economically competitive, must invest in building the
human capital of both students and education professionals. This is a complex and
expensive endeavor, yet essential for the well-being of individuals and society. It is
central to the success of improving the education system in the United States. There is a
body of research that delineates the strategies necessary to build human capital in
students and education professionals. The difficulty lies in garnering the political will,
public support, and skilled, talented leaders who can shift the paradigm from the current
emphasis on quick fixes that respond to accountability measures, to one that focuses on
the centrality of building human capital.
Accountability in Education
Education Reform Efforts in the United States
The United States has a long history of education reform efforts stretching back
over many decades. According to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS; 2001), the
history of education reform in the United States is based on three defining themes: (a) the
purpose of a public education, (b) who should receive public educational services, and (c)
the means by which government ensures the quality of educational services. Tyack and
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 36

Cuban (1995) argued that most Americans view the purpose of public education as the
means to build a better society by enriching the skills, learning, and viewpoints of
citizens. They described the history of education reform in America as the reflection of a
democratic society that constantly experiences social and economic change, resulting in a
succession of contradictory education reform proposals that emerge as prescriptions for
the conditions of the time.
Given the long history of education reform, it is useful to narrow the research
discussion and focus on the current federal law, NCLB, which is the most recent iteration
of the ESEA (USDE, 2013). The NCLB provides funding for federal programs intended
to improve the performance of schools by increasing accountability by states, school
districts, and schools; mandating an increased focus on reading and mathematics; and
giving parents more choice in deciding which schools their children will attend. NCLB
requires that all states administer annual student assessments linked to state standards,
identify schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP), and impose sanctions
on schools and districts that do not meet the AYP benchmarks (USDE, 2013).
Dee and Jacobs (2010) described NCLB as the most far-reaching and
controversial educational policy initiative in the past 40 years. From the beginning,
school districts have chafed against a law that requires 100% proficiency by all students
by 2014 (Ravitch, 2010). Ravitch (2009) maintained that NCLB is a failed law and
should be eliminated. She argued that the emphasis on testing mathematics and reading
has impoverished teaching and learning and has left American students unable to
compete in the global economy. Fullan (2010) noted many flaws in the NCLB: unrealistic
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 37

and unachievable goals; an excessive number of goals and tests; different standards and
assessments in each state, resulting in a “dog’s breakfast”; no focus on capacity building;
short, punitive timelines for meeting AYP goals; and an overall lack of meaning and
credibility.
The National Center for Fair and Open Testing (FairTest; n.d.) describes its
mission as advancing “quality education and equal opportunity by promoting fair, open,
valid and educationally beneficial evaluations of students, teachers and schools” (para. 1).
Guisbond, Neill, and Schaeffer (2012) has criticized the misuse and flaws of testing
practices imposed by NCLB, as well as the overriding emphasis on standardized testing.
In their 2012 report, ““NCLB’s Lost Decade for Educational Progress,” FairTest
(2013) argued that an analysis of 10 years of data produced under NCLB demonstrated
the following: (a) NCLB has severely damaged educational quality and equity, with its
narrowing and limiting effects falling most severely on the poor; (b) NCLB failed to
significantly increase average academic performance and significantly narrow
achievement gaps; and (c) so-called “reforms,” such as the Obama Administration’s
waivers and the Senate Education Committee’s ESEA reauthorization bill, fail to address
many of NCLB’s fundamental flaws and in some cases intensify them. They claimed that
these proposals will extend a “lost decade for U.S. schools” (p. 1).
Although there are many perceived shortcomings of NCLB, as noted by FairTest
(Guisbond et al., 2012)), Fullan (2010), and Ravitch (2010), the demand for
accountability, in conjunction with the pressing need to ensure that students have the
cognitive skills and educational attainment levels to succeed, has only intensified in the
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 38

ensuing years. This is manifested in the emergence of the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) Initiative (2013), which arose out of the combined efforts of state governors and
state education officers, supported by business leaders, who share urgent concerns about
the education and productivity levels of high school and college graduates. The CCSS
was conceived as the framework needed to raise the education and skill levels of
American workers so the United States can compete in the global economy. The state
leaders are familiar with the many negative effects of an underperforming education
system and have led the efforts to implement the CCSS in their states. At this point, most
states have committed to the CCSS initiative to push their education systems forward.
Oregon is one of those states.
Education Reform Efforts in Oregon
Over the past 20 years, Oregon has experienced a series of reform initiatives
designed to improve its public education system. The Oregon Educational Act for the
21st Century, enacted in 1991, was an important turning point that resulted in
development of CIM and CAM and instituted benchmark assessments for students in
Grades 3, 5, 8, 10, and 12. The 1991 Oregon Educational Act, although targeted at K-12
education, prompted the Oregon University System (OUS) to develop its PASS. They
worked with the ODE to align CIM and CAM with college admission criteria, with the
intent that public universities would determine student proficiency via student portfolios,
along with traditional measures (Venezia & Kirst, 2006).
Although the OUS collaborated with the ODE, there was no unifying governance
system or funding mechanism to drive these efforts or to ensure alignment. The QEC was
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 39

established by the State Legislature in 2001 to identify best practices and create a finance
model to support the state’s K-16 education goals. However, the governance model
remained static and fragmented, with decisions made in silos at the local level, and there
was notable tension among the state superintendent, governor, and legislature. The
governor and state superintendent disagreed over implementation of NCLB and the
superintendent resented the legislature’s attempts to act as a “super board” (Venezia &
Kirst, 2006).
The struggle over control of the public education system and the increasing
economic and social pressure to improve student learning ultimately resulted in both a
paradigm shift and a power shift in the Oregon education system. Oregon Governor John
Kitzhaber launched an overhaul of the state education system in 2011, with the
cooperation and support of the state legislature, to improve the state’s 67% graduation
rate and to ensure that each student met academic milestones from preschool to college.
(OEIB, 2013a). The legislative action that comprised this shift was as follows.
SB 253, passed by the Oregon Senate, established aggressive high school and
college completion goals that specified that, by 2025, 40% of students will have earned a
bachelor’s degree, 40% will have earned an Associate degree or postsecondary
credential, and 20% will have earned a high school diploma (OEIB, 2013b). According to
the NCLB waiver application submitted to the USDE by the ODE, the high school
diploma is expected to represent a high level of knowledge and skills.
SB 909, passed by the Oregon Senate in 2011, created the OEIB and outlined
specific charges to develop an education investment strategy to improve defined learning
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 40

outcomes from early childhood through public schools, colleges and universities: (a) hire
a CEO to oversee the unified public education system; (b) establish a statewide student
database from early childhood through higher education that encourages accountability
for outcomes and provides better information for policy makers, educators, students, and
their families to ensure progress along the entire educational path; (c) establish an Early
Learning Council to streamline and strengthen early childhood services to at-risk youth to
ensure that all children are ready to learn when they enter kindergarten; and (d) report to
the Oregon Legislature on progress and legislation for 2012 (Oregon State Legislature,
2011).
SB 1581 authorized the OEIB to enter into Achievement Compacts with every K-
12 school district, education service district, community college, the university system
and individual universities, and the Oregon Health Sciences University (OEIB, 2013e).
Through this legislative action, the elected position of State School
Superintendent was abolished and Governor Kitzhaber became the Superintendent of
Public Instruction in 2011 (Pew Stateline, 2013). Kitzhaber hired Dr. Rudy Crew as the
CEO, a position created by SB 909 (OEIB, 2013c). Crew’s charge was to provide
leadership to the state education system, preschool through college; boost the high school
graduation rate, which is the fourth worst in the country; and increase the number of
students who graduate from 2-year or 4-year colleges (Pew Stateline, 2013). These goals
are commonly referred to as 40/40/20, a shorthand term reflecting the goals that, by 2025,
100% of Oregonians will earn a high school diploma or its equivalent, 40% will earn a
postsecondary credential, and 40% will obtain a bachelor’s degree or higher; these goals
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 41

are aimed to achieve better results for students, more resources for teachers, and a greater
return on the taxpayers’ investment (OEIB, 2013e).
Oregon has moved forward with the most recent national educational reform
initiative, the CCSS (ODE, 2013a). In 2010 the Oregon State Board of Education adopted
the CCSS in reading/language arts and mathematics. The ODE (2013a) framed the CCSS
for business and community members in this way:
The future economic prosperity of our state and our country relies on producing
highly skilled graduates who can be the entrepreneurs, innovators, and investors
of tomorrow. To prepare high school graduates to meet the challenges of an
increasingly complex global marketplace Oregon increased graduation
requirements and adopted the Common Core State Standards. (para. 1)
The ODE delineated the educational economic benefits of the CCSS as follows:
Global competitiveness. The Common Core are aligned to international standards
from the highest achieving countries. This means our students will be well
prepared to compete both nationally and internationally.
Consistency across the country. Common standards mean that Oregon students
are learning the same content and skills as students from around the U.S. in the
subject areas of English Language Arts and Math. This places everyone on an
even playing field and eases transitions between states.
Homegrown talent. Rigorous, national standards will help each state produce
local, homegrown talent to meet the needs of our rapidly changing workplace.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 42

21st century skills for 21st century jobs. The Common Core are designed to
prepare students to compete in and contribute to the 21st century, global
economy. These standards will help produce graduates ready for today’s—and
tomorrow’s—jobs. (ODE, 2012a, para. 1)
College and career ready standards for all. Because students need high level
literacy and math skills whether they plan to go to college or directly into a job or
workforce training, these standards are designed to prepare students for success in
whatever they choose to do after graduation.
Focus on real world skills. What students learn in school should be directly
related to what they’ll be required to do once they leave school. The Common
Core Standards emphasize reading informational and technical texts to prepare
students for the demands of college and the workplace. (ODE, 2012b, para. 2)
In a strategic and purposeful move to fulfill the vision for reform led by Governor
Kitzhaber and CEO Rudy Crew, the ODE submitted an ESEA flexibility waiver request,
more commonly referred to as an NCLB waiver, to the USDE in 2012 (ODE, 2013b). In
the application, the ODE (2013b) described the 40/40/20 goal as the most ambitious
target for high school and college completion rates in the nation. It requested that the
USDE approve the waiver to support Oregon in its efforts to implement a robust, tailored,
and effective system of accountability intended to result in an aligned strategy for
education improvement (ODE, 2013b).
As in most states, Oregon has a political culture that influences the education
policy setting, although Oregon’s process is more diffuse than that of other states. Oregon
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 43

has a long-standing commitment to involve citizens in the education agenda-setting
process, usually by means of loose coalitions (Louis, Thomas, Gordon, & Febey, 2008).
Governor Kitzhaber appears to have focused the agenda-setting process, while still
honoring the political culture in Oregon. According to the ODE (2013b), the details and
recommendations of the NCLB waiver request were developed through a comprehensive
process that included superintendents, site administrators, teachers, and advocacy groups
who engaged in research, discussion, and debate regarding the waiver principles: (a)
Principle 1: College- and Career-Ready Expectations for All Students; (b) Principle 2:
State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support; and (c)
Principle 3: Supporting Effective Instruction and Leadership. An opportunity for public
comment was provide through a review panel, public forums, and online survey (ODE,
2013b).
In the waiver application, the ODE (2013b) characterized the proposed changes in
their accountability system as a major shift away from the punitive, one-size-fits-all
dimensions of NCLB to a more customized, evidence-based approach to improve the
performance of all aspects of the state education system, comprising students, schools,
districts, and the state. The ODE argued that the waiver would strengthen accountability
for underserved students and remove many of the unintended consequences of NCLB,
notably the narrowing of the curriculum and an overreliance on standardized testing. The
waiver request identified the Achievement Compacts legislated by SB 1581 as the
mechanism by which to institute “loose-tight coupling” in the state education system
(ODE, 2013b).
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 44

Loose-tight coupling is a term that emerged from the field of business
management and was described by Peters and Waterman (1982) as “experimentation and
autonomy within defined parameters” (p. 318). Peters and Waterman refined their
definition by describing loose-tight coupling as firm central direction in conjunction with
maximum individual autonomy. A leader may use loose (autonomous) or tight (directive)
practice, depending on the circumstances and qualities of the employees (Vroom &
Yetton, 1973). A related management practice called participative decision making was
defined by Mitchell (1973) as the process by which influence is shared among superiors
and subordinates. According to Sagie and Koslowsky (1996), employee participation
fosters higher levels of acceptance and effectiveness during organizational change. Sagie
(1997) indicated that leader direction and participative decision making are
complementary and noted that the integration of these two approaches yields a dynamic
leadership style dependent on situational factors. Vroom and Jago (1995) found that a
loose approach was effective when member commitment was essential. Sagie (1997)
explained that the leader may structure a process to fulfill the mission and vision of the
organization by initiating problem-oriented dialogues; seeking employee ideas,
suggestions, and solutions; and providing feedback.
Loose-tight coupling is considered essential to school improvement efforts
(Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Meany, 2010). Marzano and Waters (2009) identified loose-
tight coupling as “defined autonomy” that can be used effectively by schools to
accomplish school improvement. Dufour et al. (2010) noted that a school or district must
be tight in areas regarding specific principles and practices, while allowing individual and
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 45

teams autonomy and freedom, as well as the tools needed to get things done on a day-to-
day basis.
The Oregon Achievement Compacts, described as reciprocal agreements between
the state, districts and their communities, are the tools that districts will use to reflect
progress and set goals for student success based on the key outcomes of third-grade
reading and mathematics, sixth and ninth grades on track, college credits earned in high
school, high school completion, and postsecondary enrollment (ODE, 2013a). These are
portrayed as ambitious yet achievable goals. The Achievement Compacts are also
described as the mechanism for “intentionality” in budget development at the local level,
as well as providing a way to compare districts’ student outcomes (ODE, 2013a).
Also notably included in the Oregon NCLB waiver request was a statewide
system for teacher and leader effectiveness. SB 290, passed by the legislature in 2011,
required districts to adopt core teaching standards and provide a solid background for
teacher evaluation. The ODE (2013b) will pilot a project test and refine a framework for
educator effectiveness based on pre-service through in-service. Significantly, the pilot
will determine whether state standardized testing should be used in teacher evaluations,
with the following constraints: Individual teacher data will not be reported, standardized
assessment data will not be used as the sole measure of student learning, student growth
will not be the single component of evaluations, and the data and information provided
from the evaluation system will be used to improve student outcomes through improved
instructional practices.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 46

The waiver request was granted in summer 2012 (ODE, 2013b). Governor
Kitzhaber and CEO Crew issued a press release announcing the approval of the waiver,
which they framed as a victory that enables Oregon to tailor NCLB to create a more
accountable and responsive education system. The press release highlighted the
importance of the new system as one that stresses thinking skills and academic behaviors
to determine student growth and college and career readiness. Governor Kitzhaber stated
that the waiver allows Oregon to reject the one-size-fits-all federal requirements and
create a system of accountability and support that moves toward fulfilling the 40/40/20
goal (State of Oregon, 2013a).
OEIB Intent and Role in Reform
The OEIB, a key piece of the Oregon reform initiative, was established by the
legislature via SB 909:
The Oregon Education Investment Board is established for the purpose of
ensuring that all public school students in this state reach the education outcomes
established for the state. The board shall accomplish this goal by overseeing a
unified public education system that begins with early childhood services and
continues throughout public education from kindergarten to post-secondary
education. (Kitzhaber, 2011, Senate Bill 909 section, para. 1)
The composition of the OEIB was mandated in the legislation and includes 13 members,
including the Governor or designee and 12 members appointed by the Governor and
confirmed by the Senate (Oregon State Legislature [OSL], 2011). SB 909 also delineates
specific strategies, including developing a unified education system and using strategic
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 47

investments to achieve the education outcomes (OSL, 2011). Companion legislation SB
253 defines the outcomes, which include the 40/40/20 goals (OEIB, 2013f).
SB 909 authorizes the OEIB to enter into Achievement Compacts with every K-
12 school district, education service district, community college, the university system
and individual universities, and the Oregon Health Sciences University (OEIB, 2013f).
SB 1581 empowers the CEO to direct other state education officials in the design and
organization of the education system and requires that all education entities submit
annual Achievement Compacts (OEIB, 2013f).
The OEIB (2013e) lists the implementation requirements of SB 1581:
The CEO has authority over the Commissioner for Community College Services,
the Chancellor of the Oregon University System, the Executive Director of the
Oregon Student Access Commission, the Early Childhood System Director, the
Executive Director of the Higher Education Coordinating Commission, and the
Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The OEIB will provide an estimated level of funding for the next fiscal year
needed to ensure the quality of educational goals.
The OEIB will establish the format and terms of the compact.
The governing body of each educational entity will set the targets for outcomes
and measures of progress.
The compacts will include targets for all disadvantaged subgroups of students, as
required by NCLB or specified by OEIB.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 48

