University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon public high schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon public high schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon Public High Schools
by
Kimberly Fricker

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

December 17, 2014

Copyright 2014 Kimberly Fricker
ii

DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my husband, Joel and my three wonderful
children, Abigail, Evan and Alyssa. Without the support and encouragement throughout the
three-year process this accomplishment would not be possible. I appreciate your patience, grace
and assistance. I am completely grateful for your love and commitment to my dream and I truly
intend to support all of you in making your dreams come true as well. Thank you for this honor
and I love you all dearly.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is with a deep sentiment of gratitude that I thank Dr. Larry Picus for serving as my
dissertation chair and member of my dissertation committee. I appreciate your level of
commitment to my research, to the University of Southern California and to the greater body of
educational research that will enrich and advance our profession. I would also like to thank Dr.
Crew and Dr. Selig for their commitment and membership on my dissertation committee. I
appreciate and honor your participation in this endeavor.
I would also like to acknowledge the members of my cohort and dissertation thematic
group. I appreciate all of the encouragement, support and assistance that you have provided. It
has been a pleasure getting to know and work with such talented educators.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES viii

ABSTRACT ix

CHAPTER ONE – OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 6
Purpose of the Study 7
Research Questions 8
Importance of the Study 8
Summary of Methodology 9
Limitations 11
Delimitations 11
Assumptions 12
Definition of Terms 12
Dissertations Organization 20

CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW 21
Introduction 21
Federal Government’s Role in Educational Policy and Funding Reform 22
The Sate of Oregon’s Role in Educational Policy and Funding Reform 26
Science, Engineering, Technology & Mathematics (STEM) Focus 37
Resource Allocation 52
Educational Adequacy 64
Summary 72

CHAPTER THREE – METHODS 73
Introduction 73
Research Questions 74
Purposeful Sample and Population 74
Instrumentation and Data Collection 76
Data Analysis 77
Summary 78

CHAPTER FOUR – FINDINGS 78
Introduction 78
Summary of Sample District 79
Summary of Sample School 91
Summary of Sample District and current Regional Achievement Compact 113
Conclusion 115

v

CAHPTER FIVE – DISCUSSION 116
Background 116
Overview of Study 117
Summary of Findings 119
Limitations 120
Delimitations 121
Recommendations for Future Research 121
Conclusion 122

REFERENCES 126

APPENDICES 140

APPENDIX A – STEM OCCUPATIONS & STANDARD OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION 140

APPENDIX B – STEM UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS 141

APPENDIX C – EMAIL INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN STUDY 142
APPENDIX D – LETTER INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN STUDY 143
APPENDIX E – INFORMATION FACT SHEET FOR EXEMPTION NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH 144
APPENDIX F - DOCUMENT REQUEST LIST 146
APPENDIX G – OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL 149
APPENDIX H – CASE STUDY: 4 SEASON DISTRICT 150

APPENDIX I – CASE STUDY: SUMMER HIGH SCHOOL 161

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2:1 - Title Categories Outlined by NCLB 23
Table 2.2 - Legislative School Reform Action Enacted by the Governor and the OEIB 28
Table 2.3 – Data on Oregon’s Graduation Rates compared to the National Rate 30
Table 2.4 - Comparative Analysis of High School Graduation Requirements from 2007-2014 36
Table 2.5 - Oregon & U.S. STEM Occupation Areas & Workforce Percentage- 2011 40
Table 2.6 - Differentiated Workforce Percentages in STEM Occupation Areas for 2011 41
Table 2.7 - STEM Core Competencies and Associated Domains 46
Table 2.8 – Three Main Types of STEM Schools 48
Table 2.9 – U.S. Federal Budget Estimated Outlays by Department and Spending allocation 53
Table 2.10 – STEM Investment Legislative Action Under Consideration 55
Table 2.11 – Bi-Annual School Funding Budgets for 2011-2013 and 2013-2015 58
Table 2.12 – A Review of Four Funding Adequacy Models 66
Table 2.13 - Staffing And Funding Provisions Outlined in the Evidence-Based Model 71
Table 3.1 – District Sample Demographic 75
Table 4.1 – Standards Based Academic Achievement Scale 81
Table 4.2 – Standards Based Academic Behavior Scale 82
Table 4.3 – Summer High School Allocated Instructional Staff 92
Table 4.4 – STEM Core Competencies and Associated Domains 101
Table 4.5 – Tradition Diploma Requirements 104
Table 4.6 – Honors Diploma Requirements 105
Table 4.7 – Modified Diploma Requirements l06
Table 4.8 – Extended Diploma Requirements 108
vii

Table 4.9 – Evidence-Based Model Staffing & Funding Provision Compared to Summer High School 111
Table 5.1 – Sample District and Site Demographics 118
Table H.1 – Standards Based Academic Achievement Scale 152
Table H.2 – Standards Based Academic Behavior Scale 152
Table I.1 – Summer High School Allocated Instructional Staff 162
Table I .2 – STEM Core Competencies and Associated Domains 171
Table I.3 – Tradition Diploma Requirements 174
Table I.4 – Honors Diploma Requirements 175
Table I.5 – Modified Diploma Requirements l76
Table I.6 – Extended Diploma Requirements 178
Table I.7 – Evidence-Based Model Staffing & Funding Provision Compared to Summer High School 181

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 – School Expenditure Structures and Resource Framework Indicators 62
Figure 2.2 – The Evidence-Based Model 69
Figure 4.1 – Population Bread Down by Demographic Category for the 4 Season School District 79
Figure 4.2 – Ethnic Breakdown of Summer High School 91
Figure 4.3 – Mathematic OAKs Assessment Results for Summer High School 93
Figure 4.4 – Science OADs Assessment Results for Summer High School 94
Figure H.1- Population Break Down by Demographic Category for the 4 Season School District 150
Figure I.1 – Ethnic Breakdown of Summer High School 161
Figure I.2 - Mathematic OAKs Assessment Results for Summer High School 163
Figure I.3 – Science OAKs Assessment Results for Summer High School 164

ix

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to analyze district and site data regarding the current
increase in focus in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematic (STEM) programs to
determine how resource are used to achieve the 40-40-20 goal as outlined by Oregon school
reform initiative. The study involved the analysis of one District with a minimum of one
comprehensive high school within the Oregon Public School system. The goal was to determine
the level of STEM focus and integration upon post implementation of the District’s Achievement
Compacts.
A review of the achievement compact was conducted with specific focus on STEM
enhancement and the overall plan to increase student participation and pursuit of STEM related
career fields. The District of focus included a STEM component in their Achievement Compact.
A multi-phasic plan was developed and included; the integration of the Common Core State
Standards, adoption of the Smarter Balanced Assessments and the generation of career pathways.
In addition, the District is currently undertaking a facilities upgrade project that will result in the
building of a STEM center at a local high school. This is a critical component to the STEM
initiative plan, as it will allow the expansion of the current STEM program and provide many
additional opportunities for students to explore new and exciting career fields and academic
challenges in STEM related fields. Furthermore, it will provide a space for professional
development that includes partnerships with local industries, community colleges and
Universities.
Governor Kitzhaber, the Oregon Educational Investment Board and the Educational
Funding Team developed a comprehensive funding plan to support the implementation of
statewide educational reform, through short and long term goals. The current 2013-2015 bi-
x

annual budget; reflects an increased level of state educational funding, despite declines in federal
funding, in order to promote the achievement of the 40-40-20 goal. Funding allocations were
examined through a costing-out system to determine if the current resource allocation was
sufficient to meet the implementation guidelines outlined in the Evidence-Based Model for
educational adequacy.
The analysis of the resource allocation for the District and school site of focus revealed
that while class sizes remained within range of the Evidence-Based Model (EBM), several other
components of the EBM were not inline. Due to the recent recession, many cuts were enacted in
order to keep the District fiscally solvent. Fiscal cutbacks resulted in the shortening of the
school year and staff reductions that consequently caused class sizes to increase. Professional
development opportunities and adequate technology decreased drastically, creating a stagnant
instructional force, incapable of keeping up with 21
st
century learning styles and skill
development. As the focus shifted to education, with the inception of the Oregon Educational
Investment Board (OEIB), so too did the adoption of educational budgets that were reflective of
the financial support needed to meet the intended target goals outlined by the OEIB. Grants
became available and were specifically enacted to support the development of comprehensive
reading programs, as well as establishing partnerships with community colleges and Universities.
As funding sources have increased, the incorporation of technology, professional development
and interventions provided to students has also begun to increase. With the strengthening of the
economy, additional interventions will be developed which will increase the alignment to the
EBM.

CHAPTER ONE – OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
The nation is facing dramatic changes to the field of education with the implementation
of the common core standards. Educational focus has shifted toward the development of 21
st

century skills and producing college and career ready individuals for a vastly changing world of
work. This shift in educational reform is derived from the enactment of the Elementary and
Secondary School Act (ESEA) of 1965 that provided legislation governing equal access to
education for all students. ESEA was reauthorized in 2002 through the enactment of No Child
Left Behind (NCLB), which established a one size fits all accountability system for states and
school districts (US Department of Education, 2001). NCLB regulations mandated that Federal,
state and local educational agencies must provide high quality instruction, to a diverse population
and increase student achievement levels for all students (US Department of Education, 2001).
Oregon has continuously developed and implemented educational reform to ensure that
each student receives a high quality education in order to promote economic stability. The State
of Oregon currently serves 561,328 students in the K-12 public school system and is ranked
number 30 in relation to school system size in the United States (Ed. Source, 2013). There are
197 public school districts which include 1,296 public schools, 102 charter schools and two
specialized special education schools (Ed. Source, 2013). Oregon employs 28,109 full time
equivalent (FTE) teachers, which equates to a student-teacher ratio of 20.3 to 1, a ratio that is
higher than the national average of 16 to 1 (Ed. Source, 2013). The ethnic breakdown of the
student population in Oregon consists of: 68% Caucasian or White, 19% Hispanic, 5% Asian,
3% Black, 2% American Indian and 4% unknown (Proximity One, 2009). Oregon’s minority
enrollment of 33.7% is well below the national average of 42.1% (National Center for
2

Educational Statistics, 2013). Further disaggregation of Oregon’s student population data
reveals 14.2% of the student population receives special education services compared to the
national average of 13%. English Language Learners represent 11% of the student population,
indicating that English is not the primary home language and this population is lower than the
national average of 20% (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013). Oregon’s
socioeconomically disadvantaged student population or students who qualify for free and
reduced-price lunch equals 50.7%, which is higher than the national average of 48%.
Oregon’s educational mission is to provide all students access to rigorous and relevant
curricula, achieve high academic standards for graduation, and obtain the preparation for post-
secondary education and employment opportunities (OEIB, 2012). To achieve that mission,
Oregon is determined to face this changing educational landscape by enacting reform plans to
restructure, redesign, and realign their current educational system.
The reform movement was initiated by Governor John Kitzhaber and enacted by
legislative action that suspends the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) accountability measures. The
NCLB waiver was granted through the enactment of Senate Bills 253, 909, 1581 and House Bill
4165. The passing of this legislation allowed the state of Oregon to establish the Oregon
Education Investment Board (OEIB), improve structured services for K-12 education, provided a
mechanism for strategic investment in education, permitted the implementation of a tailored
accountability system in the form of achievement compacts and increased the authority of the
Chief Educational Officer’s role on the OEIB.
The OEIB’s vision centered on a P-20 educational system, which includes pre-
kindergarten through higher education, and solidified the adoption of the 40-40-20 goal or
mission which stipulates that 100% of Oregon students will graduate from High School ready for
3

post-secondary opportunities by the year 2025 (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013).
This vision signified a dramatic 27.8% increase in five-year completer graduation rates from the
2011-2012 rate of 72.2% (Oregon Department of Education, 2013). The 40-40-20 goal states
that; 40% of all high school graduates will attend a four-year university, 40% of high school
graduates will attend a post-secondary community college or vocational school, and the
remaining 20% of high school graduates will seek employment and work-force training
opportunities directly after high school. In order to achieve this goal, dramatic shifts need to
occur (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013). According to the 2011-2012 U.S. Census
Bureau report regarding the state of Oregon’s educational attainment breakdown of individuals
25 years or older report that: 25% earned a four-year degree, 8% earned a two-year degree, 27%
attended college but did not earn a degree, 25% earned a high school degree or credential but did
not attend any higher education, and 11% of students did not graduate from high school. To
meet the 40-40-20 goal the following increases would need to occur; four-year degrees would
need to increase by 11%, two year degrees would need to increase by 32%, and dropout rates
would need to be reduced by 11%.
Governor Kitzhaber’s enacted the Educational Funding Team (EFT) to restructure the
allocation of funds to support the reform measures needed to bring about such increases in
achievement (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013). The EFT recommended funding
support in the following areas; early learning, elementary and secondary education, post-
secondary education, state infrastructure, and P-20 strategic investments. Governor Kitzhaber,
the EFT and the OEIB have identified and developed the following four focused areas of
strategic investment for the P-20 system:

4

1. Developing Oregon’s early reading initiative
2. Developing a representative corps of professional educators
3. Connecting student to the world of work with particular focus on STEM related fields
4. Guidance programs for post-secondary aspirations
The recommendations outlined by the EFT permitted the adoption of the Common Core
Standards, Smarter Balanced Assessments, and the development of achievement compacts
(Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013). All educational entities including; Universities,
Community Colleges, and School Districts in the state of Oregon are required to complete and
implement achievement compacts or action plans that are aligned to achieve the 40-40-20 goal
and unify a college and career focus for the P-20 system (Oregon Educational Investment Board,
2013). One specific area of focus for the OEIB and EFT centered on increasing student
participation and achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
(Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013).
The national movement on improving STEM education is supported by corporate
organizations, industry sectors, and governmental leaders who are concerned about the current
level of economic success and national security as the United States strives to compete in a
global economy that is information-based, highly technological, and rapidly changing (National
Science Board, 2007). Careers fields and occupations are projected to increase at higher rates
comparative to the overall US labor market in the following areas by the year 2020; 29%
increased in professional scientific and technical services, 47% increase in computer systems and
design, and 58% increase in scientific consulting, engineering, and technical management
(Department for Professional Employees, 2012). STEM jobs require an increased level of
knowledge and skill which is reflected in employee salaries, for example in 2010 STEM
5

employees earned an average of 26% more than non-STEM employees however, only 16% of
US bachelor’s degrees are STEM related (US Department of Labor, 2012).
A paradox has emerged between high levels of unemployment and unfilled STEM related
employment opportunities due to the under-qualification of applicants in the areas of numerate,
scientific and technological literacy (National Research Council, 2011; National Science Board
2007). This trend is now affecting the overall employment market as 80% of employers are
requiring employees at all levels to have a comprehensive knowledge and skills in mathematics,
technology, problem solving, and critical thinking (US Bureau of Statistics, 2012). According to
the US Department of Commerce (2011), this trend is creating significant impact, as
achievement gaps exist in the following student populations; black, Hispanic, low
socioeconomic, students with disabilities and females. Educational realignment is needed to
incorporate employment needs and trends regarding employee requirements in order to
adequately prepare the emerging workforce.
To implement realignment strategies that support the 40-40-20 goal, LEA administrators
need to analyze current resource funding allocations. The LEA’s in the state of Oregon operate
on a biennial budget, which contains all of the estimated expenditures and revenues incurred
over the course of two-year intervals (The State of Oregon, 2013a). Furthermore, the Oregon
Quality Education model (OQEM) or funding adequacy model connects educational resources
with student learning outcomes (Conley & Picus, 2003). The OQEM defines state funding for
the implementation of quality programs by the LEA based on state approved “prototype schools”
which serves as a model to achieve the desired student learning outcomes as measured by state
quality assurance indicators (Conley & Picus, 2003). Educational adequacy funding is the
minimal amount of funding needed to provide adequate educational programs and support to all
6

students in order to achieve the outlined performance standards (Odden & Picus, 2008). A
review of the literature indicates a shift from equal education to adequate education due to the
increase in student achievement expectations and accountability standards however, the exact
amount of funding required varies with opinion and funding model (Chambers & Levin, 2009).
This fundamental shift from equity to adequacy had its inception in 1980 and since that
time, four main adequate funding models have been developed to calculate the amount required
to adequately educate America’s youth. The High Performing or Successful School / District
Model identifies schools and districts that are exhibiting high levels of performance that meet or
exceed the desired benchmark and extrapolate the per-pupil spending amount as the adequate
funding amount. Another approach is the Professional Judgment Model, which implores
esteemed educational professionals to determine the essential components to increasing
achievement levels for all students and the adequate funding is based on those components. The
Cost-Function Analysis Model utilized data and complex statistical analysis to correlate student
achievement to the minimal level of funding needed to meet the desired outcome. Finally, the
Evidence-Based Model (EBM), which assigns value to a tailored instructional program that
includes research-based strategies, support mechanisms and accountability standards to produce
high levels of student achievement (Odden & Picus 2009). The Evidence-Based Model will be
used throughout this study when analyzing the resource distribution and allocation.
Statement of the Problem
The accountability reform movement proposed by the OEIB has redefined the
educational landscape for the State of Oregon and it requires the LEAs to implement
programmatic changes in order to increase student achievement for all of Oregon’s students.
The OEIB identified areas of strategic investment and focus, one of which is to connect students
7

to the world of work by increasing student participation and performance in STEM related
programs and career fields. LEA leaders are faced with the task of determining which services,
programs and mechanisms are effective in increasing student participation and achievement in
STEM related programs, subject areas and career fields. The foundation of such a determination
largely relies on the allocation of resources utilized to support this direction. A study of high
school resource utilization with particular focus on STEM courses and program allocations was
conducted and comparatively evaluated against the Evidence-Based Model. It is important to
understand school site resource utilization in relation to the alignment with the 40-40-20 goal
outlined by the OEIB, which has identified the enhancement of STEM as a significant area of
focus. It is also important to consult the research to identify the best practices related to the
development, implementation and continued progress of STEM programs.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is two-fold: 1) to identify how a School District includes STEM
into the development and implementation of the achievement compact or achievement plan; and
secondly to analyze district and high school site level data regarding the allocation of resources
related to the implementation of STEM subject areas and programs. The Evidence-Based Model
by Odden and Picus (2008) was used to analyze resource allocations for one School District to
determine the alignment of resources to the integration of STEM subject areas and programs.
A School District was selected to participate in this study based on a willingness to
participate, diverse student population and is inclusive of a comprehensive high school located in
a suburban area. The data in this study will determine how the district and sites incorporated the
achievement compact or plan and aligned resources to support the STEM initiative to determine
successful patterns that lead to increasing student outcomes.
8

Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
 What are the current achievement goals outlined in the District Achievement Compact or
Plan as it relates to STEM subject areas at the high school level?
 What resources are allocated to support the District goals related to increasing student
achievement in STEM subject areas and programs?
 How will the District measure progress toward the District goals related to STEM subject
areas and programs?
Importance of the Study
STEM has become a national focus with regard to educational reform. President Obama
has continuously identified the development of STEM programs as a critical educational and
economic need in order for Americans to compete in the global marketplace (The Whitehouse,
2013). Competition in the global marketplace, continued technological ingenuity, and pressing
environmental concerns are dominating forces affecting America’s economic strength and have
become the driving force for educational STEM reform. The world of work that citizens must be
prepared for has drastically changed in terms of the knowledge and skills that are required to
capitalize on post-secondary education and employment opportunities. In fact, according to the
US Bureau of Statistics (2012), 80% of the all jobs will require technical skills by 2020. The
landscape of American education has not kept up with these work force demands. As a result,
colleges and universities in the United States enroll roughly 250,000 international students into
science and engineering programs, which compromise approximately one third of the total
enrollment opportunities (National Research Council, 2011). The lack of U.S. students enrolling
into STEM degree pathways negatively affects the U. S. economy as many of the international
9

students return to their homeland leaving U.S. employers with limited options for employee
selection (National Research Council, 2011). According to Engler, 2012 the U.S. is facing a
national employment crisis with 13 million Americans unemployed while 600,000 STEM related
job opportunities go unfilled.
Oregon has not met the educational demands for the current labor market employing only
5.8% of its citizens in 88 STEM related occupations and maintaining a current unemployment
rate of 8.4% which is slightly higher than the U.S. unemployment rate of 8.2% (Giegerich,
2012; Jackson-Winegardner, 2012). According to Ed. Source (2012), typically citizens of the
current generation receive higher levels of education than elder generations. This is not the case
in Oregon, where adults aged 25 to 34 are less educated than their parents’ generation and almost
one third of student are failing to graduate at the end of four years of high school (Ed. Source
2012). It is critical that educational leaders consult with the current trends related to the world of
work and incorporate programs that are needed to adequately prepare America’s youth to both
meet and exceed the expectations set forth by this changing global employment market.
Furthermore adopting and implement cost effective models such as the Evidence-Based Model
developed by Odden and Picus (2008) aid in structuring the allocation of resources needed to
produce high student achievement outcomes to meet current labor market demands.
Summary of Methodology
This study analyzed how resources are allocated at the district and site level to support
the increase in focus on STEM courses and programs. A School District was purposefully
selected as a focus for this study based on the following criteria; willingness to participate,
access to at least one compulsory high school with a diverse student population, and located in a
large suburban setting.
10

The data collection was derived from a variety of sources. District and site level
reporting of financial data, educational programs and other components of assessment and
accountability was utilized in the course of this study. In addition, both the district and the
school site were asked to provide internal documents and reports generated from the respective
student information systems.
The conducted research consisted of an interview with the Assistant Superintendent
overseeing the Educational Division and implementation of the achievement compact or
achievement plan and an interview with the principal.
District and site internal documents were retrieved in the form of hard-copy or from
websites and analyzed. The district documents included; the district action plan, district budget,
district strategic plan, and district placement criteria. The site documents included; school
budget, master schedule, mission and vision or value statements, and site action plan.
Quantitative data was collected from the interviews and documentation provided. That
data and information was uploaded into an on-line database system. This database utilizes Bit
Locker Full Drive Encryption software system for both desktop and server protection. This
system required both password protection and fingerprint authentication measures to ensure the
security of the information (Bit Locker Drive Encryption, 2013). This data was comparatively
analyzed with the governing practices of the Evidence-Based Model for resource allocation.
Qualitative data was collected and formulated into a narrative or case study that describes
how the district and school site developed the action plan as it applied to the increase in STEM
focus. The district narrative will be used to determine the goals outlined in the accountability
compacts in addition to the resources allocated toward the enhancement of STEM. In addition,
the narrative from the high school site was analyzed to determine similarities, differences and
11

patterns involved with the implementation of STEM programs and resource allocation compared
to the best practices outlined in the Evidence-Based Model.
The researcher completed a training program through the Internal Review Board (IRB)
and submitted the methods outlined in this study for IRB approval prior to implementation
(University of Southern California, 2013).
Limitations
The following limitations are presented in this study:
 The data collection method included structured interviews which may include bias.
 The information gained from the interview portion of the data collection process constituted
a small segment of the educational community and the perceptions, knowledge, and
implementation stages may not reflect other educational organizations.
 The small sample size one District and one high school may limit the generalizability of the
findings to other school settings, student populations, and geographic regions.
 The early implementation stage of STEM school reform may limit the inclusion of
governmental STEM incentives or awards.
 The study relies on the voluntary agreement from school Districts to participate.

Delimitations
The following delimitations are presented in this study:
 The administrative officials interviewed were limited to one district.
 This study district was selected based on the willingness of the District to participate in the
research study.
 The diversity of the targeted population may fluctuate during the course of the study.
12

 This study was conducted in year two of a multi-year process.
 The study focused on the current implementation of STEM programs and the resource
allocation pertaining to the 2012-2013 school year only.
Assumptions
The following assumptions are presented in this study:
 The interview candidates who participated in this study were willing participants and
provided honest responses and feedback.
 The methods used in this study were in accordance with the regulations outlined by the
Internal Review Board (IRB)
 All school documents were complete, accurate and up to date.
 The district achievement compacts or plans were inclusive of a plan to increase student
achievement and focus regarding STEM related subject areas and programs.
Definition of Terms
 21
st
Century Skills: The essential components, knowledge, and skills that students need to
attain in order to successfully navigate a highly complex, technical and competitively drive
global society (Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills, 2011).
 40-40-20 Goal: Is the adequate funding plan developed by the Oregon Educational
Investment Board to support the goal of 100% of Oregonian student graduating by the year
2025 with the stipulation that 40% will go on to achieve a bachelor’s degree or higher, 40%
will earn an associate’s degree or Certification and 20% will at a minimum graduate from
high school and join the world of work (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013).
 Accountability Achievement Compact: A two-way partnership agreement between the OEIB
and each K-12 and service school district, community college, and University within the state
13

of Oregon to unify educational focus, set targets for student achievement and define
accountability for educational funding (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013).
 Achievement Compact Advisory Committee (ACAC): A committee for the compromised of
essential stakeholders to provide the OIEB with feedback based on the implementation
processes emerging themes and outcome measures outlined in the achievement compacts.
Two subcommittees were formed, one representing K-12 and Educational Service Districts
and the other representing community colleges & Universities (Oregon Educational
Investment Board, 2013).
 Achievement Gap: The disparity in achievement or academic performance between groups
of students who have been identified as belonging to a specific ethnicity, race,
socioeconomic status, students with disabilities, English language learners or gender.
(National Education Association, 2011).
 Adequacy: In relation to education, adequacy refers to the minimum amount of education
needed by students to become prepared for higher education and the world of work (West
Ed., 2003).
 Adequacy Funding Model: Is the minimal amount of funding needed to provide adequate
educational programs and support to all students in order to achieve the outlined performance
standards (Odden & Picus, 2009).
 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): The federal government approved 21
programs and $97.4 billion to support and invest in state and local education (U.S.
Department of Education, 2013).
 Average Daily Attendance: The number of student who attend school each day throughout
the year, divided by the number of days of school in a year (Ed. Source, 2013a).
14

 Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR): Tracking students who start high school in
the 9
th
grade, as a freshman cohort, and go on to graduate within a four-year time frame
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012b).
 Categorical Funds: Federal and State financial assistance allocated for specific student
populations and programs (Ed. Source, 2013b).
 Chief Education Officer (CEdO): Was created by Senate Bill 909 and appointed by the
governor of the state of Oregon to lead the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) to
oversee the reformation movement of the Oregon P-20 educational system (Oregon
Education Investment Board, 2013).
 College and Career Readiness: Educating students to a level where they poses the skills
needed to succeed in a post-secondary educational setting, a career setting or in a globally
competitive world (The White House, 2013b).
 Common Core State Standards (CCSS): The set of core curriculum standards developed by
the department of education to help students become college and career ready upon
graduation from high school (Oregon Department of Education, 2013b).
 Costing-out models: The cost or amount of money needed to ensure that all students have
access to all educational services to meet predefined achievement benchmarks (Duncombe &
Lukemeyer, 2002).
 Database Initiative Project (DBI): The established system for both the district and site levels
to report financial data, educational programs and educational practices (Picus, 1999).
 Early Learning Council (ELC): Senate Bill 909 created the Early Learning Council as an
integral part of the educational reform to ensure that all students are prepared and ready to
learn upon enrollment in kindergarten (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013).
15

 Economically Disadvantaged Students: Students who meet the requirements for free or
reduced price lunches according to the National School Lunch Program guidelines (Oregon
Investment Board, 2013).
 Education Service District (ESD): Districts that provide access to resources and professional
development in the areas of student learning, instruction and employee training (Oregon
Investment Board, 2013).
 Educational Entities: Include all educational institutions in Oregon; 197 K-12 Public School
Districts, 19 Educational Service Districts, 17 Community College Districts, The Oregon
University System and the Oregon Health & Science University (Oregon Educational
Investment Board, 2013).
 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA): ESEA was adopted in1965, which
guaranteed that all students had equal access to education while establishing high academic
standards and accountability measures (Whilden, 2010).
 English Language Learners (ELL): Students who’s primary or first language is not English
(U.S. Department of Educational Statistics, 2013).
 Equity: As it related to the field of education implies that students have equal access to all
components of the school and are treated fairly (West Ed., 2000).
 ESEA flexibility Request: Federal applications offered to states to formerly request flexibility
form the accountability measures outlined in No Child Left Behind in exchange for rigorous
and comprehensive state adopted educational plans that produce the following; increase
student achievement levels, reduce the achievement gap, increase equity through
accessibility, and improve instruction (U.S. Department of Education, 2013).
16

 Evidence-Based Model: Is a model that links educational funding with student outcomes by
assigning a cost value to the strategies and programs that are research based and proven to be
effective in increasing levels of student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2009).
 Expenditures: As they relate to education includes all costs associated with running the
educational institution (Odden & Picus, 2009).
 House Bill 4165: 2012 Legislative school reform action with the following sections; 1-20-
developed the Early Learning Council (ELC), 21-28- Developed the Youth Development
Council (YDC), 29-76- Abolished the State Commission on Children and families and
reauthorized essential youth services, 77-82- created the Community-Based Coordinators of
Early Learning Services, 83-104- Removed the statutory requirements for the Local
Commission on Children and Families, 105-112- Abolished the Juvenile Crime Prevention
Advisory Committee and reauthorized services, 113-128- Abolished the Commission for
Childcare and reauthorized services, 129-131- created child-care facilities, 132-138-
Provided fiscal resources and conflict amendments, 139-142- included unit captions and the
required emergency clause (Oregon Legislative Assembly -76th, 2012a)
 Investigation Review Board (IRB): Is designed to screen potential research projects that
require human subject participation in order to protect the rights and safety of human subjects
involved in research projects (University of Southern California, 2013).
 Local Educational Agency (LEA): Is a term to represent the local school district educational
agency or administration (US Department of Education, 2012a).
 NCLB Titles: Are federal programs that are designed to improve academic achievement
accompanied by federal and state funds that are to be utilized to implement designated
programs (US Department of Education, 2001).
17

 No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was
reauthorized into NCLB in 2001 which provided strict accountability standards for schools
and shifted the education focus from equity for all students to academic achievement for all
students with specific interest in minority, English language learners, students with
disabilities and socioeconomically disadvantages student populations (U.S. Department of
Education 2011).
 Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (OAKS): State assessments system for primary
and secondary schools designed to measure academic performance on the following content
standards; Mathematics, Reading/Literature, Science, and Social Science (Oregon
Educational Investment Board, 2013).
 Oregon Educational Funding Team (OEFT): Was established by the governor of Oregon to
provide recommendations in order of priority regarding educational investments that were
consistent with the priorities of the OEIB and CEO (Oregon Department of Education,
2013c).
 Oregon Educational Investment Board (OEIB): Was developed by the Governor of Oregon
and is made up of a thirteen member team designed to oversee the educational reform
movement in Oregon (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2013).
 Oregon Educational Investment Team (OEIT): Was developed by the Governor of Oregon in
2011 with the passing of Senate Bill 909, to activate the governing body and affiliated
stakeholders in the state of Oregon to develop and implement an educational budget based on
a series of recommended educational investments (Oregon Educational Investment Board,
2013).
18