Each governing body will provide open communication to its various stakeholders
to explain and discuss the targets set in its compacts.
The OEIB will set a timeline and method for year-end reports.
Each district must form an Achievement Compact advisory committee.
The OEIB will work with the Quality Education Commission to identify best
practices and determine the costs and benefits of adopting them.
SB 1581 has a March 15, 2016 sunset date. (para. 11)
The CEO of the OEIB has created a list of six “deliverables” to fulfill the mission
of the OEIB (OEIB, 2013b). These deliverables encompass the entire education system
and set an ambitious pace for reform.
1. Design, organize, and implement a state-level P-20 system
2. Develop an outcomes-based budget for education within the framework of the
Governor’s statewide 10-year budget project.
3. Oversee the implementation and advance the use of Achievement Compacts
for all public education entities in Oregon.
4. Ensure the timely development of a longitudinal data base.
5. Oversee the implementation of the reorganization plan for early childhood
services.
6. Direct the work of the Higher Education Coordinating Commission. Reach
agreement on the terms for university boards within the Oregon University
System. (para. 19)
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 49

These deliverables are designed to meet the goal of the OEIB, described by Governor
Kitzhaber as the creation of “a seamless, unified system for investing in and delivering
public education from early childhood through high school and college so that all
Oregonians are well prepared for careers in our economy” (OEIB, 2013b, para. 1).
Summary of Accountability in Education
The United States has a crucial interest in providing a high-quality public
education for its students. Over the years, the goals and outcomes of public education
have shifted and expectations have increased. Concerns about economic competitiveness
and an undereducated workforce have resulted in institution of various accountability
measures, culminating in NCLB. This law has many flaws, yet it reflects the public
mandate that, given the public funding invested, as well as the importance of a good
education to the future economic viability of the nation, schools must be accountable for
producing well-educated citizens. This mandate has been clearly articulated and is being
aggressively pursued by Oregon as it moves to change its piecemeal education system
into a coherent system that ensures that all students are ready for careers and college.
Educational Improvement
There is a long history of school reform efforts in the United States. Supovitz
(2006) stated that school districts have historically not been effective at improving
teaching and learning in their schools. He delineated several reasons for this lack of
success, encompassing complex system and management responsibilities inherent in
school districts. These range from managing school facilities to collecting and reporting
data to acting as laboratories for local democracy (Supovitz, 2006). Cuban (1988)
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 50

described a complex system and explained that, when the demands of management,
politics, and instruction converge, instruction loses out.
Supovitz (2006) described the absence of a coherent system within the education
institution as a major obstacle to providing and maintaining a focus on student
achievement. He asserted that education reform theories indicate that it is necessary to
have coherence across all of the various elements of the system, including high academic
standards; alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; accountability systems,
teacher certification, and professional development. Newmann, Smith, Allensworth, and
Bryk (2001) also argued that improved student outcomes rely on instructional coherence,
which they defined as a common framework for curriculum, instruction, assessment, and
learning climate maintained over an extended time period. They found that student
learning improved more in schools with stronger instructional program coherence.
Districts also face the issue of teacher autonomy when trying to improve
instructional practice. Research shows that teachers are resistant to expectations and
constraints imposed on their ability to make teaching decisions (Supovitz, 2006).
Darling-Hammond (2012) argued that the key to improving student outcomes is
involving teachers in the decision-making process. She noted that “a high-quality system
should create a coherent, well-grounded approach to developing teaching, crafted
collectively by state and district leaders with teachers and their representatives” (p. i).
Ingersoll (1996) argued that regulations and mandates designed to influence instructional
practices from outside actually impede teachers’ efforts and tend to increase the level of
internal conflict within the school. In addition, teacher autonomy historically precludes
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 51

the expected impact of policy changes because teacher implementation is not necessarily
done with fidelity (Cohen, 1982).
Although districts introduce reform after reform, few efforts are maintained
because of the difficulty of embedding these changes in the school culture (Hess, 1999).
Also, more recent reform efforts based on curriculum standards and instructional practice
require building and extending local capacity (Elmore, 1993). Implementing reform
efforts is dependent on the skill and capacity of leaders and how they conceive and
structure learning for those within their organizations (Spillane, 2009). Supovitz (2006)
posited that district leaders do not have sufficient incentives to implement multi-year
initiatives. Supovitz elaborated by explaining that it is difficult to implement systemwide
instructional change because it requires that district leaders develop a system to manage
and support the variety and complexity of instructional practice.
Berends, Bodilly, and Kirby (2002) argued that schools need persistent, long-term
support to effect deep, sustained reforms. They found that significant resource outlay was
an important component of improved district support of schools, while Hanushek (1989)
argued that investing additional money into education does not produce better outcomes.
Grubb (2009) agreed with Hanushek and asserted that education spending per pupil has
risen substantially in the decades since “A Nation at Risk” was published, with little to
show for this investment.
Grubb (2009) sorted resources into four categories: simple, compound, abstract,
and complex. Simple resources exhibit a direct relationship between per-pupil spending
and resources, such as adult/pupil ratio. Compound resources exhibit a relationship to two
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 52

factors and complex resources exhibit a relationship to three or more factors. Abstract
resources comprise vision, cooperation, persistence, and most important, trust. The costs
of compound, complex, and abstract resources are often indeterminate and depend on the
resources that cannot be bought (Grubb, 2009). Grubb (2009) enumerated several reasons
that increased school funding does not improve outcomes:
Money is wasted, sometimes egregiously, but usually through expenditures on
ineffective resources such as weak teachers, ineffective professional development,
weak after-school programs, and potential long-term projects that are abandoned
when leadership changes, and often because legislatures do not pass budgets early
enough to allow districts to plan.
Some ineffective programs cost more money and reduce test scores, such as
traditional vocational education, or have no effect on test scores or graduation
rates, such as security guards. Also, funding “second-chance” programs such as
alternative education, interventions, and remediation, undermine the relationship
between money and outcomes.
Many reforms fail to provide all the necessary resources; a classic case in point is
the class size reduction effort in California because districts were forced to hire
lower-quality teachers and had insufficient space.
Many effective resources cannot be bought, such as teachers’ effective use of
time, departmental encouragement of innovation, constructivist or balanced
pedagogy, and a positive school climate.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 53

The achievement gap cannot be closed by money alone because no precise cause
or solution to the achievement gap has been identified. Instead, the solution
requires complex and abstract resources. (pp. 52-53)
Grubb (2009) noted that money may be needed for ancillary purposes, such as released
time and literacy or math coaches, but argues that vision, principal leadership, and
collaboration with and by teachers is more important.
Grubb and Tredway (2010) recommended a waste audit to see where funds are
being expended inappropriately. Others have called for reduction in wasteful education
spending or use of resources as well. Schmoker (2009) exhorted teachers to stop using
wasteful and ineffective educational practices such as worksheets and movies. H. Levin
(2008) decried the waste of money, time, and energy needed to fire incompetent teachers;
ineffective remediation programs; and wasted or misused instructional time.
Grubb (2009) recommended that districts take the following steps to allocate and
construct resources more wisely:
Conduct routine waste audits at the school and district level to determine where
funds are being misspent, as well as a resource audit, to determine which
resources have been developed and which are missing.
Decentralize decision making about resources to the school level and adopt
school-based budgeting so principals and school-site councils have the fiscal
resources to develop and implement their own improvement plans. He notes that
schools rely on the districts to allocate resources and do not have the incentives or
funding to develop their own resource plans.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 54

Use professional development to make school leaders and teachers more
sophisticated about effective resources. He explains that building capacity in
teachers and leaders enables them to make better decisions about resource
allocation.
Create a What Works Institute at the state or national level to provide user-
friendly information about effective and ineffective resources. (p. 54)
Odden and Picus (2011) seemed to tread the middle ground when regarding
school funding, suggesting pragmatic and cost-effective ways to improve school
practices. They stated that school redesign, not necessarily additional funding, is essential
to improving U.S. schools, yet Odden and Picus (2011) previously noted that public
schools rarely improve student achievement without large amounts of new money.
Odden and Picus (2011) described three ways in which educational productivity
can be measured: (a) through efficiency, the efficient and targeted allocation of resources
to schools; (b) through effectiveness, the connection between student achievement and
resource use; and (c) through equity, the distribution of funds to all children in an
equitable way. Picus explained that most research on educational productivity has
focused on effectiveness by using production function and results have been mixed.
Some studies have shown a positive correlation, while others have not (Picus, 2001).
Alternatively, some studies have focused on the impact of inputs to schooling on adult
earnings, which has also produced mixed results. Card and Krueger (1996) concluded
that graduates of schools that were better resourced produced graduates who earned more
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 55

money because they acquired the skills and education necessary to do so, while Betts’s
(1996) meta-analysis showed no connection between school spending and adult earnings.
The ambitious goals and education reform efforts underway in Oregon have not
been matched with a long-term revenue stream. In fact, Education Week gave Oregon an
F grade on the state’s funding for K-12 education and Oregon is in the bottom five states
in funding for higher education on a per-student basis (Pew Stateline, 2013). The Oregon
Education Funding Team (EFT), charged by the Governor with providing him with a list
of education investment priorities, acknowledged this and described the state’s challenge
as using limited resources to achieve goals that will eventually require much higher levels
of investment (OEIB, 2013f). The EFT, while recognizing the budget constraints,
envisions a budget that will help transform and improve the delivery of education
services in the long term and is consequently focusing investments on high-leverage best
practices (OEIB, 2013f). It appears that Oregon would benefit from examining the
research by Odden and Picus (2011a, 2011b), Grubb (2009), Schmoker (2009), Hanushek
(1989), H. Levin (2008), and others and encouraging districts and colleges to establish
funding best practices, along with instructional best practices.
Odden and Picus (2011) argued that school performance can improve even when
funding is limited. They stated that districts must redirect spending, develop a more
powerful vision, identify resources to match and execute the vision, reallocate resources
to meet the vision, and restructure compensation. According to Odden and Picus, schools
and districts that improve student performance and close achievement gaps do the
following:
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 56

Use data-based decision making. This typically incorporates state assessments,
benchmark data, and formative assessments.
Set very high and ambitious goals regardless of school demographics. Examples
include doubling student performance on state tests, doubling the percentage of
students who score at advanced levels on state assessments, and closing
achievement gaps by 50 percent.
Adopt new curriculum and textbook materials, while developing a school-wide
vision of effective instructional practices used by all teachers.
Invest in professional development. This consists of collaborative time for
teachers, use of instructional coaches, summer institutes, and funding for trainers
and staff development.
Change the work life of teachers. This includes teaming teachers in collaborative
groups such as course, subject, and grade-level teams, and requiring they use
student data to modify instruction as appropriate.
Provide extensive help strategies for struggling students such as academically
focused extended-day programs, summer school, interventions, and 1:1 teacher
tutoring.
Attend to teacher and administrator talent. This includes building capacity in
teachers who can work as team leaders, instructional coaches, and curriculum
coordinators. It also includes placing effective teachers at high-need schools.
Use best practices built on sound research to accomplish clearly identified goals.
(pp. 44-45)
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 57

Odden (2011b) also advocated for other practices that he argued improve student
performance while working within limited budgets. These practices include the following
steps:
Create a powerful improvement strategy to turn around underperforming schools
or push high-performing schools.
Engage in a strategic budgeting process and focus resources on known effective
practices.
Tap the power of technology by implementing online and blended instructional
models. (p. 14)
Odden (2011b) explained that too much of districts’ education budget goes to practices
that are not proven to improve student performance, such as small class sizes, an array of
elective courses offerings, and automatic increases in compensation.
Bryk et al. (2010) identified five essential organizational elements necessary to
produce significant outcomes in student performance: (a) instructional guidance: the
intellectual coherence, pace, depth, and coverage in student learning activities where
critical thinking is emphasized in each subject; (b) student-centered learning climate,
which consists of a safe environment, seriousness of purpose, and respectful, caring
student-teacher relationships; (c) professional capacity of teachers and staff to dedicate
themselves to any needed changes in the school and culture; (d) parent-community ties,
with active involvement by teachers and the community, elicited by the school to effect
school improvement; and (e) leadership as the driver for change. The school principal
must be a trusted, well-respected, and effective leader (built on relational trust) who
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 58

orchestrates the material and organizational resources of change. Bryk et al. (2010)
argued that all of these elements must be present and interacting. If even one element is
missing, the impact of the other elements is weakened and could well negate reform
efforts.
Blankenstein and Noguera (2004) argued that the attitudes, skills, and beliefs of
the adults who work at schools distinguish high-performing schools from
underperforming schools. They noted that adults in high-performing schools accept
professional responsibility for student success and do not have an external locus of
control. The examined the research and identified six essential elements for high-
performing schools:
1. A common mission, vision, values, and goals.
2. Systems for prevention and intervention to ensure achievement for all students.
3. Collaboration among staff to maintain a focus on teaching and learning.
4. The use of data to guide decision-making and continuous improvement.
5. The active engagement and participation of family and community members.
6. A commitment to building leadership capacity at all levels. (pp. 31-32)
Based on their research, they argued that the biggest obstacle to raising achievement is
political will, not a lack of resources or technical expertise.
Duke (2006) reviewed five important school turn-around studies conducted
between 1999 and 2004. He noted 11 elements that were critical to school improvement:
1. Assistance. Students who were struggling immediately received help.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 59

2. Collaboration. teachers worked together to plan, monitor student progress, and
provide help to students who were struggling.
3. Data-driven decision-making. Student achievement data were used to inform
decisions on student needs, teacher effectiveness, and the allocation of resources.
4. Leadership. The teacher leaders and principal established the culture of
improvement.
5. Organizational structure. The school was organized around the needs of
students, including roles, teams, and planning processes.
6. Staff development. Training was continually provided to teachers to maintain
momentum on improvement efforts.
7. Alignment. Curriculum, instruction, and tests were aligned.
8. Assessment. Students were assessed regularly to monitor progress.
9. High expectations. Teachers expected students to do high quality academic
work.
10. Parent involvement. The school staff elicited parent support and keep them
informed of their children’s progress.
11. Scheduling. The schedule was manipulated to provide increased time for
academic work, especially in reading and math. (pp. 730-731)
Duke (2006) clarified that, although these 11 elements are very important, school
improvement process is very complex and is unlikely to result in high-performing schools
by merely applying them as a prescription. He identified six topics that call for more
research that could provide insight into the school reform process: the process of school
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 60

decline, the nature of teamwork, the effectiveness of specific interventions, midcourse
corrections, unanticipated consequences, and specific personnel issues. He argued that it
is necessary to understand how these issues affect school reform to discern why some
school reform efforts fail despite incorporating the 11 elements that have been shown to
improve school performance.
In the 2010 McKinsey Report on improving school systems (McKinsey & Co.,
2010), the authors analyzed 20 educational systems around the world to determine how
they achieved significant, sustained, and widespread gains in student achievement as
measured by national and international assessments. They identified the following reform
elements that can be replicated to improve school systems:
1. A system can make substantial improvements regardless of the current student
achievement level, geography, culture or income.
2. There is too little focus on “process” in the education debate; the public debate
focuses on structure and resources because of stakeholder implications. The majority of
interventions made in improving systems are focused on the process of improving
instructional delivery.
3. Each specific stage of the improvement process requires specific interventions;
systems cannot improve by doing more of what they did in the past.
4. The context of a system determines how interventions need to be done; it is
important to find the appropriate balance between mandating and persuading stakeholders
to implement reforms.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 61