 P-20 System: This is an educational system that begins from the pre-kindergarten age and
continues to include post-high school education (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2013).
 Program Improvement: A designation placed on Title 1 funded schools that fail to reach the
predetermined student achievement levels under the provisions of NCLB and are thereby
obligated to implement federal and state mandates (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).
 Reauthorization Blueprint: President Obamas plan to reauthorize NCLB formerly known as
ESEA which includes: college and career readiness, cultivating great teachers and
administrators, equal opportunity or access, rewards for excellence, increased standards,
promote innovation, and continuous improvement. This reauthorization will also capitalize
on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and mitigate the punitive measures
incurred by NCLB (US Department of Education, 2010).
 STEM: Is a unified focus for 21
st
century education in the areas of Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics (National Science Board, 2007).
 Senate Bill 253: 2010 Legislative school reform action that fostered the 40-40-20 goal
outlining that 100% of student graduation rates by 2025 and that of those graduates 40% will
earn a bachelors degree or higher, 40% will earn an associates degree or certificate and the
remaining 20% will minimally graduate from high school (Oregon Legislative Assembly -
76th, 2011).
 Senate Bill 909: 2011 Legislative school reform action with the following sections; 1- the
Oregon Educational Investment Board (OEIB) to ensure educational outcomes for all
students, 2- appointed a Chief Educational Officer (CEdO) to oversee the OEIB, 3- the
Oregon Education Investment Fund (OEIF) in the state treasury independent of the general
fund, headed by the Oregon Educational Funding Team (OEFT) to oversee educational
19

investments strategies based on a P-20 educational system model, 4- the Early Learning
Council (ELC) to redesign and improve early childhood educational services and outcomes,
5&6- developed an articulated reporting system to the governor and legislature from all
educational committees and agencies detailing progress, needs and results, 7-redeveloped a
unified student database system to ensure accurate student data reporting, 8,9&10- calibrated
with Senate Bill 242 defining the current educational system as a P-20 system designed to
support the 40-40-20 goal, 11- developed record delivery and rollout by the CEdO to the
Chancellor of the University system, Director of the Early Childhood System and the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, 12- detailed the appropriation of funds to support the
OEIB, and finally 13- required emergency clause (Oregon Legislative Assembly -76th,
2011).
 Senate Bill 1581: Legislative school reform action with the following sections; 1-13 defines
the role, authorizes responsibilities of the CEd.O to oversee the design and organization of
the P-20 unified educational system, 14- requires all educational entities to develop annual
achievement compacts with the OEIB beginning with the 2012-2013 school year outlining
the quality education goals and estimated level of funding, 15- waives the requirement to
complete the Division 22 Reports on behalf of Districts, 16 &17- requires K-12 and
Educational Service Districts to develop an achievement compact advisory committee, 18-
provides the opportunity for K-12 and post-secondary leaders and associations to make
recommendations to the OEIB for professional development, successful educational models,
integral programs and strategies, 19-21- defines the OEIB’s authority to enter into
partnerships with achievement compacts and the Quality Education Commission to identify
best practices and links them to funding to determine cost benefit, 22- calibrate with House
20

Bill 4165 outlining the Early Learning Council (ELC) and finally 23- required emergency
clause (Oregon Legislative Assembly – 76th, 2012b).
 Significant Subgroups: The requirements outlined by NCLB, determine which culturally
diverse or disadvantaged subgroups are designated as significant for each school site and
District based on the total student population (U.S. Department of Education 2011).
 Smarter Balance Assessments: Are common core standards based assessments designed by
the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium of more than 30 states (Oregon Department of
Education, 2013d).
 State Educational Agency (SEA): Is a term to represent the state educational agency or
administration (US Department of Education, 2012a).
 Tight Loose Model: It is a model designed by the OEIB for regulating the control and
flexibility outlined in the recent educational reform which details a tight adherence to the
goals set in the reform and a lose structure for the development and implementation of
strategies and programs to achieve those goals (Oregon Educational Investment Board,
2013).
Dissertation Organization
Chapter one outlines the focus, along with the integral components the research study
including the; introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, research questions,
importance of the study, summary of the methodologies used, limitations, delimitations,
assumptions, definition of terms, and the organization of the dissertation.
Chapter two presents the review of the literature as it pertains to the focus and scope of
the purpose in the following areas: Federal Government’s Role in Educational Policy and
Funding Reform, The State of Oregon’s Role in Educational Policy and Funding Reform,
21

Science, Engineering, Technology & Mathematics (STEM), Resource Allocation, and
Educational Adequacy.
Chapter three details the research methodology used and the process with which data was
collected, analyzed, and stored.
Chapter four reports the research findings that were extrapolated from the information
and data provided. It also includes detailed descriptions regarding: site selection, demographics,
data, performance, programs, and defining characteristics or themes related to the STEM
education, resource allocation and educational adequacy.
Chapter five depicts a through summary of the research study in conjunction with
conclusions from the research accompanied by implications for future study.
CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Oregon’s current educational reform measures that are focused on the achievement of the
40-40-20 goal, a goal that supports increasing student achievement through the implementation
of STEM programs. The following is an outline of the major areas of focus:
1. Federal Government’s Role in Educational Policy and Funding Reform – a summary
of three significant events regarding the federal government’s role in funding public
education; Elementary and Secondary Educational Act (ESEA); No Child Left
Behind (NCLB), and President Obama’s reauthorization blueprint for NCLB.
2. The State of Oregon’s Role in Educational Policy and Funding Reform – An
overview of the past, present, and future educational reform movements.
22

3. Science, Engineering, Technology & Mathematics (STEM) – A summary of three
STEM related areas of interest including: 1) Global & Domestic Economic Impact, 2)
Educational Impact, and 3) STEM Best Practices.
4. Resource Allocation – An overview is provided regarding; federal funding trends,
educational funding within the state of Oregon, and school utilization trends.
5. Educational Adequacy - A examination of four funding adequacy models or costing
out models which include the; High-Performing or Successful School/District Model,
Professional Judgment Model, Cost Function Analysis Model, and the Evidence-
Based Model (EBM).
6. Summary
Federal Government’s Role in Educational Policy and Funding Reform
National educational reform has been a driving force for change in educational policy.
The Elementary and Secondary Educational Act (ESEA) of 1965 represented the first funding
vehicle adopted by the U.S. Department of Education to provide funding resources to school
districts with the requirement that all students had equal access to education with high academic
standards and accountability measures (Whilden, 2010). The enactment of No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) represented the 2001 reauthorization of ESEA and included: the consolidation into 10
sections called Titles, the adoption of state standards, and stringent accountability measures
along with penalizing repercussions to ensure that all students were achieving at minimally
proficient levels (Ed. Source 2013d). NCLB outlined an incremental plan to increase student
academic performance until 100% of all students demonstrate proficiency in mathematics and
English Language Arts as determined by state standardized assessments by the year 2014 (U.S.
Department of Education, 2013). NCLB further stipulated that student populations be
23

disaggregated by race, ethnicity, disability, poverty level, and English Language Learners (ELL)
(U.S. Department of Education, 2013). NCLB generated awareness to the historical achievement
gap that existed between significant student subgroup populations. NCLB also aimed to close
that gap through the organization of Titles, which are designated sections that represented a
specific area of need and provided targeted support in the form of program outline and federal
funding measures (U.S. Department of Education, 2013).
Table 2.1 below, identifies the 10 Title categories within the NCLB law, which
emphasize funding needs for socioeconomically challenged students, professional development,
English language learners, 21
st
century learning, safe and drug free environments, assessment,
and impact aid (Ed. Source, 2013d; New American Foundation, 2012).
Table 2:1 Title Categories Outlined by NCLB
Title Categories Outlined by NCLB
Titles Program Requirements 2006 Funding
($ = Millions)
2012 Funding
($ = Millions)
Title 1  Students of poverty, neglected & delinquent
 Comprehensive School Reform & Improvement
 Early Reading, Reading First & Even Start
$12,713
$ 514
$ 1,029
$14,516
$ 534
$ 0
Title 2  Educational Technology
 Mathematic & Science Partnership
 Professional Development for teachers & principals
 Teacher Incentive Fund
$ 272
$ 182
$ 2,887
$ 99
$ 0
$ 150
$ 2,467
$ 299
Title 3  Language instruction for Limited English Proficient
(LEP) and immigrant students
$ 669 $ 732
Title 4  21
st
Century Schools & Community Learning $ 981 $ 1,152
Title 5  Safe & Drug Free school - Innovative programs $ 569 $ 0
Title 6  Improve accountability through the quality, validity and
reliability of state assessments
$ 408 $ 389
Title 7  Support Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native
Education
$ 33 $ 38
Title 8  Impact Aid $ 1,228 $ 1,291
Title 9  General Provisions
Title 10  State Repeals, Resignations & Amendments
Note: Adapted from Federal Education Budget Project: No Child Left Behind Funding (2012).
Copyright 2012 by New American Foundation. Adapted without permission.
24

Table 2.1 above, highlights the programs and corresponding funding that aim to support
disadvantaged and culturally significant student subgroups and initiatives. The requirements
outlined by NCLB determine which culturally diverse or disadvantaged subgroups are
designated as significant for each LEA based on the total student population (US Department of
Education 2011). According to Ed Source (2012e), culturally diverse or disadvantaged subgroup
populations are considered significant if the student population equals 100 students or comprises
a smaller number equaling at least 15% of the total school population.
NCLB shifted the focus of education from equality toward adequacy by establishing a
funding model and defining achievement outcomes (US Department of Education, 2001).
However, many states continued to struggle implementing the one-size fits all-educational
reform required by NCLB despite the level of funding provided (National Education
Association, 2013). NCLB’s rigid prescription and harsh accountability measures created a
negative educational culture as top-down reform measures were exacerbated by inadequate
funding due to budget cuts (National Education Association, 2013). Nationally, only 10.8% of
the elementary and secondary education budgets are comprised of federal funds, in which the
balance falls on local and state agencies to fund the remaining state educational budgets (US
Department of Education, 2013). The examination of domestic educational policy by the council
for foreign relations reveals a correlation between the decline of the Unites States educational
system and the decline of the economy due to lack of educational investment (Council on
Foreign Relations, 2011).
Educational reform has become a top priority according to President Obama who feels
that the key to economic prosperity is through an innovative, creative, and inspired educational
system (The White House, 2013). Diane Ravitch, former assistant secretary of education,
25

contributes the overreliance of NCLB on standardized testing, to drastic decreases in levels of
ingenuity, creativity and overall student interest in school due to the stigmatizing effects of low
student scores or low school performance (Ravitch, 2011). Ravitch goes on to say that drastic
educational reform is needed due to the punitive consequences of NCLB that have resulted in
80% of our nation’s schools being labeled as failing in 2011 (Ravitch, 2011). As a result,
President Obama proposed a blue print plan to reauthorize NCLB, in order to create shared
responsibility between local, state and federal education agencies and promote high-quality
learning environments for America’s youth (National Education Association, 2013).
The reauthorization blueprint proposal includes: rigorous college and career readiness
standards aligned with state assessments, measures to improve teacher and principal
effectiveness, early intervention provisions geared to enhance student learning, and success
incentives to relieve the punitive consequences of NCLB (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
The reauthorization blueprint builds on the foundations of the Titles outlined in ESEA and
NCLB, to protect the educational rights of all students. The national blueprint further aims to
offer additional state grants that are designed to build on the educational framework created by
the one-time American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The state competitive
turnaround grants, 50% of which go directly to districts, are designed to implement school
reform measures and interventions that are in accordance with a scaled-up plan for increased
achievement, inclusive of research-based strategies, and aligned to performance targets with
rigorous evaluation (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
One main subsection of the reauthorization blueprint, associated with potential grant
funding, firmly supports the educational necessity of Investing in Innovation (i3), which utilizes
a three-tiered evidence framework to link funding with strong, evidence-based strategies and
26

programs that produce high levels of student achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
Investing in Innovation grants are designed to expand innovation in critically needed areas such
STEM subject areas and programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). President Obama
identified STEM as a fundamental focus area as it is the primary driving force for educational
reform, economic sustainability, prosperity and American ingenuity (The White House, 2013).
The State of Oregon’s Role in Educational Policy and Funding Reform
Oregon is driven to attain high student achievement with educational accountability
which is reflected in the state educational reform plan that is aligned to President Obama’s
reauthorization blueprint. This reform is based on the belief that providing a world-class
education is imperative to create; globally competitive citizens, economic prosperity and a just
society (U.S. Department of Education, 2010; Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013).
Prior to 1990 Oregon’s educational system operated under local funding and local
control. With the passing of measure 5, the Property Tax Limitation measure, local funding
shifted to the state level where funding between high and low property districts could be
equalized (Conley & Picus, 2003). In conjunction with the funding reform, Oregon developed
the Educational Act for the 21
st
Century which focused on state level performance-based
outcomes to quantify levels of student achievement. This measure established: state academic
standards, state assessments and certificates of mastery in the following; Certificate of Initial
Mastery (CIM) and the Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM) (Conley & Picus, 2003). CIM
and CAM are subject area achievement standards to measure academic performance based on
content assessment benchmarks (Oregon Department of Education, 2013d).
The aforementioned reform measures provided a common platform for the State of
Oregon to comparatively analyze student performance. In 1997, the Database Initiative (DBI)
27

Project established a system for both the district and site levels to report financial data,
educational programs and educational practices (Picus, 1999). This project created a
comprehensive database and unified protocol in order to uniformly assess school performance
across the State. These codes pertained to fiscal allocation, fiscal revenue, staffing ratios, student
performance indicators, and other educational expenditures (Picus, 1999).
The Oregon Quality Education model (OQEM) unified the previous reform initiatives
and connected the educational resources needed to provide adequate education for all students
based on achievement outcomes (Conley & Picus, 2003). OQEM was able to make that link by
capitalizing on the implementation of: common academic standards, common state adopted
assessments, common methods of reporting student outcomes, and the establishment of
equalized funding (Conley & Picus, 2003). NCLB reinforced many of the OQEM objectives.
Governor Kitzhaber reiterated the need for Oregon to advance the OQEM and find
alternatives to NCLB’s one-size fits all focus regarding student achievement and punitive
accountability measures (The State of Oregon, 2013a). Oregon’s alternative to NCLB relies on a
tailored educational reform plan known as the Tight – Loose Model which consists of tight state
adopted goals and strategic initiates focused on outcomes, followed by lose or flexible local
action plans (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013).
Legislative action in the form of Senate Bill 253, 909, 1581 and House Bill 4165
represents the structural components or the “tight” part of the model and served as an integral
component to reauthorize NCLB and the OQEM. Table 2.2 below, outlines the four key
legislative bills, divided by sub-section number, that have been enacted between 2010 and 2012
to initiate the educational reform plans made by Governor Kitzhaber and the OEIB.

28

Table 2.2 – Legislative School Reform Action Enacted by the Governor and the OEIB
Legislative School Reform Action Enacted by the OEIM and the Governor of Oregon
Action Enacted Description of Bill
Senate
Bill 253

2010  Fostered the 40-40-20 goal outlining100% student graduation by 2025
 40% of graduates will earn a bachelor’s degree or higher
 40% of graduates will earn an associate’s degree or certificate
 20% minimally graduate from high school (Oregon Legislative Assembly 76th, 2010)
Senate
Bill 909

2011  1- Establishes the Oregon Educational Investment Board (OEIB)
 2- Appointed a Chief Educational Officer (CEd.O) to oversee the OEIB
 3- Developed the Oregon Education Investment Fund (OEIF) in the state treasury
independent of the general fund, headed by the Oregon Educational Funding Team
(OEFT) to oversee educational investments
 4- Developed the Early Learning Council (ELC) to redesign and improve early
childhood educational services and outcomes
 5&6- Developed an educational committee & agency reporting system to the
governor and legislature detailing progress, needs and results
 7-Redeveloped a unified student database system
 8-10- Calibrated with Senate Bill 242 about the P-20 education system
 11- Record delivery and rollout by the CEd.O to the Chancellor of the University
system, Director of Early Childhood & Superintendent of Public Instruction
 12- Detailed the appropriation of funds to support the OEIB
 13- Required emergency clause (Oregon Legislative Assembly – 76th, 2011)
Senate
Bill
1581

2012  1-13 Defines the role, authorizes responsibilities of the CEd.O to oversee the design
and organization of the P-20 unified educational system
 14- All educational entities must develop annual achievement compacts with the
OEIB including quality education goals and funding needs beginning 2012
 15- Waives the requirement to complete the District Division 22 Reports
 16 &17- Develop K12 & Service Districts achievement compact advisory committees
 18- K-12 & post-secondary leaders can make recommendations to the OEIB for
professional development, educational models, programs and strategies
 19-21- OEIB’s authority regarding partnerships, achievement compacts and the
Quality Education Commission to identify best practice funding & cost benefit
 22- Calibrate with House Bill 4165
 23- The required emergency clause (Oregon Legislative Assembly – 76th, 2012b)
House
Bill
4165

2012  1-20- Developed the Early Learning Council (ELC)
 21-28- Developed the Youth Development Council (YDC)
 29-76- Abolished the State Commission on Children & families
 77-82- Created the Community-Based Coordinators of Early Learning Services
 83-104-Removed statutory requirements for Local Commission - Children & Families
 105-112- Abolished the Juvenile Crime Prevention Advisory Committee
 113-128- Abolished the Commission for Childcare and reauthorized services
 129-131- Created child-care facilities
 132-138- Provided fiscal resources and conflict amendments
 139-142- Required emergency clause (Oregon Legislative Assembly 76th, 2012a)
Note: Adapted from Senate Bill 253 (2010), Senate bill 909 (2011), Senate bill 1581 (2012), & House
bill 4165 (2012) by the 76
th
. Legislative Assembly. (2010-2012). Copyright 2010-2012 by the 76
th
.
Legislative Assembly.
29

Table 2.2 outlines the “tight” structure of the 40-40-20 goal, Oregon Educational Investment
Board (OEIB), Chief Education Officer (CEd.O), Oregon Education Investment Fund (OEIF),
Early Learning Council (ELC), Educational Data System, P-20 Educational System,
Achievement Compacts and the governing responsibilities associated with those roles. The
passing of this legislation in conjunction with Oregon’s approved ESEA Flexibility Request or
application for deferment from NCLB submitted to the United States Department of Education
on February 10, 2012, activated the reform plans developed by Governor Kitzhaber and the
OEIB (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
Governor Kitzhaber, and the twelve member cabinet of the OEIB, oversee all financial
investments in the P-20 educational system, monitor outcomes, and have developed a strategic
plan for educational reform which is guided by the following objectives (Crew, 2013; Oregon
Educational Investment Board, 2013):
1. Design an aligned P-20 educational system based on objectives and driven by results.
2. Develop cost-effective, research-based initiatives with high rates of return that are
scalable, sustainable, measureable and outcome based.
3. Create a budget based on key areas of investment and essential initiatives.
4. Implement two-way communication with all educational entities regarding policies
and initiatives required to accomplish the 40-40-20 goal.
5. Create a state-wide support infrastructure to equip the public regarding information,
education and work-related trends to increase the Oregon economy.
Reform initiatives centered on the enactment of the 40-40-20 goal which outlines a 100%
five-year completer graduation rate by the year 2025 with further delineation to include; 40% of
graduates earning a Bachelor’s degree or higher, another 40% earning an Associate’s degree or
30

Certificate while the remaining 20% will minimally graduate into an apprenticeship or
employment opportunity (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013). According to Deputy
Superintendent, Rob Saxton, the goal and vision to achieve 100% student graduation signifies a
dramatic 19.5% increase in the five-year completer graduation rate of 80.5% recorded in 2011-
2012 (Oregon Department of Education, 2013d). Table 2.3 below, represents a comparative
analysis of Oregon’s current; four-year, five-year, four-year completer and five-year completer
graduation rates reported by gender and ethnic group, as well as the U.S. national graduation rate
(Oregon Department of Education, 2013d).
Table 2.3 – Data on Oregon’s Graduation Rates compared to the National Rate
Data on Oregon’s Graduation Rates Compared to the National Rate in 2011-2012
Student Group US National
4-year Rate of
Graduation
Oregon
4-year Rate of
Graduation
Oregon
5-year Rate of
Graduation
Oregon
4-year
Completer Rate
Oregon
5-year
Completer Rate
All Students 78.2% 68.4% 72.4% 75.1% 80.5%
Differentiated by Ethnic Group
Asian/Pacific
Islander
76.8% 79% 82% 81% 85%
Black / African
American
50.2% 53% 60% 62% 71%
Hispanic / Latino 53.2% 53% 65% 65% 71%
Multi-Ethnic 68% 69% 77% 76% 85%
Native American 51.1% 51% 56% 60% 85%
White 74% 71% 74% 78% 83%
Differentiated by Select Group
Economically
Disadvantaged
66.8% 61% 67% 69% 77%
English Language
Learners
65.2% 49% 60% 53% 64%
Students with
Disabilities
67% 38% 47% 55% 66%
Differentiated by Gender
Females 72% 73% 76% 79% 83%
Males 64.1% 64% 69% 72% 78%
Note: Adapted from Little Growth in Oregon Graduation Rates; State Leaders Call for Systems Change
by the Oregon Department of Education. (2013); & Adapted from High School Graduation Rages at
Highest Level in Three Decades. By Brenchley (2013) by the US Department of Education (2013).

31

Table 2.3 highlights that only 68.4% of Oregon students graduated within four-years
which translates to an estimated one third or 31.6% of students failing to graduate within four
years. Oregon’s graduation rates mimic national graduation rates and according to the U.S.
Department of Education (2013), this trend is creating significant impact, as achievement gaps
exist in the following student populations black, Hispanic, low socioeconomic, students with
disabilities and females. Oregon’s 68.4% four-year graduation rate falls behind the national
average of 78.2% by 9.8% (U.S. Department of Education, 2013a). The national four-year
graduation rate is based on the averaged freshman graduation rate or tracking students who start
high school as a freshman or 9
th
grade cohort and graduate on or within a four-year time frame
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012b). Oregon’s five-year completer graduation
rate is comprised of students who graduate within four or five years from the initial year of
enrollment in high school or completed one of the following; General Education Diploma
(GED), Modified Diploma, Extended Diploma or Adult High School Diploma (Oregon
Educational Investment Board, 2013). Earning a high school diploma has become the
gatekeeper for individuals to access higher education, work force employment, economic
independence and societal opportunities (Orfield, Losen, Wald & Swanson, 2004). Furthermore
it is estimated that 90% of the fastest growing jobs require some form of higher education (U.S.
Department of Labor, (2011).
To increase the graduation rate, and combat a growing trend with adults aged 25 to 34
who have become less educated than the parental generation, within a society where citizens of
the current generation are typically educated at higher levels than the elder generation, the OEIB
reiterates that the 40-40-20 goal is the right goal for Oregon (Ed. Source 2012; Oregon
Educational Investment Board, 2013). According to the 2011-2012 U.S. Census Bureau report
32

regarding the state of Oregon’s educational attainment breakdown of individuals 25 years or
older is as follows: 25% earned a four-year degree, 8% earned a two-year degree, 27% attended
college but did not earn a degree, 25% earned a high school degree or credential but did not
attend any higher education and 11% of students did not graduate from high school. To meet the
40-40-20 goal increases in achievement would need to occur in the following areas: four-year
degrees would need to increase by 11%, two year degrees would need to increase by 32% and
dropout rates would need to be reduced by 11%.
To combat these statistics, the Governor called for transformative state level educational
reform by soliciting recommendations from the EFT to identify educational investment areas
(Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013). According to the OEIB (2013), the EFT
recommended targeted, research-based initiatives in the following educational investment areas:
1) Early Reading Initiatives – Develop pre-Kindergarten programs to improve school
readiness along with increasing 3
rd
-grade reading proficiency levels for all students.
2) Recruit and Develop Professional Educators – Creating regional professional
development centers and networks for teachers and administrators.
3) Connect Students to the world of work – Increase articulation between all educational
entities and industry to enhance student’s knowledge of Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math and develop STEM programs and regional centers.
4) College / Career guidance, support and early interventions – Develop a college going
culture for students, educational staff and community members in an effort to
increase; graduation rates, higher education enrollment and career opportunities.
In an attempt to assist LEA’s in implanting strategies and programs to increase student
achievement and the matriculation rates to higher education, the Oregon Legislature passed
33

House Bill 3232 and House Bill 3233. These bills provide targeted investments, supported by
matching funds to develop; community partnerships, implement instructional best practices and
develop or expand research-based programs that have proven to increase student achievement
levels (The Oregon Department of Education, 2014). The Network for Quality Teaching and
Learning Grant and The Strategic Initiatives Grants are two primary revenue sources for the
LEA’s in Oregon (The Oregon Department of Education, 2014). Investment in the identified key
areas required a fiscally solvent budget to meet both short term and long term needs, raise
achievement levels and reverse the historic patterns of disadvantage imposed on English
Language Learners (ELL), low socioeconomic students, and select ethnic minorities (Oregon
Educational Investment Board, 2013).
The State of Oregon currently serves 561,328 students in the K-12 public school system
and is ranked number 30 in relation to school system size in the United States (Ed. Source,
2013). There are 197 public school districts which service 1,296 public schools, 102 charter
schools and two specialized special education schools (Ed. Source, 2013). Oregon employs
28,109 full time equivalent (FTE) teachers, which equates to a student-teacher ratio of 20.3 to 1,
which is higher than the national average of 16 to 1 (Ed. Source, 2013). The ethnic breakdown
of the student population in Oregon consists of: 68% Caucasian or White, 19% Hispanic, 5%
Asian, 3% Black, 2% American Indian and 4% unknown (Proximity One, 2009). Oregon’s
minority enrollment of 33.7% is well below the national average of 47.6%. Further
disaggregation of the student population data reveals 14.2% of the student population receives
special education services compared to the national average of 13%. English Language Learners
represent 11% of the student population, indicating that English is not the primary home
language spoken which is lower than the national average of 20% (National Center for
34

Educational Statistics, 2013). Oregon’s socioeconomically disadvantaged student population or
students who qualify for free and reduced-price lunch equals 50.7%, which is higher than the
national average of 48%.
To specifically address the needs of all students and decrease the historic pattern of
disadvantage, the Governor called for transcending site level educational reform through the
development and implementation of achievement compacts or plans by all educational entities
which include Universities, Community Colleges, K-12 School Districts and Educational Service
Districts in the state of Oregon. Achievement compacts or plans are designed to develop
articulated alignment throughout the P-20 educational system by establishing an accountability
protocol that is goal orientated, attainable, measureable and results-driven (Oregon Educational
Investment Board, 2013). Each compact includes two performance levels: 1) level one will
include traditional and educational entity specific academic growth targets accompanied by data
provided by the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) and 2) level two will provide
collaborative data analysis between members of a region to promote articulated effort to
synchronize educational activity and address the educational challenges (Oregon Educational
Investment Board, 2013). Upon approval of the achievement compact by Dr. Crew and the
OEIB, each educational entity will develop and implement a comprehensive and rigorous
educational plan aimed at improving student achievement, closing the achievement gap, increase
equity, and improving instruction (Oregon Educational Investment Board 2013).
Oregon has continuously developed and implemented educational reform to ensure that
each student receives a high quality education in order to ensure economic stability. Governor
Kitzhaber believes that “public education is the vehicle through which the American Dream is
most directly fulfilled today” (The State of Oregon, 2013a). In order to ascertain economic
35

stability on this magnitude, the educational system in Oregon was redefined from a K-12 system
to a Pre-Kindergarten through age 20 educational system (P-20 system) (Oregon Educational
Investment Board, 2013). The P-20 educational system provides educational services to the
youth of Oregon from pre-kindergarten age through their post-high school education. Public
education in a P-20 system increases the number of Oregonians to earn a high school diploma
and college degree. Oregon’s economy will benefit, as the average college graduate earns
roughly 75% more than non-college graduates; furthermore, Oregonians in STEM related
occupations earn on average 44% more than those working in non-STEM related fields with
similar degree levels (The state of Oregon, 2013a).
According to the OEIB and Oregon Department of Education (ODE) (2013), Oregon’s
current reform plan is focused on producing radical educational change in the following areas:
1. College-and-career readiness programs
2. High quality teacher and principal training facilities
3. Promoting equity, providing opportunity for all students
4. Stringent accountability measures aligned to student improvement performance targets
5. Rewards or incentives for successful initiatives and achievement outcomes
6. Financial adequacy plan comprised of federal, state and local funding measures
Restructuring efforts also include, the state adoption of the Common Core State
Standards, Smarter Balanced Assessments, and rigorous graduation requirements which are
currently being integrated with full implementation projected for the 2013-2014 school year
(Oregon Department of Education, 2013b). The newly adopted graduation requirements pertain
to students graduating in the year 2014 or beyond and include year-long courses, specified by
discipline and number of courses in the following areas; English - 4, mathematics – 3 beginning
36

with Algebra 1 followed by two subsequent higher level math courses, science - 3, social science
- 3, physical education - 1, health - 1, Second World language / Arts / Career & Technical
Education or any combination thereof - 3 and electives – 6 (Oregon Department of Education,
2013f). Table 2.4 below, represents a comparative analysis of previous graduation requirements,
the newly adopted requirements for 2014, and the University admission requirements (Oregon
Department of Education, 2013; Oregon University System, 2011).
Table 2.4 – Comparative Analysis of High School Graduation Requirements from 2009-2014
Comparative Analysis of High School Graduation Requirements from 2007-2014 and the
4-year University Requirements
Subject Area Requirements for 9
th

grade students
enrolled in 2009-
2010:
Graduating in 2013
Requirements for 9
th

grade students enrolled
in 2010-2011:
Graduating in 2014 &
beyond
4-Yar University
Requirements
English Language
Arts
4 4 4
Mathematics 3 3– Algebra 1, and higher
level math
3 – Algebra 1,
Geometry and Algebra
II recommended
Science 3 – Scientific Inquiry
& Lab experiences*
3 3
Social Science 3 3 3
Physical Education 1 1 0
Health 1 1 0
Second Language or
The Arts or
Career & Technical
Education
3 3 2
Electives 6 6 0
Total Credits

24 24 14
16 for University of
Oregon, two units in
any above core area
Note: Adapted from Oregon Policies and Programs Related to K-12 Standards by the Oregon
Department of Education (2013). Adapted without permission.
Adapted from Undergraduate Admissions Requirements 2012-2013 Academic Year by the Oregon
University System (2011). Adapted without permission.
* applied and integrated courses that are aligned to standards not college preparatory.

37

Table 2.4 above reveals two significant differences between the previous graduation
requirements and the newly adopted requirements for 2014 in the disciplines of math and
science. In both cases, the base requirements were increased to create realignment with the
standards and course requirements outlined by the Oregon University admission system in
addition to the restructuring effort designed by the OEIB and EFT to connect students to the
work of work and emphasize STEM (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013; Oregon
University System, 2011). This emphasis on STEM education will be primarily linked to the
development of STEM - Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics or STEAM -
Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Mathematics, Regional Centers located in Oregon’s
key urban areas where STEM fields are most concentrated. However, all educational entities
will be required to implement targeted efforts to improve STEM skills and abilities for all
students (The State of Oregon, 2013).
Science, Engineering, Technology & Mathematics (STEM) Focus
The national movement on improving STEM education is supported by organizational,
corporate, and governmental leaders who are concerned about the current level of economic
success and national security as the United States strives to compete in a global economy
(National Science Board, 2007). The American economy reached its height toward the turn of
the 21
st
century but has gradually declined due to the shift from a manufacturing economy to one
that is founded on technological innovation (Barrett, 2010). According to the World Economic
Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index (GDI) top 10 report in 2012-2013, the U.S. economy
slipped from the fifth position to seventh. The same report indicated that a correlation exists
between the top five performing global economies and their focused investment in education
(World Economic Forum, 2013). Craig Barrett, former CEO of Intel Corporation and turned
38

political STEM advocate, states that innovation has become the future of the world’s economy
and countries that innovate, add value and develop new products for the market place are the
countries that will achieve economic prosperity (Barrett, 2010). The economic integration of an
information-based, highly technological, and rapidly changing society requires a significant shift
in the preparation of the workforce employed to meet that marketplace demand (National
Science Board, 2007). In order to exploring STEM integration the following three areas need to
be discussed: 1) an overview of the global and domestic economic impact, 2) an overview of the
educational impact, and 3) STEM strategies.
Global & Domestic Economic Impact
This shift toward innovative technology in both the domestic and global economic
landscape has generated increased employment opportunities in STEM related career fields as
well as other industry sector positions that require a foundational level of STEM knowledge
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011). According to the U.S. Department of Labor and the
U.S. Department of Labor Statistics (2011). STEM jobs are in high demand within all
employment sectors representing 15 out of the 20 fastest growing occupations. Since 2001,
STEM employment occupations have grown by 3.7% which has contributed significantly to the
eight million STEM related jobs in 2011 (Department of Professional Employees, 2012). In light
of these economic trends, the Department of Professional Employees (2012) has projected an
increased demand for STEM employment by the year 2020 in the following areas:
1) 29% increase in professional scientific and technical services
2) 47% increase in computer systems and design
3) 58% increase in scientific, engineering and technical management and consulting
39