5. There are six interventions common to all improvement efforts: building the
instructional skills of teachers and management skills of principals; assessing students;
improving data systems; facilitating improvement through the introduction of policy
documents and education laws; revising standards and curriculum; and ensuring an
appropriate reward and remuneration structure for teachers and principals.
6. Education systems that are more proficient at improvement increase
responsibility and flexibility for schools and teachers to inform instructional practice.
7. Most often, reform efforts are launched by new system leaders who use a
consistent set of practices to move the organization forward.
8. Leadership continuity is essential to sustaining reform efforts; successful
reform requires longevity and the opportunity to build the next generation of system
leaders to continue the reform efforts.
The authors recognized that reform is difficult because starting points are
different for each organization, as are contextual realities. Yet, they contended that the
eight aspects that they had identified are common to improving school system
performance and maintained that blending these aspects with context-specific aspects
would result in a higher performing educational system (McKinsey & Co., 2010).
The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction in the state of Washington
provides a resource list of names of key websites, books, reports, and articles that can be
used to help schools to improve (Shannon, 2009). The report identified that high-
performing schools have nine common characteristics and extensively cited research
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 62

related to each of the characteristics. The information on the nine common characteristics
is excerpted below:
1. A clear and shared focus. Everybody knows where they are going and why.
The focus is on achieving a shared vision, and all understand their role in
achieving the vision. The focus and vision are developed from common beliefs
and values, creating a consistent direction for all involved. (Shannon, 2009, p. 9)
2. High standards and expectations for all students. Teachers and staff believe
that all students can learn and meet high standards. While recognizing that some
students must overcome significant barriers, these obstacles are not seen as
insurmountable. Students are offered an ambitious and rigorous course of study.
(Shannon, 2009, p. 11)
3. Effective school leadership. Effective instructional and administrative
leadership is required to implement change processes. Effective leaders are
proactive and seek help that is needed. They nurture an instructional program and
school culture conducive to learning and professional growth. Effective leaders
have different styles and roles—teachers and other staff, including those in the
district office, often have a leadership role. (Shannon, 2009, p. 14)
4. High levels of collaboration and communication. There is strong teamwork
among teachers across all grades and with other staff. Everybody is involved and
connected to each other, including parents and members of the community, to
identify problems and work on solutions. (Shannon, 2009, p. 17)
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 63

5. Curriculum, instruction, and assessments aligned with state standards. The
planned and actual curricula are aligned with the essential academic learning
requirements. Research-based teaching strategies and materials are used. Staff
understands the role of classroom and state assessments, what the assessments
measure, and how student work is evaluated. (Shannon, 2009, p. 20)
6. Frequent monitoring of learning and teaching. A steady cycle of different
assessments identifies students who need help. More support and instructional
time are provided, either during the school day or outside normal school hours, to
students who need more help. Teaching is adjusted based on frequent monitoring
of student progress and needs. Assessment results are used to focus and improve
instructional programs. (Shannon, 2009, p. 26)
7. Focused professional development. A strong emphasis is placed on training
staff in areas of most need. Feedback from learning and teaching focuses
extensive and ongoing professional development. The support is also aligned with
the school or district vision and objectives. (Shannon, 2009, p. 28)
8. Supportive learning environment. The school has a safe, civil, healthy and
intellectually stimulating learning environment. Students feel respected and
connected with the staff and are engaged in learning. Instruction is personalized
and small learning environments increase student contact with teachers.
(Shannon, 2009, p. 31)
9. High levels of family and community involvement. There is a sense that all
have a responsibility to educate students, not just teachers and staff in schools.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 64

10. Families, as well as businesses, social service agencies, and community
colleges/universities, all play a vital role in this effort. (Shannon, 2009, p. 35)
Fullan (2010) argued that educational improvement efforts will fail unless a
whole-system approach is used. He organized his “big ideas for whole-system reform”
into seven categories. The first is that all children can learn. Fullan noted that, while
many school systems say that failure is not an option, many students are indeed failing.
He argued that 95% of students can learn a high level of critical thinking and reasoning;
the other 5% are seriously physically or mentally disadvantaged and can be served
through inclusionary developmentally based programs. He stated that quality instruction
is doing a few best practices the right way. Hattie (2009) supported this perspective and
identified several high-impact teaching practices that ensure that students learn at high
levels: (a) paying deliberate attention to learning and success criteria, (b) setting
challenging tasks, (c) providing multiple opportunities for deliberative practice, (d)
knowing when teacher and student have successfully attained goals, (e) understanding the
critical role of teaching appropriate learning strategies, (f) planning and talking about
teaching, and (g) ensuring the teacher constantly seeks feedback information as to the
success of teaching on the students.
Fullan’s (2010) second major idea was that successful organizations identify and
pursue a small number of key priorities. He noted that such priorities allow the
organization to do them well. He explained that these priorities must include literacy,
numeracy, higher order thinking, and problem-solving skills achieved in a school system
focused on whole-child development. He emphasized that students’ emotional well-being
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 65

must be central and advocated for programs that include music, dance, and the arts, as
well as preparation for college and career choices in high school. Fullan’s explanation is
buttressed by the current focus on 21st-century skills. The need for students to graduate
with the 21st-century skills of communication, collaboration, critical thinking, and
creativity is driving businesses to become involved (Assessment and Teaching of 21st
Century Skills [AT21CS], 2013). The goal of AT21CS is to support educational efforts to
prepare students to live and work in the information-age society. These businesses,
including Microsoft, Intel, and Cisco, agree that schools are not preparing students to live
and work in an information-age society and are producing entry-level workers who lack
the practical skills to create, build, and sustain an information-rich business (AT21CS,
2013).
Fullan’s third requirement for whole-system reform is resolute leadership that
stays focused on the main thing (Fullan, 2010). Fullan recognized that it is difficult for
school leaders to stay focused on learning when they are buffeted by external and internal
forces and maintained that it is necessary for leaders to stay focused and cause others in
the system to be resolute. Fullan explained that leadership is critical when new ideas
encounter resistance, and that it is important to sustain successful efforts to keep the
organization moving forward. He elaborated on this idea through seven lessons. Lesson 1
is that the organization must focus on enduring purpose and action and not lurch from fad
to fad. Lesson 2 encompasses the reality that resolute leaders must build a guiding core
group who meet often to discuss purpose, progress, and corrective action. Lesson 3
describes the importance of building a positive working relationship with teachers’
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 66

unions. Lesson 4 addresses the importance of improving instructional practice. Lesson 5
is to maintain focus and attend to any distracters quickly and effectively so the focus on
instruction and learning can be protected. Lesson 6 is to keep the momentum going by
building on success. Lesson 7 is to ensure that everyone is personally involved and
committed to improvement.
Fullan (2010) argued that his fourth “big idea” of collective capacity is often
overlooked and underappreciated. Whole-system reform cannot occur without the
powerful effect of collective capacity. Fullan explained that this is distinct from
individual capacity, which is also important but not sufficient for reform. He called
collective capacity a “breakthrough” concept that enables members of an organization to
get more and deeper things done in shorter amounts of time. There are two reasons for
this: (a) Knowledge about effective practice becomes widely available and accessible on
a daily basis, and (b) work done together creates commitment. Fullan noted that
collective cultures are not tolerant of persistently ineffective members. This comports
with the finding by Bryk and Schneider (2003) that social trust is essential for school
improvement.
Bryk and Schneider (2003) defined relational trust as the interpersonal social
exchanges that take place in a school community. These include principal to teacher,
principal to parent, teacher to teacher, teacher to student, and teacher to parent. Relational
trust requires that each person in a relationship understand and adhere to his or her roles
and obligations and hold others to the same. Relational trust is comprised of respect,
competence in core role responsibilities, personal regard for others, and personal
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 67

integrity. A strong feeling of relational trust in a school community results in a better
education for students because collective decision making with teacher involvement is a
crucial ingredient for reform (Bryk & Schneider, 2003). It also results in the diffusion of
reform efforts across the school because trust within the school community produces less
sense of risk with the change process. As Fullan (2010) noted, school improvement
involves a moral imperative; relational trust supports the moral imperative to take on the
hard work of improving schools (Bryk & Schneider, 2003).
Fullan (2010) stressed the importance of combining collective and individual
strategies for improvement by noting that the only way to effect whole-system reform is
to change the culture and working conditions of the school. This is reinforced by
Leithwood’s (2007) study on teachers’ working conditions. Leithwood explained that the
working conditions that teachers care about are strongly related to school improvement.
These include opportunities to build collective efficacy to positively impact students, in
addition to effective leaders, capable and collaborative colleagues, and sufficient
resources. Fullan (2010) argued that individual capacity has a limited impact on the
educational system unless it is combined with others into a culture of collective capacity.
Fullan’s (2010) fifth requirement for whole-system reform is to implement
strategies with precision. Fullan explained that precise strategies are needed to
personalize student and professional learning to ensure high levels of student learning.
Fullan (2012) defined personalization as identifying the learning needs of each child as
the child develops. He defined precision matching as the right instructional response to
the need in a way that engages the student in the learning so the student can move
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 68

forward. This comports with Leadbeater (2002), who stated that personalization puts the
learner at the center. Fullan (2012) argued that personalized instruction must be done by
every teacher, which requires professional development individually and collectively as
teams, within the school, and across schools.
Instructional precision can be accomplished by using data from various
assessments (Fullan, 2012). Stiggins (2004) asserted that the most powerful form of
assessment is day-to-day classroom assessment and lamented the negative impact of
high-stakes testing. He noted that the average teacher spends up to one third of his or her
professional time doing assessment-related activities. Teachers must know and
understand the principles of sound assessment, which require targeted professional
development so teachers can assess students appropriately and modify instruction to
respond to their needs. Stiggins (2004) argued that a balance of formative classroom
assessments, along with standardized testing, is needed. Popham (2011) has long
advocated for a “formative-assessment process” to produce increases in student learning.
Popham noted that the speed of student learning can double when formative assessment
is well implemented by teachers as they collect evidence on student performance and use
it to make adjustments to instruction. A review by Black and William (1998) found that
formative assessments resulted in among the largest gains ever reported for educational
interventions.
Fullan (2012) described the personalization needed in teacher professional
development. He noted that this must occur from the classroom outward; it must be
embedded in teachers’ daily work and be school based to ensure significant student
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 69

learning. Elmore (2004) also advocated for continuous and sustained learning for teachers
at work. He found it problematic that teachers do not have the opportunity to learn about
their practice at work, where they can benefit from the assistance and support of other
teachers and trusted colleagues.
Fullan (2010) described his sixth “big idea” for whole-system reform as
intelligent accountability. He defined intelligent accountability as a set of policies and
practices that build strong individual and collective capacity that results in shared
responsibility for outcomes. Miller and Rowan (2006) described collective leadership as a
shift away from conventional, hierarchical patterns of bureaucratic control toward a
network pattern of control that actively involves employees in making organizational
decisions. Yet, school leaders and their collective sense of efficacy have a significant
impact on school conditions and learning (Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson,
2010). Louis, Leithwood, et al. (2010) also found that (a) principals were more confident
in their leadership when they believed that they were working collaboratively toward
clear, common goals with district personnel, other principals, and teachers in their
schools; (b) district size was a significant moderator of district effects on school leader
efficacy in that larger districts had less influence than smaller districts; and (c) school
level was a significant moderator of district effects on school leader efficacy and districts
had larger effects on elementary school leaders than on secondary school leaders.
Louis, Dretzke, and Wahlstrom (2010) elaborated on the implications of effective
leadership behaviors that support student learning. They asserted that both teachers and
administrators should acknowledge and act on the increased importance of collective and
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 70

shared work around instruction. They maintained that it is important to provide
significant additional support for secondary school leaders to establish the kind of
instructional leadership that is ‘‘workable’’ in their larger and more complex settings.
They also maintained that school leader preparation and professional development
programs should continue to emphasize both the “softer” (emotional) and “harder”
(behavioral) aspects of leadership. In addition, while they acknowledged an increased
emphasis on the responsibility of principals for student test scores, they insisted that the
principal’s primary focus in the school must be on instructional and shared leadership.
Fullan’s (2010, p. 21) last “big idea” related to whole-system reform is the
premise that system reform cannot be accomplished through piecemeal efforts, an idea
that he called “all means all.” Fullan identified nine elements that are essential for
successful reform: (a) a small number of ambitious goals, (b) a guiding coalition at the
top, (c) high standards and expectations, (d) collective capacity building with a focus on
instruction, (e) individual capacity building with a focus on instruction, (f) mobilizing the
data as a strategy for improvement, (g) intervention in a non-punitive manner, (h) being
vigilant about “distracters,” and (i) being transparent, relentless, and increasingly
challenging. All of these elements must be addressed simultaneously when implementing
whole-system reform. Fullan (2010) explained that, to accomplish this, a large number of
persons who are individually and collectively committed to getting results must be
mobilized and engaged. Further, they must be effective at getting the results that society
values. Fullan asserted that this approach works because it is focused, is relentless,
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 71

operates as a multidimensional partnership, and uses the collective energy of the group.
Whole-system reform work only if everyone works together (Fullan, 2010).
In summation, the research on educational improvement has clearly mapped
specific strategies that are necessary to improve teaching, learning, and the education
system as a whole. These measures rarely work in isolation; instead, it is necessary to
address the entire educational system. Some school and districts in the United States are
using these strategies successfully. However, because an education system is complex, it
is necessary to create the right combination of leadership, support, and training for
specific situations. Sufficient funding is required used to implement effective practices.
Visionary and supportive leadership, a coherent approach toward system improvement,
sufficient funding, and political and public support are essential to enabling a school
system to focus on instruction and learning.
Chapter Summary
The literature review in this chapter examined the economic impact of education
on the individual and society; the centrality of human capital in education reform efforts;
education accountability, including education reform efforts in the United States,
education reform efforts in Oregon, and the intent and role of the OEIB in reforming the
education system in Oregon; and the research that identifies the elements and strategies
necessary to produce educational improvements for students. The purpose of this study
was to examine how a school district in Oregon reacted to the loose-tight coupling
effected through state Achievement Compacts as a possible model for future
implementation in other states. Specifically, one K-12 school district in Oregon was
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 72

chosen to participate in this study to obtain information on the way they created and
implemented their Achievement Compacts. The strategies to improve student
performance described by Bryk et al. (2010) and by Odden (2011b), as well as the
necessary elements of systemwide change described by Fullan (2010), were used in this
study because they comprise effective practices shown to change school culture, create
enduring change, and increase student achievement.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 73