These rates will be equivalent to the creation of 2.1 million new jobs, pervasive throughout all
industry sectors, between 2010 and 2020 comprising the majority of the overall labor market
employment projections in the United States (Department for Professional Employees, 2012).
The employment market has become highly technologically dependent with an estimated 80% of
employment opportunities requiring employees at all levels to have a comprehensive STEM
knowledge that consists of a foundational skill set in mathematics, technology, problem solving
and critical thinking (U.S. Bureau of Statistics, 2012). Capitalizing on STEM market share
opportunities is key to driving the U.S. economy forward and regaining global competitiveness
(Barrett, 2010).
Currently there is an imbalance between the labor market supply and demand for STEM
educated workers. A paradox has emerged between the U.S. unemployment rate of 8.2%, and
unfilled STEM related employment opportunities due to the under-qualification of applicants in
the areas of numerate, scientific, and technological literacy (National Research Council, 2011;
National Science Board 2007; Giegerich, 2012). This presents an impediment to the overall U.S.
global economy as six out of ten businesses struggle in all industry sectors to fill STEM related
positions and consequently use outside resource to fill the labor force void (The White House,
2013). A contributing factor to this dilemma is that only 16% of U.S. bachelor’s degrees are
STEM related when compared to an estimated 63% in Japan and 53% in China (U.S. Department
of Labor, 2012; Carnevale, Smith & Melton, 2012). Furthermore, of the U.S. STEM related
bachelor’s degrees, roughly 250,000 or one third are occupied by international students enrolling
in U.S. colleges and universities (National Research Council, 2011)
The supply and demand differentials in the United States, or 350,000 job market
vacancies in 2010 alone, are often filled by guest workers with qualified visas; a trend that is
40

projected to increase as the demand for skilled STEM employees increases (Department of
Professional Employees, 2012). Currently, there is impending legislative action in the form of
HR 2161, the Immigration Driving Entrepreneurship in America (IDEA) Act of 2011, which
includes provisions for exempting the numerical limitations governing immigrants with
advanced STEM degrees for employment-based green cards. This legislative action, if enacted,
permits a greater number of guest workers to occupy STEM related jobs in the United States.
Guest workers represent a small number of the overall US workforce system; however, with
regard to STEM related fields, guest workers occupy a disproportionately large number of jobs.
This system benefits employers at the expense of US working citizens.
Table 2.5 below identifies the percentage of the workforce in the four main STEM
categories which include: Architecture & Engineering, Computer Science & Mathematics, Life
or Physical Science, and Managerial Positions. These categories represent an increasing list of
professional and technical STEM occupations identified by industry classification codes and
supported by college and University undergraduate and graduate degrees. Additional
information regarding the occupation classification codes and degree majors are provided in
Appendices A and B.
Table 2.5 - Oregon & US STEM Occupation Areas & Workforce Percentage- 2011
Oregon & U.S. STEM Occupation Areas & Workforce Percentage- 2011
STEM Areas of Occupation Oregon’s Total STEM
Workers
US Total STEM Workers
Total percent of workforce 5.8% 6%
Architecture & Engineering 28% 33%
Computer Science & Mathematics 39% 46%
Life, Physical & Social Science 24% 12%
Managerial Positions 9% 9%
Source: Carnevale, Smith & Melton, 2012; Oregon Department of Education, 2013; Department of
Professional Employees, (2012); & Langdon, et.al., 2011

41

Table 2.5 above, identifies that STEM related fields only compromise 6% of the total US
workforce and 5.8% of the Oregon workforce, however those jobs have a tremendous effect on
every other work related area (Department of Professional Employees, 2012; Langdon, et.al.,
2011). Table 2.5 also depicts two areas where the STEM workforce in Oregon is lower than the
US and they include: architecture and engineering by 5% and computer science and mathematics
by 7% (Department of Professional Employees, 2012; Langdon, et.al., 2011). A positive trend
emerged as Oregon’s STEM workforce in the area of life, physical and social science exceeded
the US STEM workforce by 12% (Department of Professional Employees, 2012; Langdon, et.al.,
2011). Oregon and the US reported 9% of STEM workers comprising managerial positions
which is an area that is projected to increase dramatically by 2020 (Department of Professional
Employees, 2012 & Langdon, et.al., 2011).
To further disaggregate the data regarding STEM areas of occupation, Table 2.6 below,
delineates the STEM workforce by groups based on gender, ethnicity, and foreign workers.
Table 2.6 - Differentiated Workforce Percentages in STEM Occupation Areas for 2011
STEM Professional Areas and Differentiated Breakdown of Workforce - 2011
STEM Areas of
Occupation
Female Male US Guest
Workers
Asian Black Hispanic White
Architecture &
Engineering
13.6% 86.4% 5% 47% 5.2% 6.4% 38%
Computer Science &
Mathematics
25% 75% 22% 23% 6.9% 5.7% 21%
Life, Physical & Social
Science
54.4% 45.6% 7% 30% 7.3% 5.9% 41%
Managerial Positions 2% 98% 5% 4% .5% .5% 4%
TOTAL STEM
occupations
25% 75% 15% 15% 6% 6% 70%
Source: Jackson-Winegardner, 2012; Carnevale, Smith, & Melton, 2012;
Department of Professional Employees, 2012; & Langdon, et.al., 2011

Table 2.5 above clearly identifies a disparity between male and female STEM workers in terms
of percentage employed in all areas of occupation, with the exception of life, physical, and social
42

science category (Department of Professional Employees, 2012; & Langdon, et.al., 2011). Table
2.5 also indicated the high prevalence of guest workers in STEM fields comprising 15% of the
total STEM related jobs (Department of Professional Employees, 2012 & Langdon, et.al., 2011).
In addition, Table 2.5 above identifies the underrepresentation of both black and Hispanic
populations within all STEM related occupations (Department of Professional Employees, 2012).
Oregon’s STEM employment rate is only 5.8%, in an economy with unfilled STEM jobs,
and an unemployment rate of 8.4%, slightly higher than the US unemployment rate of 8.2%
(Giegerich, 2012; Jackson-Winegardner, 2012; U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2012). Future
STEM employment opportunities provide an avenue to reduce the current rates of
unemployment, as there will be an estimated 17% increase in STEM related jobs primarily in
Oregon’s urban regions by 2020, (Carnevale, Smith & Melton, 2012).
Many states are looking to develop and implement comprehensive educational STEM
reform measures to close the equity and achievement gaps and adequately prepare all citizens for
employment opportunities that require STEM knowledge. The lack of equal representation of
women, black, and Hispanic U.S. citizens employed in prominent STEM related fields
corresponds with the current educational achievement gap and is of great concern for political,
educational and corporate leaders (U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, 2012).
Educational Impact
The landscape of American education has failed to significantly close the achievement
gap and has not kept up with work force demands that are requiring higher levels of STEM
education. 86% of STEM occupations and 34% of non-STEM related occupations require an
associate’s degree or higher as opposed to on-the-job training or apprenticeships (Jackson-
Winegardner, 2012). Craig Barrett stresses the importance of increasing STEM education at both
43

compulsory and higher education levels and indicates that drastic increases are needed in the
attainment of Bachelor’s degrees, Master’s degrees and Doctorate degrees to satisfy the job
market demand (Barrett, 2010). Out of the 3.8 million 9
th
grade students, only one out of every
100 will go on to pursue a degree in a STEM related field (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2013). A contributing factor to this lack of STEM persistence among students who
initially express interest is the inability to pursue higher levels of math and science curricula in
high school due to the fact that 75% of America’s youth fails to meet 8
th
grade standards of
mastery in math (US Congress Joint Economic Committee, 2012).
The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reported that 15 year old
students in the United States scored 24
th
on the mathematics assessment and 16
th
on the science
assessments in relation to other Organizations for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) countries (US Congress Joint Economic Committee, 2012). PISA examinations are
based on critical thinking and the application of knowledge (Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development, 2013). International assessments provide the tools to cross-compare
the US with other nations to determine educational quality. According to the World Economic
Forum, (2013) the U.S. is ranked 48
th
with respect to math and science education. This is
supported by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) which revealed that 40%
of twelfth grade students did not meet the basic-standards level for science and mathematics in
2011 (US Congress Joint Economic Committee, 2012).
STEM Best-Practices
To combat these statistics, President Obama called for the cultivating 100,000 new
STEM teachers by 2021 (The White House, 2011). This was in response to industry leaders that
have demanded top performing employees in order to compete in a highly technical and
44

innovative global economy. President Obama firmly stated that innovation, imagination, and
ingenuity forge the competitive edge to economic prosperity (The White House, 2011). Craig
Barrett, former CEO of Intel Corporation and appointed by Barack Obama as a private-sector
leader for the Change the Equation Initiative argues that STEM is the major driving force in our
global economy and educational reform (Barrett, 2012).
Change the Equation is a national education reform council comprised of 110 industry
leaders who consult President Obama regarding his plan to promote and increase the level of
science, technology, engineering and mathematic (STEM) education (Council on Foreign
Relations, 2011). Political, educational, and industrial leaders contribute to the educational
reform by advocating for a knowledgeable and skilled work force needed to meet the demands of
the current global markets (Barrett, 2012). STEM knowledge and skills represent the foundation
of business interactions regardless of industry (Barrett, 2012).
According to America’s Health Rankings report in 2012, education levels have a direct
effect on the health of individuals as well as the economy in the following areas:
1) Educational attainment is correlated to overall adult health and life expectancy
2) Education level is a strong predictor of earning potential which is correlated to levels
of health care, access to insurance, and employment longevity
3) Each year of education incrementally improves the development of health behaviors
4) Increased levels of STEM education facilitate understanding and participation with
regard to health care visits, disease, and health related choices
To regain America’s once prominent position as an educational and economic
superpower, the National Science Foundation and National Research Council in 2012 established
three goals to improve STEM education levels across the United States which include:
45

1) Increase the number of students earning advanced degrees in STEM fields, with
specific focus on increasing female and minority participation.
2) Increase all individuals STEM skill levels to produce a STEM-capable workforce.
3) Increase science and technological literacy and numeracy for all students
In order to accomplish these goals educational entities must provide rigorous content, quality
curriculum and research-based instructional practices that connect relevant experiences (National
Science Foundation, 2012). The integration of STEM content material must be interjected across
disciplines, such as; fact-based or evidentiary critical thinking, creative investigation, and
ingenuity utilizing comprehensive multi-disciplined knowledge (National Science Foundation,
2012). The governing principles and practices of the newly adopted common core standards
outline goals to create such cross-disciplinary instruction (Common Core Standards, 2012).
The Common Core State Standards have been released for English language arts,
mathematics, social science and science as of 2013 (Common Core Standards, 2012). Recently,
the National Research Council (NRC) published A Framework for K-12 Science Education in
2013 which established foundational content development for the science state standards as it
relates to key ideas for each science discipline, essential curriculum, and increased coherence
between grade levels (National Science Foundation, 2012). Integrating STEM competencies into
America’s educational system creates an “innovative culture” where individuals provide
additional value to an organization based on their knowledge, skills and abilities (Barrett, 2010).
Table 2.7 identifies the STEM core competencies, along with the associated domain and
description of each competency (Carnevale, Smith & Melton, 2012).

46

Table 2.7 - STEM Core Competencies and Associated Domains
STEM Core Competencies and Associated Domains
Core
Competencies
Associated Domains Description of Domain
Knowledge Biology Plant, animal and environmental functions, interdependencies and
interactions
Building & Construction Materials, methods and tools needed to create structures and
infrastructure
Chemistry Chemical compositions, atomic structures, properties, equations
chemical interactions, environmental and effects
Computers and
Electronics
Circuitry, processors, chips, electronic equipment, software and
hardware devices to create products and provide services
Design Concepts & principals governing effect, tools, techniques,
precision, accuracy, effect and process
Engineering and
Technology
Combination of many scientific disciplines that incorporate, design,
techniques, application and production of structurally sound and
sustaining products
Mechanics Design and utilization of machines and tools
Mathematics Using mathematical equations and formulas to solve problems
Physics Physical principals of thermodynamics, materials, mechanics,
fluids, electronics, and fundamental laws that govern the universe
Production & Processing Develop automaticity of ideas, systems, machines or objects
Skills Active Learning Fusing new information with existing information to problem solve
Critical Thinking The utilization of logic and reasoning to problem solve and identify
solutions or conclusions
Complex Problem
Solving
Evaluating multiple problems simultaneously to evaluate options
and create solutions
Equipment Selection &
Maintenance
Identification of tools and equipment needed to perform a task and
maintain functionality
Mathematics Using mathematical equations and formulas to solve problems
Operations & Control Maintaining operations and systems
Operations Analysis Analyzing processes, products or practices to evaluate & improve
Operation Monitoring Evaluation to ensure effective functioning
Programming Creating programs or fixing components
Quality Control Analysis Product inspection, service analysis or process evaluation to
determine effectiveness and performance quality
Science Using scientific methods and rules to solve problems
Systems Analysis Evaluating how systems work in response to changing conditions or
environmental factors
Systems Evaluation Identifying performance indicators and evaluation actions needed to
improve based on goals
Technology Design Creating new technology through innovation
Troubleshooting Active problem solving
Abilities Control Precision Accurately operate machines
Deductive Reasoning Application of rules when problem solving
Inductive Reasoning Connecting concepts and information to form conclusions
Mathematical Reasoning Using mathematical formulas to solve problems
Number Facility Fluently add, subtract, multiply and divide
Perceptual Speed Compare and Contrast letters, numbers, objects, pictures or patterns
Problem Sensitivity Recognition of problems or potential problems
Source: Carnevale, Smith & Melton, 2012
47

Table 2.7 above describes the foundation of STEM education or the three core competency areas
that allow citizens to “add value” to the workforce through the development of critical thinking,
multifaceted problem solving skills, and the generation of innovative ideas.
The National Research Council (2011) utilize the following criteria to identify successful
STEM programs in schools:
1) Student outcomes in STEM include student course selection levels, test scores, and
career interest selection.
2) Identification of STEM school type based on the following: Selective STEM
Schools, Inclusive STEM Schools, STEM-Focused Schools, and traditional schools.
3) Awareness of STEM pathways, trends and value relating to economic opportunity
through activities, curriculum, instruction, and established practices that develops the
capacity of students to engage in STEM.
School type is important to determine the degree to which STEM concepts are integrated into the
student curriculum. Table 2.8 below, identifies four main types of school categories that are
inclusive of varying levels of STEM program integration including Selective STEM schools,
Inclusive STEM schools, STEM-Focused schools, and traditional or comprehensive high schools
(National Research Council, 2011). Selective STEM schools enroll students by aptitude, while
Inclusive STEM schools enroll students according to interest and both provide a specific and
advanced STEM programs (National Research Council, 2011). STEM-Focused schools and
traditional or comprehensive high schools offer general STEM content area curriculums
inclusive of Advanced Placement (AP) or International Bachelorette (IB) or Career and
Technical Education (CTE) courses to a student population that is selected by area of residence
or district (National Research Council, 2011).
48

Table 2.8 – Three Main Types of STEM Schools
Three Main Types of STEM Schools
STEM
School
Category
Type of STEM
School offered
Description Advantages Disadvantages
Selective
STEM schools
 State
Residential
School
 Stand-Alone
Magnet School
 School-with-
in-a-School
 Regional
Centers
 Selected Admissions based on
aptitude
 Organized around select STEM
areas
 Highly qualified or expert
teaching staff
 All students take advanced
curricula focused on college
and career preparation
 Industry-grade equipment &
technology
 Apprenticeships, mentorship &
Internship programs
 Participation in research-based
and project-based learning
 Cross-curricular content focus
 Student - Teacher ratio is 20-1
 Concentration of
highly talented
students
 Focused scope
 Intense levels of
study, interaction,
practical application
and support
 There is an
established cross-
departmental
curriculum
component
 Career component
includes advanced
math and science
 Do not impact all
students, only the
select few
 Students are denied
access
 Population is
typically lacking in
diversity
 Does not provide
access to explore all
STEM career
options
 They reduce the
talent pool of high
achieving students
in the surrounding
schools
Inclusive
STEM Schools
 Stand-Alone
Magnet
Schools
 School-with-
in-a-School
 Regional
Centers
 Admission is based on student
interest, not exclusionary
 Organized around select STEM
areas
 Highly qualified teaching staff
 Belief that math / science skills
are acquired regardless of
aptitude
 Industry-grade equipment &
technology
 Project-based learning
 Cross-curricular focus
 Student - Teacher ratio is 20-1
 They serve a diverse
population
 Provide access and
opportunity for
underserved students
 Cross-departmental
curriculum
component
 Career component
includes advanced
math and science
course work
 Not all students
have access due to
transportation &
area of service
 Does not include all
STEM related
subject areas
STEM-
Focused
Schools
 Traditional
High Schools
with Career
Technical
Education
(CTE) focus
 Career
Technical
Education
Academies
 Comprehensive
high Schools
 Regional
Centers
 Admission is based on
residence area
 Career exploration courses are
more general in scope and are
offered to students who possess
an interest
 Implementation of CTE
courses was to prevent student
drop-out rates
 Curricula is based on practical
application and real-life
application, however the
instructional practice varies
from site to site
 Application based
 Students who enroll
in the CTE courses
gain exposure to
career options
 Admissions process
does not exclude
students
 These programs do
not have the focus,
intensity and
prestige of the
above models
 Not all schools have
a wide range of
CTE offerings
 No cross-
departmental
curriculum
component
 Not all students gain
access to the CTE
courses
Traditional K-
12
Comprehensive
High Schools
  Course curriculum is inclusive
of Math and Science up to
advanced levels (Honors, IB, &
AP), but may or may not
include technological or
engineering courses
 These schools
educate the majority
of American students

 STEM goals, grad
requirements and
course offerings
vary
 Not all students take
advanced courses
Source: National Research Council, 2011
49

Table 2.8 above, outlines each type of school and identifies significant defining qualities
as well as both advantages and disadvantages. Selective STEM schools, Inclusive STEM
schools, STEM-Focused schools follow a STEM school plan or “blueprint” which provides
integral alignment to goals and objectives of the school platform which include advanced
college-preparatory curriculum, intense focus, alignment to careers, and continual academic
support (National Research Council, 2011). The same three school types also rely on project-
based, practical application of knowledge to engage students, and enhance learning in a
collaborative environment. The traditional or comprehensive high school is founded on an
established curricular path of which 35% of schools offer curriculum inclusive of Advanced
Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) in English, mathematics, science, and social
studies (National Research Council, 2011). AP is a national program developed in 1955 to offer
advanced levels of study in a variety of course to high school students with articulated
agreements with colleges and universities (College Board, 2013). IB is an international program
developed in 1960, and must include all IB courses and culminate in an IB diploma
(International Baccalaureate Organization, 2013).
Cross-comparative analysis of the four major types of STEM inclusive schools is limited,
due to drastic differences in student populations, enrollment practices, and availability to
program equipment, activities, and levels of expertise. Research was conducted on the 90
Selective STEM schools in the US and a distinct advantage was noted that students who were
exposed to intense levels of engaging study through practical application and work-study
experience had an increase likelihood to complete a STEM major in college when compared to
peers who did not have the same experience (National Research Council, 2011). The National
Research Council, (2011) strongly advocated that states include a variety of the four types of
50

STEM inclusive schools in order to improve student achievement in STEM on a grand scale.
Inclusive STEM Schools have shown to improve student achievement scores on standardized
state assessments with underrepresented students thereby enabling achievement gap closure by
providing diverse students access and support to higher levels of education (National Research
Council, 2011).
This effort to close the achievement gap culminated in a National STEM Action Plan
established by the National Science Board which outlined ten critical areas of focus to increase
the success of STEM programs within schools regardless of type (National Research Council,
2011; National Science Board, 2007):
1) Create a unified and strategic STEM focus or blueprint with “vertical coherence,”
aligning a pre-kindergarten-20 educational system for all educational entities and
“horizontal coherence” which aligns curriculum, instruction, and assessment to the
rigorous standards.
2) Adoption of rigorous national standards inclusive of goals and objectives regarding all
STEM disciplines.
3) Coursework infused with technology, 21
st
century skill development, interactive learning
experiences, and engagement sustaining instructional strategies.
4) Provide real-world application through, mentorship, internship and apprenticeship
programs to become acquainted with industry-grade project management, design,
technology, equipment, and expectations.
5) Increased instructional time in STEM course subject areas through the inclusion of cross-
departmental project-based curriculum, focused on instructional practices that increase
depth of understanding, inquiry, problem solving and reasoning.
51

6) Attract, recruit, prepare, retain and continually strengthen the expert teaching and
leadership capacities of STEM educators through professional development, targeted
instructional guidance, professional networks, professional learning communities, and
field level experience.
7) Accountability system which is based on mastery of concepts and assessments that
include alternatives to multiple choice
8) Annual collaborative evaluation of instructional practices, programs, and staff based on
multiple measures.
9) Provide access, early intervention, support, and supplemental instruction for all students
with emphasis on socioeconomically disadvantaged, black, Hispanic and female students
to maintain curricular rigor.
10) Create a strong STEM culture and climate that is student-centered, based on continual
progress, inclusive of high standards and focused on college/career readiness.
President Obama established STEM educational reform as a national priority in the
NCLB reauthorization blueprint which required states to design STEM reform plans aligned with
federal funding (US Department of Education, 2010). Educational realignment is needed to
incorporate employment needs and trends regarding employee requirements in order to
adequately prepare the emerging workforce. SEA and LEA leaders are faced with the task of
determining which services, programs, and mechanisms are effective in increasing student
participation and achievement in STEM related programs, subject areas, and career fields. The
foundation of such a determination largely relies on the allocation of resources utilized to support
this direction. Implementing cost effective models, such as the Evidence-Based Model
52

developed by Odden and Picus (2008), aid in structuring the allocation of resources needed to
produce high student achievement outcomes to meet current labor market demands.
Resource Allocation
In order to implement educational reform initiatives like STEM programs, analysis of the
resource allocation is required to determine if the current fiscal budget meets the level required
by adequate funding formulas. There are several types of adequate funding formulas and
viewpoints on their effectiveness. Therefore, this section will formulate a baseline understanding
of resource allocation, and the following section will address funding adequacy models which
determine how those resources will be used. Educational funding is primarily derived from
federal, state, and local funding sources. The three areas of focus for this section include: federal
funding for education, Oregon’s educational funding reform plan, and LEA funding allocation.
Federal Funding for Education
In the wake of the 2007 recession, the concern regarding educational funding in the
United States has reached an all-time high as many states have slashed educational budgets (The
White House, 2013b). Federal educational funding levels have continued to decrease after the
2011 influx of federal stimulus funds, which temporarily decreased the magnitude of educational
budget reductions across the nation (The White House, 2013c). However, the federal stimulus
funds did not produce continued financial support to schools, rather they resulted in a onetime
funding amount that required utilization by 2012 (The State of Oregon, 2013b).
Educational spending comprises approximately 3% of the total US federal budget (The
White House, 2013c). Table 2.9 below, depicts the US federal budget estimated outlays by
department and spending allocation.

53

Table 2.9 – U.S. Federal Budget Estimated Outlays by Department and Spending allocation
U.S. Federal Budget Estimated Outlays by Department and Spending allocation
Estimated Outlay in $ billion
Department 2011 2012 2013 2014
Pension 793.2 805.6 854.5 901.4
Health Care 882.0 866.1 920.0 1,042.2
Education 129.8 121.1 118.1 118.0
Defense 964.8 925.2 868.1 863.5
Welfare 495.6 431.5 405.4 389.0
Protection 60.7 58.7 58.1 57.8
Transportation 94.5 104.9 110.3 112.1
General
Government
33.2 32.6 29.2 30.5
Other Spending 158.4 141.5 86.4 45.1
Interest 206.7 241.6 321.0 417.5
Balance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Spending 3,818.8 3,728.7 3,770.9 3,977.1
Federal Deficit 1,645.1 1,101.2 767.5 644.6
Gross Public Debt 17,249.3 18,2446.9 19,147.8 20.026.6
Note: Adapted from U.S. Government Spending: US Federal Budget Analyst – Budget Estimated
Outlays. (2013). Copyright 2013 by The White House. Adapted without permission.

Table 2.9 above reveals drastic reductions in the federal educational budget resulting in a 6.7%
decrease in 2012 followed by an additional 2.4% decrease in 2013 with an additional projected
decrease of 1% for 2014. Federal funding compromises approximately 10-15% of state
education budgets through predetermined ESEA, now NCLB, funding allocations (The White
House, 2013c).
There is great debate between the effect of increasing financial allocations and student
outcomes due to variances in the utilization of those allocations (Picus, 2001). Studies show that
increases in educational funding resulted in salary increases, increases in teacher employment or
reduction of class size, as they are factors that can be quickly adjusted based on budgetary
changes from year to year (Odden & Picus, 2008). According to Picus (2001), such budgetary
fluctuations and inconsistencies of vital resources actually reduce the incentive for school
districts to implement long-term programmatic changes due to the fact that schools often cannot
54

carry over funds from one year to the next when expenditures are below the budgeted allocation.
As a result, schools typically spend their annual allocation to meet immediate needs.
Through the analysis of resource allocation patterns, little variance was found between
the utilization of educational funds by school districts regardless of the allocated amount of per-
pupil spending (Odden, Monk, Nikib, & Picus, 1995). In terms of state educational revenue
funding patterns, federal funding comprises a relatively small amount, roughly 10-15%, in
comparison to 50% state funding and 35-40% local funding (The White House, 2013c). The
percentage of federal funding does vary from state to state depending on each state’s regulations
on educational budget development (Franklin, Harris, Allen-Meares, 2006). Federal funds
consist of block grants, project grants, legislative earmarks and direct payments while state
funding are primarily derived from tax revenue (Franklin, Harris, Allen-Meares, 2006).
Categorical funds are included in both federal and state allocations and target student groups or
programs that meet select criteria of need, accompanied by spending regulations (Franklin,
Harris, Allen-Meares, 2006). Categorical funding is outlined in the provisions under NCLB and
has progressively increased its role in state budgets, previously occupying 25% in 1982 to the
current level of 40% (Ed Source, 2013b).
President Obama’s blueprint to reauthorize NCLB outlines the need to invest in STEM
programs, partnerships and educational entities (US Department of Education, 2010).
Furthermore, several proposed STEM related funding measures are awaiting legislative action in
order to incent state educational agencies to develop, enhance and promote STEM program
integration into the educational mainstream. Table 2.10 outlines seven pending legislative
actions targeted to improve STEM education.

55

Table 2.10 – STEM Investment Legislative Action Under Consideration
STEM Investment Legislative Action Under Consideration
Legislative Act Description
S239 Innovative American Act
 Awards grants to states to expand STEM secondary schools
S463 Effective STEM Teaching & Learning Act of 2011
 Provides grants to states to develop a STEM plan to improve pre-kindergarten-12
STEM education inclusive of professional development for STEM teachers and
updating curricular materials
S619 STEM 2 Act
 Development of STEM networks between public and private STEM entities and
identifies key occupational skills required for the 21
st
century
 Develops STEM teacher and administrator training
S758 STEM Master Teacher Corp Act of 2011
 Grants to support a master corps of STEM educators to provide ongoing
professional development, mentoring, support and inform policy
S1055 National STEM Education Tax Incentive for Teachers Act of 2011
 Undergraduate tuition expense refundable tax credit for STEM teachers.
S1614 Computer Science Education Act of 2011
 Grants to strengthen and evaluate elementary and secondary computer science
education, development of standards, curriculum, assessments, access for
underserved populations, professional development, online courses
S1675 Preparing Students for Success in the Global Economy Act 0f 2011
 State grants improve elementary and secondary STEM educational entities
 Recruit, support and train STEM teachers
 Develop and improve high quality STEM curriculum and instructional support to
improve achievement in STEM subject areas and programs
 Integrate STEM instruction in reading and all curricular disciplines
Source: US Congress joint Economic Committee, 2012.
According to Table 2.10, all proposals aim to financially incent states to expand STEM
programs and the workforce required to educate students regarding 21
st
century STEM skills.
Legislative action like this promotes both educational and fiscal reform through program
development and targeted spending with the intent to improve areas of critical need. There is
growing consensus between educators that funding reform must become a top priority in order to
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our educational system in terms of student
achievement outcomes (Picus, 2001).

56

Oregon’s Educational Funding Reform Plan
Governor Kitzhaber and the OEIB reauthorized the Oregon Quality Education model
(OQEM) or funding adequacy model that connected educational resources with student learning
outcomes. According to the OEIB (2013), this reauthorization included the development of the
Education Funding Team (EFT) whose charge is to make recommendations to establish budget
priorities, which include:
1) Early Reading Initiatives
2) Recruit and Develop Professional Educators
3) Connect Students to the world of work through an emphasis on STEM
4) College and Career guidance and support to promote post-secondary goals
Investment in the identified key area required a fiscally solvent budget to meet short term and
long term needs, raise achievement levels, and reverse historic patterns of disadvantage imposed
on English Language Learners (ELL), low socioeconomic students, and select ethnic minorities.
The Governor clearly indicated in his state of the state address in 2011, that the current
educational funding model is insufficient at all levels of the educational system to successfully
achieve the 40-40-20 goals (The State of Oregon, 2013a). The acknowledgement of inadequate
educational funding follows great economic strides, in the reduction of a $3.5 billion budget
deficit in 2011 to a balanced budget in 2013, and being labeled the second fastest growing
economy in the nation through the creation of 40,000 new jobs (The State of Oregon, 2013a). In
light of these accomplishments, adequate and comprehensive finance reform is needed, planned
and awaiting legislative approval to increase the immediate and long-term funding for Oregon’s
education system (The State of Oregon, 2013a).
57

Oregon hosts 197 public school districts which services 1,296 schools and approximately
561,328 students in grades kindergarten through twelve (Oregon Blue Book, 2013). Currently
90% of students’ age five to seventeen enroll in the public school system which is projected to
slowly increase along with increased levels of diversity among students (The State of Oregon,
2013a). Oregon employs 28,109 full time equivalent (FTE) teachers and has a student to teacher
ratio of 20.3 to 1 which is slightly higher than the national average of 16 to 1 (Oregon Blue
Book, 2013). Oregon currently has a 31.6% high school dropout rate in a state where 80% of the
inmates in correctional facilities are dropouts. The annual cost per inmate per year is estimated
to be $27,689; however; the average cost of per pupil spending is $9,611 which is $1,856 lower
than the national average of $11,467 in 2012 causing Oregon to be ranked 28
th
nationally in
terms of educational funding (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012). Per pupil
spending is the total amount of revenue spent on education, minus capital expenses like
construction, divided by the K-12 enrollment (New American Foundation, 2013). Many factors
are incorporated into the calculation of per-pupil spending allocation such as socioeconomic
student status, language diversification, disability, mobility rates, economies of scale, population
density and wage variation (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2012).
Increasing educational funding is required in order to achieve the 40-40-20 goal which
has both educational as well as economic value (The State of Oregon, 2013a). The property tax
limitation, Measure 5 and subsequent Measures 47 and 50 shifted the primary responsibility for
educational funding from localized revenue from property taxes to the state general budget
(Oregon Blue Book, 2013). This caused some stress, as the loss of control for districts caused
changes to budgetary allocations both positive and negative. In 1991, the Oregon legislature
established the school funding equalization formula, largely dependent on student enrollment and
58

demographic information to determine the total amount of educational revenue per district
(Oregon Blue Book, 2013). Oregon currently operates on a biennial budget which contains all of
the estimated expenditures and revenues incurred over the course of two-year period.
Oregon’ bi-annual educational budget is derived through the allocation of funds from the
following state revenue sources which include general funds, lottery funds, limited and non-
limited other funds, as well as limited and non-limited federal funds. Table 2.11 below, outlines
the past school-funding budget for 2011-2013 which was approved by the Oregon legislative
body, and the Governor’s newly proposed budget for 2013-2015 (The State of Oregon, 2013a).
Table 2.11 – Bi-Annual School Funding Budgets for 2011-2013 and 2013-2015
Bi-Annual School Funding Budgets for 2011-2013 and 2013-2015
Funding
Resource
2011-2013
Approved
Budget