Chapter 3
Methods
The purpose of this study was to examine how one suburban school district in
Oregon responded and reacted to the loose-tight coupling effected through Achievement
Compacts and to determine whether this model can be used in other states to improve
student achievement. As the pressure and expectations increase for school systems to
produce college- and career-ready students who can compete in the global economy and
assure the public of a return on its investment, it is beneficial for districts to narrow their
search for, and implementation of, the best practices that improve student achievement to
those embedded in a successful model. Bryk et al. (2010) identified five essential
organizational elements necessary to produce significant outcomes in student
performance; these were used to examine which strategies the school district used to meet
the goals of the loose-tight coupling instituted by Achievement Compacts:
1. Instructional guidance: the intellectual coherence, pace, depth, and coverage in
student learning activities where critical thinking is emphasized in each subject;
2. Student-centered learning climate, consisting of a safe environment,
seriousness of purpose, and respectful, caring student-teacher relationships;
3. Professional capacity of the teachers and staff to dedicate themselves to any
needed changes in the school and culture;
4. Parent-community ties, reflecting active involvement by teachers and the
community, elicited by the school to effect school improvement; and
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 74

5. Leadership as the driver for change: The school principal must be a trusted,
well-respected, and effective leader (built on relational trust) who orchestrates the
material and organizational resources of change.
Bryk et al. (2010) found that schools that were strong in these elements were at
least 10 times as likely to increase mathematics and reading scores as schools that were
weak in these supports. In addition, all of these elements must be present and interacting
because they facilitate the functioning of the other supports. If even one element is
missing, the impact of the other elements is weakened and impedes the success of any
reform efforts (Bryk et al., 2010).
This study used the form of a qualitative case study. A case study method is the
best way to address the research question, as opposed to experimental design. Its
strengths outweigh its limitations, which is the best reason for choosing a specific design
(Merriam, 2009). The design allows the researcher to obtain information focused on a
complex social unit with multiple important variables (Merriam, 2009). This approach
was appropriate because the study was conducted in a bounded system and produced
valuable context-dependent knowledge. The study investigated which practices one
Oregon school district chose to implement in response to the state-mandated
Achievement Compacts. The methodology was the collection of qualitative data derived
from an interview with the leader in the district hierarchy, as well as documents and data
from the OEIB and the target district website. The resulting data describe the
improvement strategies that were selected to improve the school district system, increase
student achievement, and meet the goals instituted by the OEIB and the State of Oregon.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 75

Research Questions
Five research questions guided the study:
1. Are Achievement Compacts an effective accountability tool to transform the
loosely coupled Oregon education system into a loose-tight system to help school
districts to achieve the 40/40/20 goal?
2. How did one school district create its Achievement Compacts?
3. What goals did one school district delineate in its Achievement Compacts?
4. What changes did this school district implement to meet the goals set in its
Achievement Compacts?
5. What progress has this school district made toward the goals delineated in its
Achievement Compacts?
Purposeful Sample and Population
This study focuses on a large suburban school district in Oregon that is comprised
of 33 traditional elementary schools, 8 traditional middle schools, 5 traditional high
schools, and 24 alternative school options, with programs at each level. It is the third
largest school district in Oregon. The most recent statistics posted on the district’s web
site are from 2010-2011. The district’s enrollment grew 11% in the years 2001-2010 to
an enrollment of 38,571, according to their most recent statistics. During those 10 years,
the proportion of minority students rose from 27% to 46%. The largest minority student
group is Latino/Hispanic, followed by Asian Americans. Approximately 38% of the
students are identified as economically disadvantaged because they qualify for federal
funds that provide free or reduced-price lunch. Twelve percent of Beaverton students are
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 76

identified as special education students and 14% are identified as English Language
Learners. The district’s dropout rate is just under 3%. The 2010-2011district budget was
$502,603,095. Close to 97% of classes are taught by highly qualified teachers as defined
by NCLB.
A typical sampling approach (Merriam, 2009) was used for this study. A typical
school district was chosen as the respondent because it is responsible for implementing
Achievement Compacts at the district level and at the schools, which is not atypical
(Patton, 2002). This district was selected because it includes all school levels and has a
diverse population; therefore, it is information rich, as defined by Patton (2002), and
could provide valuable information about school improvement efforts that can be used by
other school districts in the state and nation. This school district is in the second year of a
multi-year reform process that includes the development and implementation of an
annual district Achievement Compact. The research study focuses on the implementation
of the Achievement Compacts for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The researcher devoted many hours to learning the appropriate instrumentation
development under the tutelage of Jo Smith, Ph.D. In addition, a training session was
provided by Larry Picus, Ph.D. The instruction and training included development of a
research design chart that ensured identification and alignment of research questions, data
needs, data sources, instrumentation, and interview and survey questions. It also included
in-depth learning and application of interview, observation, and survey protocols; data
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 77

collection and coding; and case study preparation. This extensive preparation provided
the following insights.
1. It is important to ground efforts in the research. To conduct a sound qualitative
study, one must be familiar with research and the rationale for undertaking a specific type
of research and use the appropriate tools to collect data. Qualitative research is different
from quantitative research in that qualitative research emphasizes experience,
understanding, and meaning in context. Interviews and observations are appropriate tools
to collect data. Qualitative research is inductive, the researcher is the primary instrument
in data collection and analysis, and the end product is a rich description. Quantitative
research, in contrast, is a deductive, statistical study based on empirical data,
confirmation, and hypothesis testing. It is appropriate to use large, random, representative
samples and scales, surveys, tests, and computers to collect data. The end product is
precise and described in numeric terms (Merriam, 2009).
2. When using interviews for data collection, it is important to ask well-crafted
questions. It is easy to inadvertently craft leading questions. According to Patton (2002),
“why” questions should be avoided because they lead to speculation. Multiple or
compound questions can confuse the respondent and limit the ability to elicit the
information sought. Yes/no questions also limit the respondent and consequently the
meaning behind the response (Merriam, 2009).
3. When using interviews for data collection, it is essential to ensure that
interview questions are centered on the research questions. Otherwise, although
interesting information may be elicited, the information will not be relevant to the study.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 78

It is important to have a few questions drafted for each research question to gather
sufficient data to inform the study. As noted by Bogdan and Biklen (2007), focused
questions are necessary for deep thinking on a specific topic; the more data produced on
the topic, the better the final analysis.
There is no preferred method to collect data for a case study; instead, data can be
gathered from a variety of sources (Merriam, 2009). Multiple sources of information
should be used, such as interviews, observations, reports, recordings, and documents
(Creswell, 2002). Merriam (2009) stated that interviews are the most common method
used to collect data for qualitative studies, which is appropriate because human beings are
receptive to meaning while collecting and analyzing data through the interview process.
Interviews and document reviews were used to collect data for this study. These sources
were appropriate to address the research questions because they provided data from a
variety of resources and used a common method.
Before proceeding with data collection and analysis, the researcher submitted an
application to the Internal Review Board (IRB) to obtain permission to conduct the study.
All information required by the IRB (University of Southern California, 2013), including
descriptive information regarding the research methods utilized in the study, such as data
collection protocols, practices, and codes, were submitted prior to the initiation of the
study. Data collection began only after IRB permission has been secured.
A series of semistructured interview questions was designed to obtain specific
information about background, knowledge, feelings, opinions and values, and
presuppositions from each participant to address the research questions (Merriam, 2009).
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 79

Additional questions were designed to elicit sensory information and responses about
hypothetical situations. These questions were intended to capture the target school
district’s response to the state-mandated requirement for Achievement Compacts.
The researcher contacted three leaders in the selected school district via email
with an introduction, summary of the study, and explanation of why the state and district
were selected, as well as any potential gain they might receive from the experience.
When confirmations were received, appointments to interview each individual were
scheduled. Follow-up phone calls were made as necessary. The selected leaders were the
Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, and Administrator for Instructional
Accountability. The Superintendent was the first individual interviewed; he subsequently
advised his other administrators that the researcher had enough information from his
interview, and they were not interviewed. The school district was asked to provide a copy
of the Achievement Compact, mission and vision statement, and report of funds allocated
by the OEIB, if any, along with their intended use
The following questions were designed to elicit information to address the
research questions:
1. Please tell me about your background and experience in education.
2. Why did the OEIB choose Achievement Compacts as the tool to achieve its
goals?
3. How did you feel about the process used to choose Achievement Compacts?
4. What is your opinion of the efficacy of the Achievement Compacts?
5. What goals did the school district set?
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 80

6. What process did you use to set the goals?
7. How do you feel about the process and outcome of the goal setting?
8. How did principals react to the goal-setting process?
9. What kind of resistance did you face from principals?
10. What strategies did you implement to meet the goals?
11. Why did you choose those strategies?
12. If you were explaining your Achievement Compact to me as a fellow
superintendent (or other position), how would you describe the goals delineated in the
compact?
13. What would I hear superintendents (or other officials) say about Achievement
Compacts in a regular meeting?
14. Do you think that, over time, Achievement Compacts will continue to be used
by the State of Oregon to achieve the OEIB goals?
A document review was chosen to produce information about the OEIB vision
and mission statement, goals, and research base. It also produced information about the
process used by the school district to create their Achievement Compacts, including
research base, personnel integral to the process of creating the Achievement Compacts,
data used to inform goal development, and progress on goals to date. Combining the
information from interviews and document reviews allowed the researcher to formulate
meaning from the findings that emerge (Merriam, 2009).
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 81

Data Analysis
Merriam (2009) and Maxwell (2013) emphasized the importance of analyzing
data during data collection to avoid an overwhelming analysis process and to begin
constructing categories. Analysis is part of design; data analysis decisions should
influence the rest of the study design (Maxwell, 2013).
It is important to sort the large volume of raw data into significant patterns and
construct a framework for explaining what the data reveal (Patton, 2002). The researcher
transcribed the information from interviews within several hours of the interview to
ensure accuracy and to develop notes. The transcripts were be coded. Transcripts were
read closely and open coding was used by developing categories based on the data that
seem important (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Codes were sorted into categories and
subcategories to capture recurring themes (Merriam, 2009). Broad concepts were
narrowed until common themes emerged. The research questions were revisited
continually to ensure that the themes addressed the research questions and informed the
analysis. The software program HyperRESEARCH™ was used to code and sort the data.
The data from the interviews and document reviews were used to assemble a case
study to determine whether the school district strategically implemented one or more of
the five essential elements for school improvement identified by Bryk et al. (2010). The
data analysis was used to determine whether funding received from OEIB and/or
allocated by the district was used to support and improve student achievement through
the implementation of these five elements. The data derived from the study describe how
the district implemented the Achievement Compact mandate and aligned resources to
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 82

meet the 40/20/20 goal set by the OEIB and identified successful strategies intended to
improve student outcomes.
Chapter Summary
This chapter describes the data collection procedures and methodology that were
used to gather and analyze the data. Included in this chapter is information regarding the
sample and population of the study, the research questions and the information that they
were designed to elicit, the purpose of the document review, the data collection process,
and the data analysis process.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 83

Chapter 4
Findings
The findings of the study are presented in this chapter, beginning with an
overview of the characteristics and performance data of the selected school district. The
research questions were used to review the findings from the district as aligned with the
theoretical frameworks provided by (a) Cook and Payne (2002), who argued that the
dominant perspective on evaluation and improvement in education suggests that the
context of each district, school, and classroom is so distinctive that only highly specific
change strategies mapped to site-specific circumstances are likely to modify and improve
their central functions; (b) Bryk et al. (2010), who found that successful change requires
five essential supports of leadership—the drive of change, parent-community-school ties,
professional capacity, student-centered learning climate, and instructional guidance—to
be present simultaneously to produce change over time; (c) Supovitz (2006), who
described the absence of a coherent system within the educational institution as a major
obstacle to providing and maintaining a focus on student achievement; and (d) Fullan
(2010), who argued that education reform efforts will fail unless a whole-system
approach is used.
Analysis of data revealed five findings: (a) the district leadership’s perspective
regarding the efficacy of using Achievement Compacts to transform the loosely coupled
Oregon education system into a loose-tight system to help school districts achieve the
40/40/20 goal, (b) how the school district created its compacts, (c) the goals that this
school district delineated in its Achievement Compacts, (d) the changes that this school
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 84

district implemented to meet the goals set in its compacts, and (e) the progress that this
school made toward the goal in its Achievement Compacts.
The school district is the third-largest in Oregon, comprising 33 traditional
elementary schools, eight traditional middle schools, five traditional high schools, and 24
alternative school options and programs at each level. The most recent statistics posted on
the district’s web site are from 2010-2011. The district’s enrollment grew 11% in the
years 2001 to 2010, to an enrollment of 38,571. During those 10 years the percentage of
minority students rose from 27% to 46%. The largest minority student group is
Latino/Hispanic, followed by Asian Americans. Approximately 38% of the students are
identified as economically disadvantaged because they qualify for federal funds that
provide free or reduced-price lunch. Twelve percent of the district’s students are
identified as requiring special education and 14% are identified as English Language
Learners. The dropout rate is just under 3%. The 2010-2011district budget was
$502,603,095. Close to 97% of classes are taught by highly qualified teachers, as defined
by NCLB.
Achievement Compact Data
The Achievement Compact data from May 15, 2013, included below were
provided by the district superintendent and are posted on the district’s website. The
templates are mandated by the state legislature and were developed by the OEIB as a way
to measure student proficiency in reading and mathematics, student growth, graduation
rates, and college readiness. Specifically, the OEIB developed methodology to establish
achievement targets in the areas of (a) College and Career Readiness Outcomes, as
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 85

measured by a 5-year high school completion rate, cohort graduation rates, 9+ college
credits, and postsecondary enrollment; (b) On Track Outcomes, as measured by third-
grade reading and mathematics proficiency, sixth grade on track (defined by attendance
and a selected academic measure) and ninth grade on track (defined by attendance and
high school credit acquisition); and (c) Priority and Focus Schools, for which a measured
has not yet been developed.
The district followed the OEIB-developed methodology to gather and track the
data required for inclusion in the Achievement Compact templates. It used student data
from 2011-2012 to set a baseline year. Districts had the latitude to include local measures
beyond those mandated by the OEIB. This district did not choose to add local measures
but will consider including them for 2014-2015. The district created a committee to
develop plans for achieving the district’s outcomes, measures of progress, and goals and
targets expressed in an Achievement Compact, including methods of assessing and
reporting progress toward the achievement of goals and targets; they recommended
outcomes, measures of progress, goals and targets to be contained in the district’s
Achievement Compact for the next fiscal year. These recommendations were presented to
the superintendent, who brought them forward to the school board for review and
adoption. The district adopted the following targets and accompanying descriptions of the
data.
College and Career Readiness Targets
The OEIB provides districts with an Achievement Compact Target Calculator to
assist in calculating the College and Career Readiness Targets. Students in Oregon can
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 86

earn a regular diploma, a GED or an extended, modified, or adult education diploma to
complete high school (OEIB, 2013f). The OEIB acknowledged that some students need
additional time to complete high school and included a 5-year completion plan in
addition to the 4-year cohort graduation rate to capture all students’ achievements. The
district’s methodology to determine the district’s trajectory in the category of College and
Career Readiness is to calculate the annual growth for a group to have a 5-year
completion rate of 100% in 2020-2021 and to apply that annual growth factor to all of the
four growth factors: (a) the 4-year cohort high school graduation rate, (b) the 5-year high
school completion rate, (c) the percentage of students who earned nine or more college
credits while in high school, and (d) the number of students enrolled in a postsecondary
program within 16 months of completing high school. The resulting annual growth
targets for the district in this category are 1.7% for all students, 2.9% for disadvantaged
students, 4.4% for Limited English Proficient students, and 2.4% for students with
disabilities. Targets are also set for students in specific racial or ethnic categories as
follows: Black 2.2%, Hispanic 4.9%, Native American 6.0%, Pacific Islander 3.0%,
Asian 0.6%, and Talented and Gifted 0.6%. The targets were set with 2010-2011 data and
are described by the district as follows.
The 4-year cohort graduation rate is defined as the percentage of students who
earn a regular high school diploma within 4 years of first entering ninth grade; it includes
students who transfer into the district after ninth grade and excludes students who transfer
out of the district.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 87

The 5-year completion rate is defined as the percentage of students who earn a
regular diploma, modified diploma, extended diploma, adult high school diploma, or
GED within 5 years of entering high school; it is calculated as the percentage of students
who earned such diploma or certificate within 5 years of entering ninth grade divided by
the size of the cohort.
The 9+ college credits rate is defined as the percentage of students who received
or earned the right to receive 9 or more college credits while enrolled in high school or
earlier. Credits can be earned through any means approved by local school board policy,
including but not limited to Advance Placement (AP exam, International Baccalaureate
(IB) course completion, dual credit course completion, and community college or
university enrollment. It is calculated as the percentage of students who earned at least 9
college credits by the end of their 5th or final year in high school divided by the size of
the cohort. This includes credits that students may have earned before ninth grade and
credits that students may have earned within 5 years of entering high school as a ninth
grader.
The postsecondary enrollment rate is defined as the number of students enrolled
in a postsecondary institution (community college, technical certificate program, or 4-
year institution) within 16 months of high school completion. It is calculated as the
number of completers in a particular cohort that enroll in postsecondary education
divided by the number of completers in that cohort.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 88

Table 1 summarizes the data that the district derived by applying the College and
Career Readiness Targets methodology described above, which is included in its
Achievement Compact.
Table 1

College and Career Readiness Targets (Percentages)

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2013-2014
Target category All Disadv.
a
All Disadv. All Disadv. All Disadv. All Disadv.

4-year cohort
graduation 76.8 65.1 77.5 64.3 78.0 67.0 80.0 68.0 84.0 73.0

5-year com-
pletion 86.3 79.9 87.0 79.0 89.0 84.0 91.0 86.0 95.0 93.0

9+ college
credits 28.0 20.0 29.0 21.0 29.0 22.0 31.0 23.0

Postsecondary
enrollment 72.4 59.1 75.0 63.0 75.0 62.0 76.0 64.0 80.0 69.0

Note. From Beaverton School District Achievement Compact Template, Cover Sheet,
January 2013, Final 5/15/2013, by Beaverton, Oregon, School District, 2013a, retrieved
from https://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/about-us/Achievement%20Compacts/2243
_Compact2013.pdf
a
Disadv. = Students classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged and receiving free or
reduced-price lunch.
The district set targets to track the degree to which “all students are completing
high school and are ready for college and career” (Beaverton School District, 2013a,
para. 1) in the category of College and Career Readiness Targets. The data show that the
percentage of ninth graders who graduate from high school in 4 years is gradually
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 89

increasing over time, from 76.8% in 2007-2008 to 80% in 2010-2011, despite an increase
in the percentage of disadvantaged students. The 5-year completion rate also increased
each year, while the percentage of disadvantaged students increased. Students earning
nine or more college credits concurrent with high school enrollment increased from 28%
in 2007-2008, to 29% in 2010-2011, as the percentage of disadvantaged students
increased. The 2008-2009 cohort of students increased from 72.4% in 2007-2008 to 76%
in 2010-2011. The percentage of disadvantaged students also increased in this category.
Overall, the data show a steady trajectory of improvement and progress toward the target
goal.
Progression Toward College and Career Readiness Targets
The district methodology for setting the trajectory for progression toward the
College and Career Readiness Targets “is to increase the percentage of students meeting
the Achievement Compact measure by an amount equal to a 10% reduction in the
percentage of students not meeting the measure in the prior year” (Beaverton School
District, 2013b, p. 2). That is, after establishing the data from the baseline year, the goal
is to reduce the percentage of students who do not meet the target by 10% each
successive year. The district identified the percentage of students in 2010-2011 who met
the target, established the percentage who were not meeting the goal, took 10% of the
students who were not meeting the goal, and then applied that 10% to identify the target.
The Progression Toward College and Career Readiness Targets is an ambitious goal
because the methodology requires larger annual improvement as the distance of the
baseline from 100% increases.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 90

Achievement Compact Descriptions
Kindergarten readiness participation is not established. The first administration
of the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment was scheduled for the 2013-2014 school year.
When the district created its Achievement Compact, it did not include a measure in this
category. It was decided that, because the district had no experience with Kindergarten
Readiness Assessment, it was difficult to set a participation goal; thus, a decision on the
measure was deferred until experience had been gained and data had been gathered on
which to base the target. The assessment is intended to determine whether
kindergarteners overall are coming to kindergarten ready for school, whether their level
of school readiness improves or declines over time, and whether there are particular areas
of school readiness that Oregon must target.
Third-grade reading proficiency is measured by the percentage of third-grade
students who meet or exceed the Achievement Compact measure in reading, which is
based on individual student performance on the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills reading section. Student proficiency in reading is categorized as exceeds, meets,
nearly meets, low, or very low. The district’s measure includes only students enrolled on
the first school day in May and enrolled in the district for a full academic year.
Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency is measured by the percentage of fifth-grade
students who met or exceeded the Achievement Compact measure in mathematics, which
is based on individual student performance on the Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and
Skills mathematics section. Student proficiency in mathematics is categorized as exceeds,
meets, nearly meets, low, or very low. The district’s measure includes only those students
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 91

enrolled on the first school day in May and enrolled in the district for a full academic
year.
Sixth grade not chronically absent is measured by the percentage of students who
were present at least 90% of enrolled school days while enrolled in sixth grade. The rate
is calculated as the number of students who are not chronically absent in sixth grade
divided by the number of students enrolled in sixth grade. The calculation includes only
those students enrolled (resident) in the district on the first school day in May and
enrolled in the district for a full academic year.
Eighth-grade mathematics proficiency is measured by the percentage of eighth-
grade students who met or exceeded the Achievement Compact measure in mathematics,
which is based on individual student performance on the Oregon Assessment of
Knowledge and Skills mathematics section. The district’s measure includes only those
students enrolled on the first school day in May and enrolled in the district for a full
academic year.
Ninth-grade credits earned is measured by the percentage of students who earned
at least 6 credits on the date that is 12 months past first enrollment in ninth grade. This is
calculated as the number of students who have earned at least 6 credits within 12 months
of first enrollment in ninth grade divided by the fall enrollment of first-time ninth
graders. The district includes only those students who were enrolled in the district for a
full academic year.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 92

Table 2 summarizes the data that the district derived by applying the Progression
Toward College and Career Readiness Targets methodology described above, which is
included in its Achievement Compact.
These data are intended to show the district whether students, beginning in third
grade, are achieving the benchmarks that demonstrate sufficient progress toward college
and career readiness over time. The data show improved progress in each category,
except ninth grade credits earned, which was unchanged. There was an increase in the
percentage of disadvantaged students from 2011 to 2012, except in the category of fifth-
grade reading proficiency, which remained flat, and ninth grade credits earned, which
showed a decrease. This is a positive trend except for ninth grade credits earned, which
seems to show that a lower percentage of disadvantaged student are meeting the ninth-
grade credits target in 2012 than in 2011.
Public Investment in the District
The Quality Education Model (QEM) was developed by the state of Oregon in
1999 to provide a vehicle for the state to allocate resources to schools in an objective
way, based on research connections to student achievement (ODE, 2010). The state
legislature established the QEC in 2001 as a permanent body to update and improve the
QEM. In 2010, the QEC recognized that Oregon schools were not adequately resourced
according to the QEM and suggested two avenues for implementing the model: (a) invest
in high-leverage strategies including job-embedded professional development for
teachers, strong district frameworks, and articulation and alignment of content,
coursework, and assessments throughout the grades, targeted interventions for at-risk
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 93

Table 2

Progression Toward College and Career Readiness Targets (Percentages)

4-year goal
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2016-2017
Target category All Disadv.
a
All Disadv. All Disadv. All Disadv. All Disadv.

Kindergarten
readiness par-
ticipation 95.0 95.0 NA NA

Third-grade
reading
proficiency 72.4 58.5 79.0 66.0 75.0 63.0 95.0 95.0 0.0 0.0

Fifth-grade
mathematics
proficiency 73.2 58.9 74.6 58.9 84.0 73.0 88.0 80.0

Sixth grade
not chronic-
ally absent 89.1 85.0 89.0 85.0 89.0 85.0 92.0 88.0 94.0 91.0

Eighth-grade
mathematics
proficiency 76.7 60.5 78.5 63.6 83.0 71.0 87.0 79.0

Ninth grade
credits earned 80.0 68.0 80.0 66.0 84.0 72.0 88.0 80.0

Ninth grade
not chronic-
ally absent 80.6 70.9 73.0 75.0 86.0 80.0 90.0 85.0

Note. From Beaverton School District Achievement Compact Template, Cover Sheet,
January 2013, Final 5/15/2013, by Beaverton, Oregon, School District, 2013, retrieved
from https://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/about-us/Achievement%20Compacts/2243
_Compact2013.pdf
a
Disadv. = Students classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged and receiving free or
reduced-price lunch.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 94

students, and effective methods to ensure high academic achievement in the early grades
and sustain them as they reach middle and high school; or (b) a 10-year phase-in of the
QEM (ODE, 2010).
In 2011, the Oregon state legislature enacted SB909, which enshrined into law the
first option suggested by the QEC. SB909 mandated the creation of a longitudinal data
system to track important data on student progress and returns on statewide investments
from preschool through college and into careers. The OEIB developed the Achievement
Compact template to track the data to guide investment decisions and spotlight programs
that are working or failing. The OEIB vision is that, as this system is integrated into
school systems, it will change the existing paradigm and enable teachers to shape their
practice and will enable students and families to take charge of their education. The
longitudinal data system is intended to complement state efforts to expand on the
successful local model of professional learning communities and increase support for
collaboration among educational entities and their educators (OEIB, 2011).
The OEIB’s stated intent is that districts align their resources to support the goals
incorporated in their Achievement Compacts. A district’s revenue must be reported in the
Achievement Compact to show the public investment in the district (except capital
investments). It is expected that linking school improvement to the public’s investment of
resources will add a layer of accountability for public schools and make them more
responsive to their local communities. The selected district’s actual resources for the
2010-2011 fiscal year, the 2011-2012 fiscal year (the year that the Achievement Compact
was created), and the 2012-2013 fiscal year are displayed in Table 3 in the following four
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 95

Table 3

Public Investment in the District

2013-2014 Quality
Education Model
calculation of
Category 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 district share

Formula Revenue $274,769,232 $281,726,140 $306,639,617 $375,451,419
Local Revenue not
passed through formula $20,157,709 $27,830,560 $27,672,332
Federal Revenue $26,463,475 $34,065,924 $33,043,073
State Grants not passed
through formula $662,201 $989,984 $353,000

Note. From Beaverton School District Achievement Compact Template, Cover Sheet,
January 2013, Final 5/15/2013, by Beaverton, Oregon, School District, 2013, retrieved
from https://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/about-us/Achievement%20Compacts/2243
_Compact2013.pdf.
categories: (a) Formula Revenue, which includes both state funding and local property
taxes; (b) Local Revenue not passed through the state funding formula, including private
donations; (c) Federal Revenue; and (d) State Grants not passed through the formula.
The data show that, although the district has received increased funding through
the formula revenue from 2011-2012 to 2013-2014, the 2013-2014 revenue falls
$68,811,802 short of the QEM calculation of the district’s share. This reflects the reality
that, although Oregon has made education one of its top priorities, the investment of
public dollars has not reached the level established by the QEC. This also underscores the
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 96

OEIB’s emphasis on efficient use and alignment of resources to support best practices
that produce strong student learning outcomes.
Findings by Research Question
Five research questions guided this study. This section is organized to report and
discuss findings by research question.
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked, Are Achievement Compacts an effective accounta-
bility tool to transform the loosely coupled Oregon education system into a loose-tight
system to help school districts to achieve the 40/40/20 goal? The necessity for a whole-
system approach toward education reform in Oregon is the major theme that emerged
from the research. Supovitz (2006) noted that the absence of a coherent system within the
education institution is a major obstacle to providing and maintaining a focus on student
achievement. He explained that education reform theories indicate that it is necessary to
have coherence across all of the various elements of the system, including high academic
standards; alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment; accountability systems;
and teacher certification and professional development. Odden and Picus (2011) argued
that school performance can improve so long as districts redirect spending, develop a
powerful vision, reallocate resources to meet the vision, and restructure compensation.
Cook and Payne (2002) maintained that only highly specific change strategies mapped to
the circumstances at each individual site are likely to improve functions, while Bryk et al.
(2010) listed five essential supports that must be present simultaneously to effect change.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 97

Fullan (2010) asserted that educational improvement efforts will fail unless a whole-
system approach is used.
The OEIB developed Achievement Compacts to be established by each school
district and educational institution to improve teaching and learning, promote student
success, and achieve the state’s new goals for high school and college completion and
career readiness for all Oregon students (Nesbitt, 2012). In his guidance to school
districts, Nesbitt (2012), the manager of the Oregon Education Investment Project for the
OEIB, stated the Achievement Compacts are intended to focus funding and strategies on
the achievement of statewide education goals at both the state and local levels and
include common outcome measures. Explicit achievement and outcome data that show
progress needed must be included in the Achievement Compact templates.
According to the superintendent of the selected school district, Oregon is
restructuring the education system in Oregon. He was part of a group called The Vision
and Policy Task Force, “a group of superintendents in the state that have been lobbying
for certain legislation and organization to occur” (personal interview with the
superintendent). The Task Force was formed to advocate for a seamless pre-K through
higher education system and to create a high-quality accountability system instead of one
that simply tracked progress and achievement. They wanted to avoid establishing the
equivalent of a statewide NCLB program.
The superintendent reported that the state has been somewhat successful in
establishing a seamless model. The OEIB went through a thorough process of collecting
input and perspectives from communities all over Oregon and then choosing the high-
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 98

leverage points in a child’s educational career. The superintendent said that the intent of
the process was sound but that it was watered down because so much input was collected
that it was difficult for the OEIB to narrow the scope and make decisions regarding what
should and should not be measured. He noted that, because of the “almighty
accountability movement,” Oregon will struggle to determine what should be measured
because different constituents want different things to be measured, which leads to
everything being measured, regardless of its relative importance.
Creating a coherent education system is complex, difficult work. It is necessary to
have the right combination of leadership, support, and training. Based on the interview
and a review of the information from various documents posted on the OEIB, ODE, and
Governor’s websites, it appears that, while the State of Oregon is committed to instituting
a coherent system for pre-K through higher education, the OEIB Achievement Compacts
are primarily focused on accountability at this point. The OEIB has created a structure
that aligns the education program, which is one piece of whole-system reform. According
to Cook and Payne (2002), Bryk et al. (2010), and Supovitz (2006), several elements are
necessary to form a coherent, effective system. Fullan (2010) argued that system reform
cannot be accomplished through piecemeal efforts and specified nine elements that must
be implemented simultaneously for reform to be successful. Oregon appears to have met
several of these criteria, including a small number of ambitious goals, a guiding coalition
at the top, high standards and expectations, mobilizing data as a strategy for
improvement, and being transparent, relentless, and increasingly challenging. The criteria
that the state does not appear to have met include collective capacity building with a
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 99