2011-2013
Approved Budget

2013-2015
Proposed Budget

2013-2015
Proposed Budget

General Fund $6,749,098,947 49.4% $7,617,818,240 78.0%
Lottery Funds $640,922,239 4.7% $395,593,608 4.0%
Other Funds $2,582,859,007 19.0% $273,026,724 2.8%
Federal Funds $1,070,159,432 7.8% $1,022,476,050 10.5%
Other Funds (non-
limited)
$2,326,021,909 17.0% $104,657,340 1.1%
Federal Funds
(Non-limited)
$290,302,330 2.1% $350,664,522 3.6%
Total Funds $13,658,363,864 100% $9,764,236,484 100%
Source: The State of Oregon 2013a
Table 2.11 depicts an overall decrease in educational funding from the 2011-2013 budget of
$13,658,363,864 to the 2013-2015 budget of $9,764,236,484 which results in a negative
differential of $3,894127380. Table 2.11 establishes the reorganization of funding allocation
amounts with 82% of the total budget being generated from the general fund and lottery funds.
According to Table 2.11increased allocation amounts were observed with regard to general and
federal non-limited funds while all other budget resource categories experienced funding
declines. Cost savings initiatives contribute to the decrease in expenditures through the
59

following measures equalizing educational funding through the alignment of a P-20 educational
system, calculation changes to retirement compensation, the creation of a Public University Fund
system and decreased funding to corrections (The state of Oregon, 2013). The result of this
fiscal restructuring resulted in the State School Funding budget to include a general fund of
$6,151.4 million which is $89.8 million higher than the estimated level of service required by the
state school system (The State of Oregon, 2013a).
Additional funding permits the investment in the development of programs and
recommendations set forth by the EFT and OEIB. STEM, one program of interest, involves
connecting students to the world of work, though the development of 21
st
century skills. The
2013-2015 educational budget proposed by the governor includes $13.5 million toward the
development of formal Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics (STEAM)
laboratory schools for students in grades 6-14, who show interest and promise in STEAM areas
(The State of Oregon, 2013a). This funding is intended for informal application within existing
schools to develop a structured approach to deliver STEAM education (The State of Oregon,
2013a).
LEA Funding Allocation
To implement realignment strategies and programs like STEM or STEAM that support
the 40-40-20 goal, LEA administrators need to analyze current resource funding allocations.
Knowing where fiscal allocations are utilized provides key insight to the make-up of operational
budgets. According to Picus et. al. (2008), researching LEA funding allocations for the past 50
years has revealed that spending trends have remained relatively stable, resulting in 60% of LEA
budgets spent on instruction. The research also showed that the majority of funding level
increases were spent on additional elective courses or non-core courses in the following areas
60

career technical education, fine or performing art, or physical education; while a considerable
portion was spend on student services in the area of special education and pupil support (Picus
et. al., 2008). Under the current educational and financial circumstances, LEA spending
accountability has increased dramatically placing strain on educational leaders to face the
challenge of having to determine which programs or strategies produce the greatest level of
student achievement.
To assist LEA’s with this challenge a school-level reporting framework by funding
category was developed and utilized in the state of Wyoming (Picus et. al., 2008). The allocation
of resources can be compartmentalized into utilization categories and the following have been
outlined by Picus et. al. (2008):
1) Instruction – resources utilized in instruction, and content delivery including;
instructional personnel salaries and benefits, text-books, materials, supplies, and
services.
2) Instructional support – resources that assist the continued development of
instructional practice including; instructional support, coaching, release time
personnel salaries and benefits, ancillary materials, supplies, technology and
purchased services
3) Administration – resources that are utilized in school leadership and governance
including district administrators, site administrators, clerical administrative assistants,
supplies and purchased services.
4) Student support – resources that are utilized in the academic, mental and physical
health and well-being of students. This includes the salaries and benefits for
attendance staff, counselors, guidance specialists, health/hygiene staff, intervention
61

specialists, nurses, speech pathologists, social workers, other related support
personnel as well as supplies and purchased services.
5) Operations and maintenance – resources that are utilized in the operations and
maintenance of all physical structures, grounds and school facilities including;
salaries and benefits for facility related workers, equipment, tools, purchased services,
and other related supplies needed to maintain the daily operations of the physical
facility.
6) Transportation – resources that have been allocated to the transportation of students to
and from school, and to and from extracurricular events including; salaries and
benefits of transportation workers, equipment, vehicles, purchased services and
supplies.
7) Food Services – resources utilized in supplying students with nutritious food
including; food service worker salaries and benefits, supplies, materials, equipment
and related costs.
Approximately 80% of district educational resources are traditionally spent on staffing
allocations that include administrators, teachers, clerical, as well as facilities, maintenance and
transportation personnel (Odden & Picus, 2008). The above fiscal allocation utilization
categories reveal a significant but limited perspective regarding the use of resources. As a result,
Odden et. al. (2003) have developed a method of reporting school-level expenditures inclusive of
twenty resource indicators, seven instructional expenditure elements, and two non-instructional
expenditure elements. Table 2.1 below represents the School level expenditure framework and
resource indicator reporting method outlined by Odden et.al. (2003).

62

Figure 2.1 - School-Level Expenditure Framework and Resource Indicator Reporting Method
School Resource Indicators
School Building Size
School Unit Size
Percent Low Income
Percent Special Education
Percent ESL/LEP
Expenditures Per Pupil
Professional Development Expenditures Per Teacher
Special Academic Focus of School /Unit
Length of Instructional Day
Length of Class Periods
Length of Reading Class (Elementary)
Length of Mathematics Class (Elementary)
Reading Class Size (Elementary)
Mathematics Class Size (Elementary)
Regular Class Size (Elementary)
Length of Core* Class Periods (Secondary)
Core Class size (Secondary)
Non-Core Class Size (Secondary)
Percent Core Teachers
*Math, English/LA, Science, & Social Studies

School Expenditure Structures
Instructional 1. Core Academic Teachers
- English / Reading / Language Arts
- History / Social Studies
- Math
- Science
2. Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Preparation
- Art, music, physical education, etc.
- Academic Focus with or without Special Funding
- Career / Technical / Vocational
- Drivers Education, Librarians
3. Extra Help
- Tutors
- Extra Help Laboratories
- Resource Rooms (Title 1, Special education or other part-day pull-out programs)
- Inclusion Teachers
- English as a second language classes
- Special Education self-contained classes for severely disabled students (Including aides)
- Extended Day and Summer School
- District-initiated Alternative Programs
4. Professional Development
- Teacher Time – Substitutes and Stipends
- Trainers and Coaches
- Administration
- Materials, Equipment and Facilities
- Travel & Transportation
- Tuition and Conference Fees
Instructional 5. Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff
- Coordinators and Teachers on Special Assignment
- Building Substitutes and Other Substitutes
- Instructional Aides
6. Instructional Materials and Equipment
- Supplies, Materials and Equipment
- Computers (hardware, software, peripherals)
7. Student Support
- Counselors, Nurses, Psychologists, Social Workers, Extra-Curricular & Athletics
Non-Instructional 8. Administrators
9. Operations and Maintenance
- Custodial, Utilities, Security, Food Service
Note: Adapted from Defining School-Level Expenditure Structures by Odden et. al. (2003), pp. 323-356.
Copyright 2003 by Journal of Education Finance. Adapted without permission.
63

These nine expenditure elements by Odden et. al. (2003) portray an accurate
representation of allocation expenditures for most school sites and will be describe in detail
below:
1) Core academic teachers: Teachers who hold credentials in the subject areas of English,
Mathematics, Science and Social Science. At the high school or secondary level, special
education and English Language Development teachers are also included.
2) Specialist and Elective Teachers/Planning and Preparation: Teachers who hold
credentials in the subject areas of non-core academic classes. Elective classes may
include career and technical education, fine and performing art, and vocational subjects.
Specialists may include librarians, media specialists, and technology specialists.
3) Extra Help: Teachers who hold credentials and provide assistance to students who have
special education designations, at-risk students or students who struggle academically.
4) Professional Development: Includes the funding allocated to all aspects of enhancing the
knowledge and skill of the educational or instructional staff. This allocation includes,
coaches, compensation, equipment, facilities, fees, materials, staff time, training staff,
and travel expenses.
5) Other Non-Classroom Instructional Staff: Teachers with credentials and staff members
without credentials that provide ongoing instructional support during the school day.
These individuals often include instructional aides, instructional facilitators, program
coordinators, and substitute teachers.
6) Instructional Materials and Equipment: Includes the fiscal allocation for computer
software, equipment, materials, supplies, technology, and text books.
64

7) Student Support: Educators that are credentialed such as counselors, nurses,
psychologists, and social workers. It also includes educators that are non-credentialed
such as attendance clerks, interpreters, community liaisons, and guidance specialists.
8) Administrators: This is a non-instructional expense that includes the following personnel
principal, assistant principal, and clerical staff. Furthermore, it includes equipment,
supplies, and technology.
9) Operations and Maintenance: This is a non-instructional expense that includes the cost of
equipment, food service, other services, security, all staff, utility and facility
maintenance.
Utilization frameworks to categorize fiscal expenditures according to established resource
indicators permits the cross-comparability of fiscal allocations between school settings.
Educational Adequacy
In the wake of NCLB, there is growing consensus that American schools have largely
been underfunded. According to a national survey conducted by Hartman and Teeter (2004),
74% of Americans expressed concern regarding the quality of public school, 78% felt that
available funding to schools was lacking especially in low socioeconomic areas and 80% of
Americans believe that there is not enough accountability in schools. NCLB set a strong
precedent for the establishment of adequate achievement, standards, and accountability thereby
opening the door for states to seek legal redress for inadequate funding to meet those
expectations (West Ed., 2000). This imbalance created growing consensus with educational
leaders that educational reform plans must be inclusive of adequate funding models to support
reform initiatives (West Ed. 2000). According to Ravitch (2011), the nation’s educational
system has been bound by the harsh realities of NCLB and consequently spends billions of
65

dollars on test related preparatory measures and standardized testing that produces test savvy but
content knowledge poor citizens (Ravitch, 2011). In order for those individuals to compete in
the global economies of tomorrow, drastic educational reform and adequate funding methods are
needed today.
The focus of education has shifted from equity to adequacy regarding both educational
access, achievement, and funding. Adequate funding models or costing-out models are designed
to establish the minimal amount of funding needed to provide adequate educational programs
and support to all students in order to achieve the outlined performance standards (Odden &
Picus, 2009). It is important to note that adequacy-based financing requires governance changes
between federal, state, and local educational agencies to empower a locus of control at all levels
to produce a base-line cost per-student that is focused on results (Augenblick, 2011). State and
local legislative educational funding reform is critical in that LEA based fiscal educational
budgets rely on both funding sources as a major source of revenue (Augenblick, 2011). If state
and local revenue sources are nonsufficient in providing a basic floor of educational opportunity,
students will not be adequately funded. Many funding adequacy models have been developed
and implemented in various states with varying results in an attempt to determine the adequate
level of educational funding required to bring about a desired level of student achievement
(Chambers & Levin, 2009). Table 2.4 below describes four funding adequacy models or
costing-out models developed to provide viable solutions to fund our nation’s schools based on
differing adequacy formulas, which are The High Performing or Successful School / District
Model, The Professional Judgment Model, The Cost-Function Analysis Model, and the
Evidence-Based Model (Chambers & Levin, 2009). Table 2.12 also identifies the advantages
66

and disadvantages associated with each funding adequacy model in order to present a
comparative examination of the four models.
Table 2.12 – A Review of Four Funding Adequacy Models
A Review of Five Funding Adequacy Models
Model Description Advantage Disadvantage
High-
Performing
or
Successful
School /
District
Model
 Identifies schools and districts that are
currently exhibiting high performance levels
based on student achievement that meet or
exceed the desired benchmark target.
 This model extrapolates the per-pupil
spending amount based on the amount of
funding the high-performing district
receives and equates that to the adequate
funding amount.
 The per-pupil funding excludes student
group populations or interventions and
special programs such as special education
 This approach
averages the
fluctuation
between high-
spending and
low-spending
districts

 Does not adjust
for variability in
student need,
population size,
socioeconomic
status, or support
 Includes district or
states achievement
indicators only
 Fund utilization is
not a primary
factor
Professional
Judgment
Model
 Esteemed educational professionals
determine the essential components needed
to increasing achievement levels
 Identifies the successful evidence-based
curricular programs that have proven to
increase student achievement levels.
 Prescribed district adopted evidence-based
curricular programs reforms practice
 Funding amounts are assigned to each
essential component to determine the total
adequate funding amount per-pupil based
on the combined cost of the components.
 Educational
professionals
include; experts
teachers, and
administrators,
(district & site)
 Fosters
organizational
support
 Adjustment for
a variety of
student needs
 Decisions are not
necessarily data-
driven
 Professional
educator
recommendations
may include bias
 Professional teams
my not be experts
in selecting
effective methods
Cost-
Function
Analysis
Model
 Utilizes district level data and statistical
analysis to correlate student achievement to
the minimal level of funding needed to meet
the desired outcome.
 Estimates the cost amount associated with
performance levels through complex
calculations.
 Decisions are
data-driven
 Derivation of
the minimal
cost to include
atypical student
needs
 Calculations based
on large data sets
 Relies on one
standardized state
assessment - may
not measure all
student attributes
Evidence-
Based
Model
 The funding framework resides on the
assignment of value to a tailored
instructional core program that includes
research-based strategies, support
mechanisms and accountability standards to
produce high levels of student achievement.

 Balances state
and local
control
 Adjusts for the
size and
demographics
of the school
 Lacks flexibility
in designing
funding program
and marginal cost
calculations and
services all school
circumstances
equally
Source: Chambers & Levin, 2009
67

Table 2.12 outlines four different funding models to increase and maintain high levels of student
performance through the generation of adequacy formulas which establish base-line budget
expenditures. This linkage of spending to outcomes generates awareness of the gaps that exist
between current levels of funding and the minimum or adequate level of funding needed to
produce a desired achievement outcome (Chambers & Levin, 2009). Table 2.4 describes distinct
advantages and disadvantages for costing-out models however, given the current focus on data-
driven decision making and variability to adjust programs to meet diverse student needs the
Evidence-Based Method becomes the only model that factors in both criteria.
Currently researchers do not agree on the exact amount of per-pupil investment required
to produce adequate levels of student achievement for all students (Chambers & Levin, 2009).
However, according to President Obama’s reauthorization blueprint there is consensus on
allocating fiscal resources to support research-based core strategies proven to produce increased
levels of student achievement such as:
1. Building the capacity of qualified teachers and principals
2. Create performance incentives
3. Develop systems capacity throughout the organization
4. Early childhood education
5. Regulating student-teacher ratios
6. Scaffold programs for English Language Learners and Students with disabilities
7. Student support measures inclusive of; early intervention programs, tutoring, and
8. Parent and community outreach
9. The utilization of relevant technology, textbooks and materials
68

The Evidence-Based Model (EBM) is inclusive of many of the aforementioned research-
based core strategy components. For this reason the EBM will be used throughout this study
when analyzing the resource distribution and allocation for this study. All school districts in
Oregon are funded in accordance with the OQEM which is similar to the EBM in that it adheres
to the establishment of a “prototype school” as a base framework which adjusts to accommodate
variations in school size, demographic and location.
The EBM relies on two primary sources of information: 1) research evidence regarding
best practices, programs and methodologies that have proven to be successful in education today
and 2) continuous research of high-performing schools who have significantly increased or
maintained high levels of student achievement throughout a three to seven year duration (Picus,
2010). The funding framework of the EBM resides on the assignment of value to a tailored
instructional core program that includes research-based strategies, support mechanisms, and
accountability standards to produce high levels of student achievement (Odden & Picus 2009).
The EBM targets the stratification of student development by designing 3 distinctly
different prototype schools which include elementary school grades K-5, middle school grades 6-
8, and high school grades 9-12 (Odden & Picus, 2008). Targeting these three stages in a
consistent and connected manner serves to align, curriculum, articulation, educational programs
and funding resources throughout a student’s educational experience. The EBM is tailored to
each educational level and thereby portrays slight variation between ratios and allocations
(Odden & Picus, 2008). The elementary and middle school prototypes will not be discussed as
this study focuses solely on the high school settings. Figure 2.2 depicts a global view of the
EBM and includes support programs, strategies, staffing and targeted groups needed to
comprehensively implement with fidelity.
69

Figure 2.2 – The Evidence-Based Model

Note: Adapted from
According to figure 2.2, a prototypical high school would service grades nine through twelve and
average a student-core teacher ratio of 25-1 plus three extra teachers dedicated to mild to
moderate special education (Odden & Picus 2009). Core teachers are defined as teachers who
teach in the disciplines of English, mathematics, science and social science. An additional 33%
of staff should be employed as curricular specialists (Odden & Picus 2009). Academic coaches,
facilitators, mentors, and instructional trainers are provided within the scope of the model and
fluctuate in number from site to site based on the ratio of selected student populations within that
site (Odden & Picus 2009). In addition to the instructional staff, one credentialed support person
is afforded to every 100 students who are identified as socioeconomically disadvantages or
70

students in poverty (Odden & Picus 2009). States fluctuate in terms of the criteria for identifying
students as socioeconomically disadvantaged (Odden & Picus 2009). It is important to note that
all credentialed support staff are fully credentialed teachers and not instructional aides (Odden &
Picus 2009). Instructional aides do provide direct student services for special education students
as defined by the child’s individual educational plan (IEP) authorized by the Individual with
Disability Educational Act (IDEA).
Extended support programs are offered to assist students academically and provide
opportunity to stay on track for graduation such as credit recovery, extended day, and summer
school (Odden & Picus 2009). Furthermore, the EBM includes specialized educational
instruction which targets specific groups that include career and technical education, gifted and
talented students, and special education students (Odden & Picus 2009). Finally, careful
consideration of professional development funded at $100 per pupil is addressed in two forms: 1)
targeted professional development and coaching throughout the school year and 2) A 10 day
summer training institute in which the teachers are paid at their daily rate (Odden & Picus 2009).
Provisions are included in the EBM for substitute teachers which are staffed with the base
allocation of five percent of all teacher resources in order to provide professional development,
release time for teachers, and cover teacher absences (Odden & Picus 2009). Funding provisions
are also included for the following: district administration, principals, assistant principals, non-
instructional aides, library media specialists, secretaries, and counselors (Odden & Picus 2009).
Finally the EBM outlines funding for technology, instructional materials, student activities,
operations, maintenance, and transportation (Odden & Picus 2009). Table 2.13 outlines the
specific staffing and funding amounts afforded to high schools in the EBM.