focus on instruction, individual capacity building with a focus on instruction, intervention
in a nonpunitive manner, and being vigilant about “distracters.” It appears that the focus
remains on accountability as the leverage for improvement, which includes addition of a
new grading and reporting policy, along with a new teacher evaluation system that
includes the use of student performance data as an evaluation measure.
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked, How did the school district create its compact? The
use of Achievement Compacts as a tool to institute long-term systemwide change
emerged as a secondary theme and the use of data to leverage whole-system change
emerged as a supporting theme. Supovitz (2006) asserted that district leaders do not have
sufficient incentive to implement systemwide instructional change because it requires that
district leaders develop a system to manage and support the variety and complexity of
instructional practices. Berends et al. (2002) argued that schools need persistent, long-
term support to effect deep, sustained reform. Blankenstein and Noguera (2004)
identified the use of data to guide decision making and continuous improvement as an
essential component of high-performing schools. Odden and Picus (2011) noted that
districts that improve student performance use a set of effective practices, including data-
based decision making and setting high and ambitious goals.
The superintendent of the target district explained that the district had established
an Achievement Compact Advisory Committee to create its Compact. The members were
identified collaboratively and appointed by the school board based on the
superintendent’s recommendation. The committee was composed of three district
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 100

administrators—the Administrator for Accountability, the Executive Administrator for
Title K–8 Programs, and the Chief Financial Officer—as well as three principals, three
teachers, the education association vice president, the bilingual facilitator, and a school
counselor. Their charge was to (a) develop plans for achieving the district’s outcomes,
measures of progress, goals, and targets expressed in an Achievement Compact,
including methods of assessing and reporting progress toward the achievement of goals
and targets; and (b) recommend outcomes, measures, or progress toward goals and targets
to be contained in the district’s Achievement Compact for the next fiscal year.
The superintendent noted that Compacts demand very specific data and require
districts to set a trajectory for improvement.
Our district is very focused on growth and we looked at our growth indicators,
which we set as a district. Our board has gone through that work. And we looked
at where we currently are in all of the indicators described in the Compact or
asked by the state, and then we basically created a slope.
He noted that Achievement Compacts are better than the tools that were used in the past,
although the mandatory school report card for all schools in Oregon is accepted by the
public. The superintendent commented that the community is rather confused by having
two reporting tools: the Achievement Compacts and the school report cards. He was not
sure that the community understands the Achievement Compacts and their utility and
therefore was uncertain whether they would emerge as a significant way to engage the
community to support the change effort. He stated, “I feel as though we still have to
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 101

duplicate some processes and we can’t rely on the Compact to tell the true story of the
district.”
According to Nesbitt (2012), Achievement Compacts are “forward-looking
documents designed to set targets for defined outcome measures that are indicative of
student success. As such, the compacts are intended to connect a district’s plan for
student achievement to the allocation of resources needed to accomplish its plan” (p. 2).
The intent is to link budget resources to student achievement outcomes. Nesbitt stated,
“Districts are expected to collaborate with stakeholders to adopt transformational
practices, policies, and budgets that will help students achieve the educational outcomes
valued by Oregonians” (p. 5).
The State of Oregon and the selected district have high expectations for student
achievement and are using Achievement Compacts as a tool to hold schools accountable
for student success by establishing a trajectory of increasing benchmarks over several
years. The Achievement Compacts can provide the external accountability needed to help
move an educational system forward. However, if the leaders in the school system do not
have the capacity to lead change or build capacity in the system, the Compacts will not be
effective, no matter what types of data they measure and track. It is unwise to assume that
a district can simply replace leaders and educators and thereby acquire individuals with
more capacity. Fullan (2010) argued that whole-system reform cannot occur without
collective capacity, as well as individual capacity. Collective capacity enables an
organization to get more and deeper things done in less time because knowledge about
effective practice becomes available and accessible on a daily basis and work done
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 102

together creates commitment. It appears that the OEIB expects districts to leverage
Achievement Compacts and the data therein to implement “transformational practices,
policies, and budgets” (OEIB, 2013a), yet if the institution does not have the capacity or
does not know how to build capacity, the Achievement Compacts will be of limited
utility.
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked, What goals did the district delineate in its compact?
As noted above, the use of data to build Achievement Compacts to leverage whole-
system change emerged as a theme. Nesbitt (2012) recommended that districts set the
40/40/20 College and Career Readiness goal by determining the annual growth rate
necessary to reach a 100% high school completion rate over 5 years, in addition to the
traditional 4 years, mapping back from ninth graders who enter high school in 2016-
2017. This gives districts both a 4-year and a 5-year benchmark for high school
completion and allows flexibility for circumstances that cause a student to need an
additional year to complete high school.
The OEIB (2011) also recommended the Progress Toward College and Career
Readiness target be met by setting the target for a 10% decrease in students who are not
proficient. The OEIB (2011) described these model growth targets as those that require
greater gains for districts that have a lower starting percentage. The goal is to reduce the
percentage of students who do not meet the target by 10% each successive year and close
the achievement gaps within the subgroup targets, which the OEIB stated was a realistic
target for higher achieving districts. For example, a district with a 70% nonproficient rate
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 103

at the beginning of a school year must raise student achievement by 7% by the end of a
school year, while a district starting the school year with a 40% nonproficient rate must
raise student achievement by only 4% by the end of the school year. Both districts would
use the end-of-year nonproficiency rate as the beginning nonproficiency rate at the start
of the following school year and would need to raise student achievement by 10% of that
rate. This example provides clarification to the OEIB’s recommendation above, wherein
it was noted that the growth targets were realistic for higher achieving districts. This
phrasing, in conjunction with the example provided, shows that lower-performing
districts are under greater pressure to improve student achievement at a more rapid rate,
thereby closing the achievement gap.
The target district set growth targets in each of the College and Career areas
required in the template: (a) the 4-year cohort graduation rate, (b) the 5-year completion
rate, (c) the percentage of students earning 9+ college credits, and (d) the number of
students enrolled in postsecondary institutions within 16 months of leaving high school.
The district set the trajectory for these measures by calculating the annual growth for a
group to have a 5-year completion rate of 100% in 2020-2021 and applying that annual
growth factor to all four measures. The resulting growth targets for the district in this
category are 1.7% annually for all students, 2.9% for disadvantaged students, 4.4% for
Limited English Proficient students, and 2.4% for students with disabilities. Targets are
also set for students in specific racial or ethnic categories as follows: Black 2.2%,
Hispanic 4.9%, Native American 6%, Pacific Islander 3%, Asian 0.6%, and Gifted and
Talented 0.6%. This information is posted on the district’s website.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 104

The district also set growth targets in each of the Progress Toward College and
Career Readiness areas required in the template: (a) the percentage of third graders
proficient in reading, (b) the percentage of fifth graders proficient in mathematics, (c) the
percentage of sixth graders who had a 90% attendance rate, (d) the percentage of eighth
graders proficient in mathematics, (e) the percentage of ninth graders who earned at least
6 credits within 12 months of first enrollment, and (f) the percentage of ninth graders who
had a 90% attendance rate. The district set the trajectory for these measures by
establishing the percentage of students meeting the Achievement Compact measure by an
amount equal to a 10% reduction in the percentage of students not meeting the measure
in the prior year. In effect, this requires a 10% reduction in the percentage of students
who do not meet the target each successive year. This information is posted on the district
website.
Although the district set specific benchmarks for achievement, Berends et al.
(2002) argued that schools need persistent, long-term support to effect deep, sustained
reforms. They found that significant resource outlay was an important component of
improved district support of schools. The five essential elements necessary to produce
significant outcomes in student performance identified by Bryk et al. (2010) are not based
solely on data but comprise the human capital and instructional coherence required for
successful reform efforts. Ensuring that these elements are present requires an investment
of resources. Grubb (2009) stated that money alone cannot close the achievement gap
because there is no precise cause or solution for the achievement gap. Instead, the
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 105

solution requires abstract resources comprised of vision, cooperation, persistence, and
trust.
The ambitious goals and reform efforts under way in Oregon have not been
matched with a corresponding long-term revenue streams. The OEIB (2013f) stated that
the state has a moral obligation to prepare students to be college and career ready, while
acknowledging that K–12 education continues to receive a smaller portion of the state
budget and admitting that districts will not be able to make the improvements necessary
to meet the 40/40/20 goal without adequate funding. Their strategy seems to rely on the
efficient use of resources by aligning budgets to achieve the targets established in the
Achievement Compacts, rather than further investment of resources.
Oregon’s approach toward education reform appears to conform only partially to
Fullan’s (2010) definition of intelligent accountability as a set of policies and practices
that build strong individual and collective capacity that results in shared responsibility of
for outcomes. The OEIB has established a sense of shared responsibility for the entire
education system, pre-K through higher education, and has devoted considerable energy
to articulating the need for an aligned, accountable system to achieve the 40/40/20 goal.
However, the focus on policies and practices that build individual and collective capacity
has been left to the educational institutions. In some ways, this is sensible because the
professional educators and expertise are located in the institutions. However, the OEIB
could further empower educational institutions by advocating for and expecting students
to acquire the key skills that are necessary for college and career success, including the
Habits of Mind identified by Costa and Kallick and the “four C’s”: critical thinking,
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 106

collaboration, creativity, and communication. The OEIB should also focus efforts on
Grubb’s (2009) abstract resources of vision, cooperation, persistence, and trust to ensure
that the hierarchical approach to accountability results in true educational reform.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 asked, What changes did this school district implement to
meet the goals set in its compacts? The related theme that emerged from the study
findings was the importance of specific research-validated strategies to improve student
outcomes. Cook and Payne (2002), Bryk et al. (2010), Supovitz (2006), and Fullan
(2010) all described the importance of a distinct, comprehensive, and coherent approach
toward school improvement. Although the Achievement Compacts are being used by the
Oregon to leverage system change, it appears that Compacts may have varying degrees of
impact on different educational institutions, depending on their existing structure,
practices, and capacity.
According to the superintendent who was interviewed for this study and a review
of the district website and documents, the school district had specific strategies and
initiatives in place and did not need to make changes to meet the goals set in its compact.
The superintendent noted that the district started in a good place because they had already
set high goals for their schools. He reported that he had met with the state’s Chief
Education Officer and had told him that, although he recognized that the Achievement
Compacts were an important strategy for many districts across the state, utilizing them
was not important for his particular district because they would be “doing this work
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 107

whether the State asks us to do it or not.” The superintendent concluded that his district
was “on the track we want to be.”
The district adopted a 5-year strategic plan for 2010 to 2015. It focuses on
individual student growth and achievement and incorporates six areas of focus:
technology; high-quality, empowered staff; responsible and sustainable stewardship of
resources; individual student growth; volunteerism and engagement service learning; and
equity in student outcomes. The district’s core strategies are as follows: (a) develop a
customized learning plan for every student that is relevant, current, and challenging;
(b) hire, develop, and retain qualified, committed, and diverse staff throughout the
district; (c) strengthen student learning experiences through teacher collaboration, student
proficiency, differentiation, and common assessment; (d) employ technology to support
innovation and excellence; (e) directly connect parents and the community to student
learning and students to community life; (f) ensure a safe and caring learning
environment for students and staff; and (g) regularly review and improve the strategic
plan and the implementation details that support it.
It appears that the district mission, vision, and strategies substantially comport
with the best practices describe by Cook and Payne (2002), Bryk et al. (2010), and Fullan
(2010). A deep examination of the documents on the district website show that the
district has a rigorous, coherent, and comprehensive approach toward school
improvement. The district has built a “full option graduate profile” with the knowledge,
skills, and behavior that it expects all high school graduates to attain. The profile includes
contextual skills and awareness. Every student is expected to acquire a level of
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 108

proficiency within this profile so that any student can enroll and succeed in credit-
bearing, 1st-year courses at a postsecondary institution (such as a 2-year or 4 -year
college, trade school, or technical school) without the need for remediation. These
knowledge, skills, and behaviors are identified in the areas of contextual skills and
awareness, academic behaviors, key content, and key cognitive strategies.
Based on the data from the interview, website, and documents, it appears that this
district is a high-functioning and high-performing district as described in the theoretical
framework and literature review. It appears to have a progressive culture focused on
student needs and it implements the key strategies needed to increase student
achievement.
Research Question 5
Research Question 5 asked, What progress has this school district made on the
goals set in its compacts? The theme regarding the importance of specific research-
validated strategies to improve student outcomes emerged from the data in this area as
well. Research by Cook and Payne (2002), Bryk et al. (2010, Supovitz (2006), and Fullan
(2010) emphasized the importance of a systemwide approach that incorporates the
essential organizational elements and characteristics needed for successful school reform.
The data from the interview and an examination of the target district’s website and
documents show that the district has made steady incremental progress on its goals. The
progress would likely have been made with or without implementation of the
Achievement Compact, which the superintendent considers to be a duplicative process
for his district. It appears that the educational philosophy and practices embraced by this
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 109

district are embedded in the culture and reflect implementation of many of the elements
of high-performance schools delineated in the literature review.
Chapter Summary
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze district-level data related to
the implementation of the state Achievement Compact as a tool to require and help
schools districts to achieve the 40/40/20 goal set for all students in Oregon. The
theoretical framework was centered on research by Cook and Payne (2002), Bryk et al.
(2010), Supovitz (2006), and Fullan (2010) that describes the essential elements
necessary for an education system to produce a high-quality education for all students.
Four themes emerged from the findings: (a) the necessity for a whole-system approach
toward education reform in Oregon, (b) the use of Achievement Compacts as a tool to
institute long-term systemwide change, (c) the use of data to leverage whole-system
change, and (d) the importance of specific research-validated strategies to improve
student outcomes. The selected district has not been significantly impacted by the
implementation of Achievement Compacts. It was using a focused, collaborative
approach to improve student learning and used data to inform instruction prior to the
genesis of Achievement Compacts. However, the Achievement Compacts may become a
useful tool to engage the community in discussion, understanding, and support of the
educational goals set by the district in the future. The state has not invested or
restructured its funding system, so many school districts may struggle to build the
capacity and institutional knowledge needed to systematically improve school outcomes
for students.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 110

Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
This chapter provides a discussion of the findings reported in Chapter 4 and is
organized into four sections: an overview of the study, a discussion of the findings as
they relate to the literature review, conclusions, and the implications for school reform
efforts.
Overview of the Study
This study used a purposeful sample of one large school district in Oregon. The
district has a student population that is diverse socioeconomically, racially, and
ethnically; it consists of 33 traditional elementary schools, eight traditional middle
schools, five traditional high schools, and 24 alternative program options. This district is
viewed as a successful and progressive district that enjoys support from the community
and local businesses.
As the pressure and expectations increase for school systems to produce college-
and career-ready students who can compete in the global economy and assure the public
of a return on its investment, it is beneficial for districts to narrow their search for, and
implementation of, the best practices that improve student achievement. Oregon instituted
the use of Achievement Compacts to ensure that all educational institutions, pre-K
through higher education, are accountable for the public investment of resources and
produce the student achievement outcomes that result from the use of best practices.
The purpose of this study was to collect and analyze interview and document
review data to examine how one school district in Oregon responded and reacted to the
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 111

loose-tight coupling affected through Achievement Compacts to determine whether this
model can be used in other states to improve student achievement. Research by Bryk et
al. (2010), Cook and Payne (2002), Supovitz (2006), and Fullan (2010) was used to
examine the impact of Achievement Compacts in one district in Oregon and to determine
whether the shift from a loosely coupled system to a loose-tight system resulted in
implementation of best practices to meet the ambitious 40/40/20 goal set by the state. The
findings of the study revealed several themes that are discussed in the next section.
Discussion of Findings Relative to the Literature Review
The research questions for this study were as follows:
1. Are Achievement Compacts an effective accountability tool to transform the
loosely coupled Oregon education system into a loose-tight system to help school
districts to achieve the 40/40/20 goal?
2. How did one school district create its Achievement Compacts?
3. What goals did one school district delineate in its Achievement Compacts?
4. What changes did this school district implement to meet the goals set in its
Achievement Compacts?
5. What progress has this school district made toward the goals delineated in its
Achievement Compacts?
The American education system has been under constant pressure to reform for
many years. There is growing concern that American students are not prepared to
compete in the global economy and will not reach the equivalent standard of living as
their parents’ generation. America’s potential lack of competitiveness, in conjunction
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 112

with underperforming students who are underprepared for colleges and careers,
converged to provide Oregon with the opportunity to dramatically reform its public
education system from a loosely coupled system to a loose-tight system. The Legislature,
Governor, and the OEIB worked together to create and impose an accountability system
to ensure that students meet the following ambitious goal:
Oregon intends to develop one of the best-educated citizenries in the world. We
have established in law the goal that by 2025, 100% of Oregonians will have
earned and education degree or certificate that represents attainment of a high
quality education. By 2025, the state will achieve the following (known as the
“40/40/20” Goal) for Oregonians: 40 percent of Oregonians will have earned a
bachelor’s degree or higher; 40 percent will have earned an associate’s degree or
postsecondary credential as their highest level of educational attainment; and 20
percent will have earned at least the equivalent of a high school diploma as their
highest level of educational attainment. (OEIB, 2013b, para. 2)
The literature review revealed the need for specific practices to be present for
school reform to be successful at raising student achievement. A review of the district-
level implementation of the strategies and practices from the literature review led to the
conclusion that the district has a strong degree of implementation. The district is
cognizant of best practices and uses them at the district level to move all schools forward,
as evidenced by the document review and interview with the superintendent. The district
recognizes that leadership is essential for student success. It provides strong instructional
guidance to its schools, emphasizes a student-centered learning climate, and recognizes
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 113

the importance of professional capacity of teachers and staff. It also has strong parent-
community ties. The district data show a steady upward trajectory in student
achievement.
Four themes emerged from the findings: (a) the need for a whole-system approach
toward education reform in Oregon, (b) the use of Achievement Compacts as a tool to
institute long-term systemwide change, (c) the use of data to leverage whole-system
change, and (d) the importance of specific research-validated strategies to improve
student outcomes.
Whole-System Approach Toward Education Reform
The first major theme that developed from this study was the need for a whole-
system approach toward education reform in Oregon, as posited by Cook and Payne
(2002), Bryk et al. (2010), Supovitz (2006), and Fullan (2010). Data from the interview,
pertinent websites, and document reviews indicate that the state of Oregon recognizes
that the alignment of the education system from pre-K through higher education is
necessary to give students the skills, knowledge, and behaviors needed to compete in
society and the global economy.
The OEIB’s stated mission and intention in the development of Achievement
Compacts was to create an accountability system so each school district and educational
institution would improve teaching and learning, promote student success, and achieve
the state’s new goals for high school and college completion and career readiness for all
Oregon students. This was substantiated by the superintendent, who explained that he
was part of a group called the Vision and Policy Task Force, “a group of superintendents
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 114

in the state that have been lobbying for certain legislation and organization to occur” that
formed to advocate for a seamless pre-K through higher education system and to create a
high-quality accountability system instead of one that simply tracked progress and
achievement.
Oregon’s recognition of the need for whole-system reform is further substantiated
by diligent and thorough efforts by the OEIB to collect input and perspectives from
stakeholders all over Oregon to explain the mission and enlist their help in identifying
high-leverage points in a child’s educational career. The manager of the OEIB sent a
formal communication to all superintendents, board members, K–12 school districts, and
education service districts that stated that “districts are expected to collaborate with
stakeholders to adopt transformational practices, policies, and budgets that will help
students achieve the educational outcomes valued by Oregonians” (as cited in Nesbitt,
2012, p. 5). Consistent with this evidence, Governor John Kitzhaber has made education
reform one of his top priorities. This is reflected by the State of Oregon, Office of the
Governor (2013,), where the Governor has posted the following message regarding
education as one of his four priorities:
This year’s incoming kindergarteners are the Class of 2025--the year by which
Oregon has set the ambitious goal of ensuring a 100 percent graduation rate. To
get there, the Governor is working hard to make sure students across Oregon have
the help and resources to succeed in school from day one.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 115

Objective 1: Streamline our fragmented early childhood services and invest in
Oregon kids from an early age so they are set up to succeed before they enter
kindergarten.
Objective 2: Build a coordinated approach to budgeting and school curricula
across the full education spectrum--no longer separating early childhood
development from K–12 from post-secondary education and training.
Objective 3: Invest in successful programs and practices being used in our top 5
percent “model schools” and replicate them across the state.
Objective 4: Replace the one-size-fits-all mandates of No Child Left Behind with
of our own home-grown system of accountability and support - one that helps
students, teachers, and schools set and reach ambitious but achievable goals. (The
Goal: 100% Graduation by 2025 section, paras. 1-5)
Achievement Compacts as a Tool to Institute Long-Term Systemwide Change
The use of Achievement Compacts as a tool to institute long-term systemwide
change emerged as a significant theme. Supovitz (2006) asserted that district leaders do
not have sufficient incentives to implement systemwide instructional change because it
requires that district leaders develop a system to manage and support the variety and
complexity of instructional practices. Berends et al. (2002) argued that schools need
persistent, long-term support to effect deep, sustained reform. Blankenstein and Noguera
(2004) identified the use of data to guide decision making and continuous improvement
as an essential component of high-performing schools. Odden and Picus (2011) noted
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 116

that districts that improve student performance use a set of effective practices, including
data-based decision making and setting high and ambitious goals.
The data from the interview with the superintendent, pertinent websites, and
document review show that the requirement to create Achievement Compacts required
each educational organization to create a transparent, collaborative approach toward
examining data and setting goals. This occurred in the selected district. The
superintendent explained that a committee, comprised of various stakeholders in the
district, worked together to draft a plan with recommendations for achieving the district’s
outcomes, measures of progress, goals, and targets expressed in an Achievement
Compact. This plan was presented to him and was ultimately approved by the school
board. Consistent with this, in his direction to educational leaders, Nesbitt (2012) noted
that “districts are expected to collaborate with stakeholders to adopt transformational
practices, policies, and budgets that will help students achieve the educational outcomes
valued by Oregonians” (p. 5). This expectation is substantiated by the OEIB (State of
Oregon, Office of the Governor, 2013). As chair of the OEIB, Governor Kitzhaber
expects that Achievement Compacts will impose a structure to leverage change. The web
site states the following:
The Oregon Education Investment Board will enter into achievement compacts
with every K–12 school district, education service district, community college,
the university system and individual university, and Oregon Health Sciences
University. These two-way partnership agreements challenge educators across
Oregon to set targets on key student outcomes and encourage broad collaboration
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 117

to adopt transformational practices, policies and budgets to help students achieve
the educational outcomes valued by Oregonians. (para. 1)
Use of Data to Leverage Whole-System Change
The use of data to leverage whole-system change emerged as a theme. Odden and
Picus (2011, pp. 44-45), Blankenstein and Noguera (2004), Duke (2006), and Fullan
(2012) emphasized the need to use data as part of whole-system change. Data from the
interview, pertinent websites, and document reviews indicate that the State of Oregon and
the selected district recognize that the precise use of data is essential to their reform
efforts. The OEIB has established a sense of shared responsibility for the entire education
system, pre-K through higher education, and has devoted considerable energy to
articulating the need for an aligned, accountable system to achieve the 40/40/20 goal. The
OEIB has established specific targets and an expected trajectory of improvement over
time. The selected school district built those targets into its Achievement Compact. The
superintendent agrees that the data required in the Achievement Compacts are relevant
but asserted that his district was already using data to inform their ongoing improvement
efforts. He was not certain whether his community would find Achievement Compact
data relevant because they are accustomed to reviewing the data provided in the annual
school report cards. However, Achievement Compacts are an efficient tool for the state
because they enable the OEIB to gather comparable data to gauge how well individual
schools and districts are performing, which informs their budgeting decisions.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 118

Research-Validated Strategies
The theme regarding the importance of specific research-validated strategies to
improve student outcomes also emerged from the data. Cook and Payne (2002), Bryk et
al. (2010), Supovitz (2006), and Fullan (2010) described the importance of a distinct,
comprehensive, and coherent approach toward school improvement. Based on an
examination of the data from the interview, websites, and document review, this district
appears to be a high-functioning and high-performing district as described in the
theoretical framework and literature review. It appears to have a progressive culture
focused on student needs and it implements the key strategies needed to increase student
achievement. The data elicited from the superintendent, websites, and document review
substantiate the district’s emphasis on coherent instructional guidance, a student-centered
learning climate, the professional capacity of teachers and staff, parent-community ties,
and effective leadership. At the state level, this is substantiated by the OEIB Strategic
Plan Summary (State of Oregon, 2013b), which outlines the major objectives for the next
biennium:
1. Complete the design and implement the P-20 structure.
2. Design and implement high-impact, cost-effective initiatives that improve
achievement of all students.
3. Assess, write, and respond to policies needed to accomplish student
achievement initiatives and to create the “tight/loose” direction of Oregon Learns.
4. Create an outcome-based budget, aligned to initiatives.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 119

5. Work to build an informed, motivated, and engaged public. (State of Oregon,
2013b, p. 6)
These objectives are supported by descriptive initiatives and outcomes that reflect
the elements of successful whole-system reform emphasized in the literature review.
Limitations
The following limitations were present in the study:
1. The study was focused on one school district in one state; therefore, the
findings may not be generalizable to other states and school districts.
2. The method of data collection was based on interviews, the review of websites,
and document reviews; therefore, the findings may be subjective.
3. The district leadership of one school district was interviewed; therefore, the
findings may not represent all school districts in Oregon,
4. The study was focused on the process used to achieve the 40/40/20 goals set
by the State of Oregon. The multi-year effort is in its second year; therefore, the degree of
success of the state initiative will not be known for several years.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study supplements the body of research regarding powerful strategies
essential to effect whole-system change and provide a high-quality education for all
students. The focus was on the use of Achievement Compacts as a tool to transform the
loosely coupled Oregon education system into a loose-tight system to achieve the
40/40/20 goal set by the state as compared to the strategies emphasized by Cook and
Payne (2002), Supovitz (2006), Bryk et al. (2010), and Fullan (2010). This study
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 120

examined one school district as it followed the requirements built into the mandate to
improve student achievement established by the State of Oregon. The following
recommendation for future research are made based on the findings from this study:
1. It would be useful to study other school districts in Oregon that are successful
at increasing student achievement to determine what strategies are most powerful and
how those strategies are being implemented.
2. It would be valuable to examine each school in the selected district to
determine the level of student achievement over time and to determine whether each
school is implementing powerful strategies with fidelity.
3. I t would be beneficial to identify and study a state that has implemented
whole-system change successfully and to describe the process that it used to incorporate
all of the essential elements described in the literature.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was (a) to ascertain whether the use of Achievement
Compacts enables an education system to incorporate the essential elements of whole-
system change in a manner that results in a high-quality education for all students, and
(b) to examine the research regarding research-validated practices to increase student
achievement. Many studies have detailed the impact of education levels on the economy
of the United States and other countries. In general, these studies have found that a
person with a higher level of education attains a higher standard of living and that,
overall, countries whose populations have a higher level of education tend to attain higher
standards of living (Hanushek & Woessman, 2011). The American education system has
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 121

been under pressure to reform and to provide students with a high-quality education so
they have the knowledge, skills, and behaviors to be successful in college and careers, as
well as to compete in the global economy. Although there is widespread agreement that
the U.S. education system should be improved, there has been disagreement regarding the
best ways to improve schools and student achievement.
The United States has responded to this pressure by instituting several reform
efforts, most recently NCLB. This has forced many states and education systems to adopt
reforms to meet goals for the first time. Although many states have improved their
education systems, NCLB has not resulted in student acquisition of the high levels of
critical thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration skills necessary to be
successful in the 21st century. This has caused many states to move beyond NCLB ,
examine their education systems, and look for ways to improve their schools by using a
whole-system approach that ensures that their students will obtain the skills necessary for
college and careers. Oregon is one such state.
Oregon has moved aggressively to improve its education system. The legislature,
concerned that Oregon’s students were underperforming and jeopardizing their futures,
and thereby the future of the state, confronted the problem of a fragmented education
system by passing legislation that established high goals for students: by 2025, 40% of
students would earn a bachelor’s degree, 40% would earn an Associate degree or
postsecondary credential, and 20% would earn a high school diploma. The state then
embarked on an ambitious effort to align the entire public education system, pre-K
through higher education, and Achievement Compacts were an integral part of this effort.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 122

Based on the findings of this study, the researcher recommends that school
leaders begin improvement efforts by becoming familiar with the best practices for
improving student outcomes validated by Cook and Payne (2002), Supovitz (2006), Bryk
et al. (2010), Odden and Picus (2011), and Fullan (2010, 2012). A review of the target
school district ascertained that it was implementing some or all of the practices
emphasized in that research. It is almost impossible to implement school improvement
strategies without sufficient individual and organizational capacity. Therefore, the
researcher recommends that a school or district first gauge its level of capacity and begin
to build capacity strategically throughout the organization. It is important that the leaders
of the organization, at all levels, be familiar with the research addressing effective,
whole-system change. Specifically, leaders should embed the following practices
identified by Odden and Picus (2011) to improve student performance:
1. Use data-based decision-making. This typically incorporates state assessment,
benchmark data, and formative assessment.
2. Set very high and ambitious goals, regardless of demographics. Examples
include doubling student performance on state tests, doubling the percentage of students
who score at advanced levels on state assessments, and closing the achievement gap by
50%.
3. Adopt new curriculum and textbook materials, while developing a schoolwide
vision of effective practices used by all teachers.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 123

4. Invest in professional development. This consists of collaborative time for
teachers, use of instructional coaches, summer institutes, and funding for trainers and
staff development.
5. Change the work life of teachers. This includes teachers in collaborative
groups such as course, subject, and grade-level teams, and requiring that they use student
data to modify instruction as appropriate.
6. Provide extensive help strategies for struggling students, such as academically
focused extended-day programs, summer school, interventions, and 1:1 teacher tutoring.
7. Attend to teacher and administrator talent. This includes building capacity in
teachers who can work as team leaders, instructional coaches, and curriculum
coordinators. It also includes placing effective teachers at high-need schools.
8. Use best practices built on sound research to accomplish clearly identified
goals.
This study validated the conclusion that it is critical for whole-system reform to
incorporate the essential elements validated by research. It is important for a state
education system to align its efforts, identify goals, and provide the resources needed to
fulfill the goals. Only then can all students attain the skills, knowledge, and behaviors to
compete in the global economy.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 124

References
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2008). Dropouts, diplomas, and dollars. Washington,
DC: Author.
America Achieves. (2013). Middle class or middle of the pack? Retrieved from http://
www.AmericaAchieves.org/docs/OECD/Middle-Class-or-Middle-of-Pack.pdf
Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. (2013). Our purpose, team, timeline,
and innovations. Retrieved from http://atc21s.org/index.php/about/purpose
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems
come out on top. London, UK: McKinsey & Co.
Barrett, C., Ravitch, D., Weingarten, R., & Brill, S. (2011). Education reform and U.S.
competitiveness. Retrieved from http://cfr.org/education/education-reform-us-
competitiveness/p25816
Beaverton (OR) School District. (2013a). Beaverton School District Achievement
Compact Template, Cover Sheet, January 2013, Final 5/15/2013. Retrieved from
https://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/about-us/Achievement%20Compacts/2243
_Compact2013.pdf
Beaverton (OR) School District. (2013b). 2013-14 Achievement Compact
recommendations: A preliminary report to the Beaverton School Board. Retrieved
from https://www.beaverton.k12.or.us/about-us/Achievement%20Compacts/
ci_ACACPreliminaryReport1314.pdf#search=2013-
14%20achievement%20compact%20recommendations%20-
%20ci_ACAPreliminaryReport1314.pdf
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 125

Berends, M., Bodilly, S., & Kirby, S. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole school
reform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Betts, J. (1996). Is there a link between school inputs and earnings: Fresh scrutiny of an
old literature. In G. Burtless (Ed.), Does money matter? (pp. 141-91).
Washington, DC: Brookings Press.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7-73.
Blankenstein, A., & Noguera, P. (2004). Reclaiming the promise of public education.
School Administrator, 61(5), 31-34.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform.
Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40-45.
Bryk, A., Sebring, P., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. (2010). Organizing
schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Card, D., & Krueger, A. (1996). Labor market effects of school quality: Theory and
evidence. In G. Burtless (Ed.), Does money matter? (pp. 97-140). Washington,
DC: Brookings Press.
Carnevale, A. (2001). Investing in human capital. The School Administrator, 58(3), 32-
35.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 126

Cavanaugh, S. (2004, January 21). Barriers to college: Lack of preparation vs. financial
need. Education Week, 23(19), 1.
Chapman, C., Laird, J., Ifill, N., & Kewal-Ramani, A. (2011). Trends in high school
dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972-2009 (NCES 2012-006).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Cohen, D. (1982). Policy and organization: The impact of state and federal policy on
local school governance. Harvard Educational Review, 52, 474-499.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2013). In the states. Retrieved from http://
www.corestandards.org/in-the-states
Cook, M., & Payne, T. (2002). Objecting to the objections to using random assignment in
educational research. In R. Mosteller & R. Boruch (Eds.), Evidence matters (pp.
150-178). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cuban, L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and
supporting effective teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity
Policy in Education.
Dee, T., & Jacobs, B. (2010). Evaluating NCLB. Education Next, 10(3), 54-61.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 127

Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Meany, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
Duke, D. (2006). What we know and don’t know about improving low-performing
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 728-734.
Ruppert, S.S. (2003). Closing the college participation gap: A national summary.
Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/47/84/4784.pdf
Elmore, R. (1993). The role of local school districts in instructional improvement. In S.
Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 96-124). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
FairTest. (n.d.). About FairTest. Retrieved from http://www.fairtest.org/about
Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Fullan, M. (2012). Breakthrough: Deepening pedagogical improvement. In M. Mincu
(Ed.), Personalisation of education in contexts: Policy critique and theories of
personal improvement (pp. 19-26). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Grubb, W. (2009). Correcting the money myth: Rethinking school resources. Phi Delta
Kappan, 91, 51-55.
Grubb, W., & Tredway, L. (2010). Leading from the inside out: Expanded roles for
teachers in equitable schools. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 128

Guisbond, L., Neill, M., & Schaeffer, B. (2012). NCLB’s lost decade for educational
progress: What can we learn from this failure? Retrieved from http://fairtest.org/
NCLB-lost-decade-report-home
Hanushek, E. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance.
Educational Researcher, 18, 45-62.
Hanushek, E., & Woessmann, L. (2008). The role of cognitive skills in economic
development. Journal of Economic Literature, 46, 607-668.
Hanushek, E., & Woessmann, L. (2011). The economics of international differences in
educational achievement. In E. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.),
Handbook of economics education (pp. 89-200). Amsterdam, North Holland:
Elsevier.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London, UK: Routledge.
Hess, F. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Ingersoll, R. (1996). Teachers’ decision-making power and school conflict. Sociology in
Education, 69, 159-176.
Julian, T. (2012). Work-life earnings by field of degree and occupation for people with a
bachelor's degree: 2011. Retrieved from www.censusu.gov/prod/2012pubs/
acsbr11-04.pdf
Kitzhaber, J. A. (2011). Oregon learns: Oregon’s education agenda and the Oregon
Education Investment Board. Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/files/
live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1112REDESIGNCANNON.PDF
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 129

Leadbeater, C. (2002). Learning about personalisation. London, UK: Department of
Education and Skills, Innovation Unit.
Leithwood, K. (2007). Teacher working conditions that matter: A synthesis of evidence.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Elementary Teacher Federation of Ontario.
Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5,000 schools: A practical and positive approach to
leading change at every level. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Levin, H. (2008). Making cuts wisely can make your district stronger. Retrieved from
http://www.schoolwisepress.com/seminar/teleconf_past.html
Levin, H., Belfield, C., Muennig, P., & Rouse, C. (2007), The costs and benefits of an
excellent education for all of America’s children (Vol. 9). New York, NY:
Columbia University, Teachers College.
Louis, K., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student
achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 21, 315-336.
Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Learning from
leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Education.
Louis, K., Thomas, E., Gordon, M., & Febey, K. (2008). State leadership for school
improvement: An analysis of three states. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44, 562-592.
Marzano, R., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right
balance. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 130

Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
McKinsey & Co. (2009). The economic impact of the achievement gap in America’s
schools. Washington, DC: Author.
McKinsey & Co. (2010). How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting
better. Washington, DC: Author.
Merriam, A. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Miller, B., & Rowan, R. (2006). Effects of organic management on student achievement.
American Educational Research Journal, 43, 219-253.
Mitchell, T. (1973). Motivation and participation: An integration. Academy of
Management Journal, 16, 670-679.
Murnane, R., Willet, J., & Levy, F. (1995). The growing importance of cognitive skills in
wage determination. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, 251-266.
National Assessment of Education Progress. (2013). Long-term trend assessments.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Trends in high school dropout and
completion rates in the United States: 1972–2009. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 131

Nesbitt, T. (2012, April 5). Guidance for completion of Achievement Compacts for 2012-
13 [Memo from Oregon Education Investment Board to Superintendents and
board members, K-12 school districts and Education Service Districts]. Retrieved
from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/acguidancedoc.pdf
Newmann, F., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. (2001). Instructional program
coherence: What it is and why it should guide a school improvement policy.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 297-321.
Northeastern University Center for Labor Market Studies. (2009). Consequences of
dropping out of high school: Joblessness and jailing for high school dropouts and
the high cost for taxpayers (Executive summary). Center for Labor Market Studies
Publications Paper 38. Boston, MA: Author.
Odden, A. (2011a). Manage “human capital” strategically. Phi Delta Kappan, 92, 8-12.
Odden, A. (2011b). Schools can still improve. Educational Leadership, 69(4), 14-15.
Odden, A., & Picus, L. (2011). Improving teaching and learning when budgets are tight.
Phi Delta Kappan, 93, 42-48.
Oregon Department of Education. (2010). Quality education model: Final report.
Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/superintendent/priorities/revised-final-
quality-education-model-october-2010-.pdf
Oregon Department of Education. (2012a). ESEA flexibility request. Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/initiatives/nclb/docs/oregons_completed_esea_
flexibility_request_abridged.pdf
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 132

Oregon Department of Education. (2012b). Statewide report card: An annual report to
the legislature on the Oregon public schools. Retrieved from http://www
.ode.state.or.us/data/annreportcard/rptcard2012.pdf
Oregon Department of Education. (2013a). Common core state standards for business
and community members. Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/
?id=3387
Oregon Department of Education. (2013b). Superintendent’s update #218. Retrieved
from http://www.ode.state.or.us/pipeline/august-pipeline-07.pdf
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2011). Oregon learns: Executive summary.
Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/
oregonlearnsexecsumwithlink.pdf
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013a). Achievement Compact detailed data
definitions. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/
achievementcompactdatadefinitions.pdf
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013b). Chief education officer deliverables.
Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/
22chiefeducationofficerdeliverablessummary.pdf
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013c). Education funding team: Summary
recommendations to the Governor October 4, 2012. Retrieved from http://www
.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/1a1aEFTfinal.pdf
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 133

Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013d). Oregon Education Investment Board:
Chief Education Officer. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/Pages/oeib/
OregonEducationInvestmentBoard
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013e). Senate Bill 1581: Summary of provisions.
Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/yysb1581summary.pdf
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013f). What is the OEIB’s charge? Retrieved
from http://http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/Pages/oeib/
OregonEducationInvestmentBoard.aspx
Oregon State Legislature. (2011). Senate Bill 909: Establishes Oregon Education
Investment Board for purpose of ensuring that all public school students in
Oregon reach education outcomes established for Oregon. Retrieved from http://
www.leg.state.or.us:8765/query.html?col=3meas11&qt=senate+bill+909&charset
=iso-8859-1
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2013). About us: Our history. Retrieved from http://
www.p21.org/about-us/our-history
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-
run companies. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Pew Stateline. (2013). Can better organization produce more graduates? Retrieved from
http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/can-better-organization-
produce-more-graduates-85899460987
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 134

Pleis, J., Lucas, J., & Ward, B. (2009). Summary health statistics for U.S. adults:
National Health Interview Survey, 2008. Vital Health Statistics, 10, 1-157.
Popham, J. (2011, February 22). Formative assessment: A process, not a test. Education
Week, 30(21), 35. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/
2011/02/23/21popham.h30.htmltkn=RSXFOfuqzOb7hKGCLEhYnPUpaIePTsq2
KR0Z&print=1
Program for International Student Assessment. (2013). Overview. Retrieved from http://
nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/
Public Broadcasting Service. (2001). School: The story of American public education—
Roots in history. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/kcet/publicschool/
roots_in_history/index.html
Ravitch, D. (2009). Time to kill “No Child Left Behind.” Education Week, 28(33), 30-36.
Ravitch, D. (2010, March 9). Why I changed my mind about school reform. Retrieved
from http://wsj.com/articleSB10001424052748704869304575109443305343962
.html
Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kain, J. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417-458.
Ruppert, S.S. (2003). Closing the college participation gap: A national summary.
Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/47/84/4784.pdf
Sagie, A. (1997). Leader direction and employee participation in decision making:
Contradictory or compatible practices? Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 46, 387-416.
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 135

Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1996). Decision type, organizational control, and accept-
ance of change: An integrative approach to participative decision making. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 45, 85-92.
Schmoker, M. (2009). What money can’t buy: Powerful overlooked opportunities for
learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 524-527.
Schwab, K. (2012). The Global Competitiveness Index 2012-13: Country profile
highlights. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/
WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2012-13.pdf
Shannon, G. S. (2009). Nine characteristics of high-performing schools: Resource list.
Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/research/pubdocs/pdf/
9characteristicsRresourcelist.pdf
Spillane, J. (2009). Local theories of teacher change: The pedagogy of district policies
and programs. Teachers College Record, 104, 377-420.
State of Oregon. (2013a). Governor Kitzhaber announces Oregon granted waiver from
No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/media_room/
Pages/press_releases
State of Oregon. (2013b). Oregon Education Investment Board: Strategic plan summary,
final reading. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/
StratPlanFeb.pdf
State of Oregon, Office of the Governor. (2013). Priority: Education. Retrieved from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/priorities/Pages/education.aspx
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 136

Stiggins, R. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappan,
86, 22-27.
Strategic Management of Human Capital. (2009). Taking human capital seriously:
Talented teachers in every classroom, talented principals in every school.
Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=
1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww
.smhc-cpre.org%2Fdownload%2F87%2F&ei=38eiUaHtGM3rigLs04HoCA&usg
=AFQjCNHbMhcXbI3FzE8LsGz5pxi4QcZC-A&sig2=
SMQTVGY7U_PhMMWE6mKgFg&bvm=bv.47008514,d.cGE
Supovitz, J. (2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building and sustaining
school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward reform: A century of public school
reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
University of Southern California. (2013). IRB tracking and review system. Retrieved
from https://istar.usc.edu/iStar/Rooms/DisplayPages/LayoutInitial
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Education pays: Labor force statistics from the
current population survey. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/
demographics.htm#education
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). PL 107-110: The No Child Left Behind Act of
2001. Retrieved from http://www2ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
EFFECTING SYSTEM CHANGE WITH ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 137

Venezia, A., & Kirst, M. W. (2006). The governance divide: The case study for Oregon.
San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved
from http://www.highereducation.org
Vroom, V., & Jago, A. (1995). Situation effects and levels of analysis in the study of
leader participation. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 169-181.
Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Weick, K. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
Weisbrod, B. (1966). Investing in human capital. Journal of Human Resources, 1(1), 5-
21.
White House. (2013). Education: Knowledge and skills for the jobs of the future:
Education for K–12 students. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/
education/k-12

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine how 1 school district in Oregon responded and reacted to the loose-tight coupling effected through state Achievement Compacts as a possible model to improve student achievement in other states. The following research questions were posed: ❧ 1. Are compacts an effective accountability tool to transform the loosely coupled Oregon education system into a loose-tight system to help school districts to achieve the 40/40/20 goal? ❧ 2. How did the target school district create its compacts? ❧ 3. What goals did this school district delineate in its compacts? ❧ 4. What changes did this school district implement to meet the goals set in its compacts? ❧ 5. What progress has this school district made toward the goals in its compacts? ❧ A large school district in Oregon was chosen as the focus of this study to obtain information on how it created and implemented the achievement compacts. A case study approach was used to gain the perspective of the superintendent, along with a review of various documents. The interview questions were semistructured. ❧ Four themes emerged from the findings of this study: (a) the necessity for a whole-system approach toward education reform in Oregon, (b) the use of Achievement Compacts as a tool to institute long-term systemwide change, (c) the use of data to lever-age whole-system change, and (d) the importance of specific research-validated strategies to improve student outcomes. The selected district has not been significantly impacted by the implementation of Achievement Compacts because it was using a focused, collaborative approach to improve student learning and used data to inform instruction prior to the genesis of Achievement Compacts. However, Achievement Compacts may become a useful tool to engage the community in discussion, understanding, and support of the educational goals set by the district in the future. ❧ It is important that the leaders at all levels of an education system be familiar with the research addressing effective, whole-system change, including the necessity of adequate funding and resources focused on building the capacity and institutional knowledge needed to systematically improve school outcomes for students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to special education

PDF

An examination of Oregon's achievement compacts as it relates to disadvantaged students

PDF

An examination of Oregon’s special education accountability, goal setting, and reform

PDF

Oregon education policy implementation: a case study of the achievement compacts information dissemination of the Oregon Education Investment Board

PDF

An examination of Oregon’s implementation of literacy and common core state standards: preparing students to be college and career ready

PDF

Systemic change and the system leader: a case study of superintendent action to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

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

PDF

Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon public high schools

PDF

The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district

PDF

The impact of principal leadership and model schools on state‐wide school reform: case studies of four Oregon elementary model schools

PDF

An urban superintendent's strategies for systemic reform: a case study

PDF

High school reform to improve mathematics achievement

PDF

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

PDF

The teacher evaluation: key components that positively impact teacher effectiveness and student achievement

PDF

The formation and implementation of a regional achievement collaborative

PDF

The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies

PDF

The impact of leadership on student achievement in high poverty schools

PDF

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent

PDF

Superintendent's leverage: a case study of strategies utilized by an urban school district superintendent to improve student achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Smith, Sherine (author)

Core Title School accountability and reform in Oregon: effecting system change with Achievement Compacts

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/06/2014

Defense Date 12/16/2013

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

Tag human capital,OAI-PMH Harvest,school accountability,school reform,student achievement,whole-system change

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Crew, Rudolph (committee member), Seelig, Michael (committee member)

Creator Email qsherine@gmail.com,ssmith@lbusd.org

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-362228

Unique identifier UC11296485

Identifier etd-SmithSheri-2241.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-362228 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SmithSheri-2241.pdf

Dmrecord 362228

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Smith, Sherine

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