71

Table 2.13 - Staffing and funding provisions outlined in the Evidence-Based Model
Staffing and funding provisions outlined in the Evidence-Based Model
School Elements High School
School Characteristics
School configuration Grades 9-12
Prototypical School Size 600
Class Size (student to teacher
ratio)
25:1
Number of Teacher Work Days 210 total days
(200 teacher work days + 10 days for intensive
training)
Student Instructional Days NA
Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24
Specialist Teachers 33% of Core Teacher
8.0
Instructional Facilitators 1 for every 200 students
3.0
Tutors for struggling students 1 Certificated Teacher for every 100 students in
poverty
Teachers for English Language
Learners
1 ELL Teacher for every 100 students
Extended Day 0.25 FTE Certified Teachers for ½ of students in
poverty with a class size of 15
Summer School 0.25 FTE Certified Teachers for ½ of students in
poverty with a class size of 15
Students with learning
disabilities - moderately disabled
Funding for equivalent of 4 additional teaching
positions, and 2.0 aide positions
Student who are severely
disabled
100% state reimbursement minus federal special
education funds
Gifted Students $25 per student
Career and Technical Education No additional cost
Substitutes 5% of lines 1-11
Pupil Support Staff 1 for every 100 students in poverty
Non-Instructional Aides 3
Librarians, and Media
Specialists
1 Librarian & 1 Media Specialist
Principal 1
School Site Secretary 3
Professional Development $100 per pupil
Technology $250 per pupil
Instructional Materials $200 per pupil
Student Activities (Student
Enrichment)
$250 per pupil
Counselors 1 per 250 students
Nurse’s Aide 0
Registered Nurse 0
District Administration 9 Professional & 9 Support Positions for a
District of 3,500
Operations & Maintenance State average per pupil
Pupil Transportation Previous year district expenditure per pupil
pending development of a formula based on
needs
District Characteristics
Adjustment
Hedonic or Comparable Wage Index
Note: Adapted from Review and Analysis of Ohio’s Evidence-Based Model by Odden & Picul (2009).
Adapted without permission.
72

Table 2.13 represents the school characteristics and personnel resources allocated to a
prototypical high school setting. Standard or fixed funding rates apply to professional
development, technology, instructional materials, and student activities. The EBM does provides
allocation flexibility and fluctuation with regard to the following student populations: teaching
specialists, instructional facilitators, tutors, English Language Learners, students with learning
disabilities and gifted students. It is also important to note that there are no provisions included
in the EBM for students with moderate to severe disabilities, as this student population can
fluctuate drastically between schools and districts. Odden and Picus, (2008) state that students
with severe disabilities should be funded by the state to promote fair budget allocation between
districts.
Summary
Chapter two presented a review of literature which included; the federal government’s
role in educational policy and funding reform, the state of Oregon’s role in educational policy
and funding reform, STEM, resource allocation, and educational adequacy. The purpose of this
study is to analyze district and high school site level data regarding the allocation of resources
related to the implementation of STEM subject areas and programs, as outlined in the district
achievement compact. The Evidence-Based Model by Odden and Picus (2008) was used to
analyze high school resource allocations for the Beaverton School District to determine the
alignment of resources that pertains to STEM subject areas and programs. This model was
chosen due to its ability to adapt to a variety of school demographics, which will facilitate in the
comparison between high schools within the same district. Chapter three describes the
methodology that will be utilized to conduct this study.

73

CHAPTER THREE – METHODS
Summary of Methodology from chapter 1
Introduction
This study analyzes how resources are allocated at the district and site level to support the
increased focus on STEM education. The current trend in education today is managing limited
funding with high levels of accountability. Resource allocation has become a prime concern
when selecting the programs, courses and support structures to achieve maximum output with
minimum input. The framework used to analyze the current state of resource allocation and
determine adequate funding will be the Evidence-Based Model developed by Odden and Picus
(2008).
Encouraging underrepresented students to select STEM related careers and connect
students to the world of work is a primary focus of the OEIB and the national initiative to
develop STEM education, therefore making it imperative to select a school district representative
of a diverse student body. Additionally, STEM related occupations are more prevalent in urban
and suburban settings therefore, selecting a school district in a large suburban area increases
access to industry level employment opportunities and partnerships. One large suburban district
in the State of Oregon was selected based on a willingness to participate in the study and
accessibility to a comprehensive high school with a diverse student population. Four high
schools from within the selected district will be asked to participate in the study. The
demographic make-up, performance levels, and overall size of the intended high school was
documented.
The methodology that was used throughout the study included collecting qualitative data
to gain a comprehensive representation of the resource allocation associated with STEM
74

integration into the high school setting. The resource allocation assessment focused primarily on
the utilization of funding for STEM programs, courses and personnel. Pseudonyms were
consistently utilized to disguise the district and high school identities associated with the study in
order to ensure confidentiality.
Research Questions
The research questions for this study are:
 What are the current achievement goals outlined in the District Achievement Compact as it
relates to STEM subject areas at the high school level?
 What resources are allocated to support the District Achievement Compact and goals related
to increasing student achievement in STEM subject areas and programs?
 How will the District measure progress toward the goals outlined in the Achievement
Compact to reach the 40-40-20 goal related to STEM subject areas and programs?
Purposeful Sample and Population
This study selected one large district in the State of Oregon that is comprised of at least
one suburban comprehensive high schools, with a diverse populations. The selected district is
currently in year two of a multi-year reform process that includes the development and
implementation of an annual district achievement compact. This study focused on the current
implementation of the achievement compact and the resource allocation pertaining to the 2012-
2013 school year only.
Sample selection included a review of the school districts within the State of Oregon to
determine which potential district and high school therein would fit the parameters of this study.
Finalizing the selection process required analysis of the district size, district location and student
demographic data in individual high school settings. One district was selected that met the
75

criteria for selection. Table 3.1 outlines the district sample demographics, by percentage of
student population, in the following categories: American Indian / Alaskan Native, Asian /
Pacific Islander, Black / African American, Hispanic, Caucasian / White, and Multiple Racial
Designation.
Table 3.1 – District Sample Demographic
District Sample Demographic
by percentage (%) of student population
American
Indian /
Alaskan
Native
Asian /
Pacific
Islander
Black /
African
American
Hispanic Caucasian
/ White
Multiple
Racial
Designation
4 Seasons
District
Demographics
1% 4.2% 2% 8% 82% 3%
Summer High
School
Demographics
2% 3% 2% 16% 72% 5%
Note: Adapted from Oregon Department of Education

Table 3.1 depicts a general similarity between the demographic population of the District and the
targeted high school in terms of overall diversity and demographic makeup. The discrepancy
between the two occurs with regard to the Hispanic and Caucasian populations, in which there is
an inverse correlation. Prior to the onset of the research study the researcher will contact the
district of interest to discuss the conditions of participation. The district was provided with the
following information:
1) An introduction to the researcher and research topic
2) A summary of the proposed study
3) The reason for the selection and any potential gain that the district could expect to receive
upon the completion of the research study
76

Many district of interest declined to participate in the study, so an alternative district was
selected based on the same criteria. Once district permission was established, the high school
was contacted and provided similar information to establish consent.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
A qualitative data collection method was implored throughout the duration of this study.
This method included gathering various pieces of information and data derived from a variety of
sources. The district and school site provided internal documents and reports. District
documentation included the achievement compact, action plan, budget, strategic plan, and
placement criteria. High school site documentation included school budget, master schedule,
mission and vision or value statements, school accountability reports, and school action plan.
Information was also gathered through a semi-structured interview process, utilizing an
interview protocol that was developed prior to the onset of the research study. Once district and
site permission to proceed was granted, arrangements were made to conduct interviews and
request essential data from the district assistant superintendent of educational services as well as
the high school principal.
Qualitative data was collected and formulated into a case-study narrative that describes
how the district and high school developed and implemented the plan outlined in the regional
achievement compacts as it applied to the increase in STEM education. Narratives were
generated throughout the interview process at both the district and site levels. Data was collected
based on district and site level school expenditures and resource indicators.
Qualitative data will be extracted from the interview process and school related
documentation then uploaded into an on-line database. This database utilized the Bit Locker Full
Drive Encryption software system for both desktop and server protection. This system requires
77

both password protection and fingerprint authentication measures to ensure the security of the
information (Bit Locker Drive Encryption, 2013). The researcher submitted an application to the
Internal Review Board (IRB) to gain permission to conduct this study and completed a training
program (University of Southern California, 2013). In addition, descriptive information
regarding the research methods utilized in the study included all data collection protocols,
practices, and codes prior to initiation (University of Southern California, 2013).
Data Analysis
Transcription of all interviews were completed immediately following the interview to
ensure the accuracy and integrity of the imparted information and recorded in a secure database
system. All data and information was then collectively gathered into a case-study format that
accurately represented the participating District and school site.
All data was comparatively analyzed with the governing practices of the Evidence-Based
Model for resource allocation. Theoretical conclusions were drawn from the implementation of
the regional achievement compact and resource allocation compared to the best practices
outlined in the Evidence-Based Model. In addition, each case study was analyzed to determine
the scope and development of the STEM program that is currently offered or being implemented
at the high school site. The data in this study will determined how the District and site
incorporated the regional achievement compact and aligned resources to support the STEM
initiative. This information was utilized to determine successful practices or patterns that
contributed to increasing student achievement outcomes with regard to STEM education and the
selection of STEM career pathways by the student population. The results of the case studies are
discussed in detail in chapter four.

78

Summary
This chapter included an overview of the research questions and purposeful methods of
District, school and population selection. It also discussed the processes utilized in
instrumentation, data collection and data analysis. Chapter four includes the findings and
outcomes that have resulted from the case study narratives derived from the research questions.

CHAPTER FOUR – FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter contains the research study findings as well as a summary of the data
gathered from both the District and high school that was selected for participation in this study.
Appendices H and I contain detailed profile information with regard to the interviews conducted
and information gathered from the selected District and high school. The research questions
defined at the onset of this research study guided the inquiry process and contributed to the
development of the interview protocol used in this study. Appendix C and D depict the mode of
email and letter communication used to promote and encourage participation in this research
study. Appendix E outlines the Information Fact Sheet for Exemption of Non-Medical Research
that was provided to each of the institutions that agreed to participate. Appendix G outlines the
interview protocol that was consistently implemented through the course of this research process.
Finally, Appendix F details the document Request List that was sent to each educational
institution of study. Upon conclusion of the investigative process, all reported information was
evaluated, reviewed and summarized in the following case study document.

79

Summary of Sample District
4 Seasons District is a diverse district that is comprised of approximately 10,000 students
which represent several national origins, speaking a variety of different native languages. Figure
4.1 below represents the demographic makeup of the student population, broken down into
cluster groups by percent, which include; 82% Caucasian or White, 8% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 2%
African American, 1% American Indian, .2% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander and 3% representing
all other demographic categories.
Figure 4.1: Population Break Down by Demographic Category for the 4 Season School District

Figure 4.1 portrays a visual representation of the demographic student population distribution by
category for the 4 Seasons School District. The majority of students are identified as Caucasian,
representing 82% of the total school population.
Population Break Down by Demographic Category for the
4 Season School District
Caucasion Hispanic Asian
African American American Indian Hawaiian / Pacific Islander
All Other
80

The 4 Seasons School District is quite large covering 200 square miles and consists of 5
elementary schools, 3 middle schools, 2 high schools, 1 alternative high school facility and 1
District office.
Regional Achievement Compact
The development of the District’s Achievement Compact were in part derived from the
improvement strategies identified by the OEIB (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013).
Each District within the state designed a strategic plan around common focus areas outlined by
the OEIB to unify the P-20 educational system and create articulated alignment (Oregon
Educational Investment Board, 2013). The 4 Seasons District has selected 5 main focus areas to
be included into the achievement compact which are as follows;
1. Development of a standards based academic achievement system
2. Integrate long term learning targets
3. Develop supporting learning targets
4. Implement the Common Core State Standards
5. Provide a rigorous college and career readiness program inclusive of 21
st
Century
Skills.
The Standards based System
The 4 Seasons District is committed to a standards based system to increase student
academic achievement and performance. This standards based system defined the minimum
competency level for each content area, while providing clearly established student expectations
geared toward developing student mastery in that given subject area (Oregon Educational
Investment Board, 2013). An academic achievement rating scale was developed to further
delineate knowledge and skill attainment which is outlined in Table 4.1 below.
81

Table 4.1: Standards Based Academic Achievement Scale
Standards Based Academic Achievement Scale
Score / Rating Level of Mastery
4 Highly Proficient
3 Proficient
2 Newly Proficient
1 Developing

The academic achievement scale outlined in Table 4.1 provides a range from 1-4 indicating
a students present ability or performance level when evaluating the mastery of content.
This rating scale mimics a similar rating scale outlined by the Advanced Placement (AP)
and International Baccalaureate (IB) programs (College Board, 2013 & International
Baccalaureate Organization, 2013). In addition, to the academic achievement rating, an
academic behavior rating was established. Behavior ratings indicate the level of skill
development as a progressive function to measure a student’s ability to demonstrate the
level to which they can learn independently (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013).
The behavior rating and the academic achievement scale were established to utilize a
unified performance based evaluative system that would be consistently applied through
the application of the below benchmark system for all Districts in Oregon (Oregon
Educational Investment Board, 2013). Table 4.2 outlines the following behavior rating
scale that was devised and implemented.
Table 4.2: Standards Based Academic Behavior Scale
Standards Based Academic Behavior Scale
Score / Rating Level of Mastery
I Independent consistently
G Generally
S Sometimes
R Rarely
82

Table 4.2 depicts a student’s level or ability to work as a self-directed learner, who is
intrinsically motivated and engaged in the learning process as exemplified by the student’s
academic behavior (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013).
To support a standards based system the 4 Season’s District has developed the following
focus areas of interest or goals:
o Establish clear learning targets
o Provide instruction that is linked to learning targets
o Implement consistent assessment with scoring guides and rubrics
o Utilize formative assessments to adapt instruction
o Regular progress reporting of student achievement levels
o Professional development of instructional staff focused to develop expertise
Long Term and Supporting Learning Targets
In an effort to support the standard based system, long term learning targets have been
developed. These learning targets centralize content knowledge and learning around a common
theme to create a deep knowledge base that is interconnected with a multitude of content areas.
Such a design permits the development of a broad holistic perspective of integrated student
knowledge. Supporting learning targets define the key elements that are required to achieve a
mastery level of knowledge and skill outlined by the long term learning targets. The supporting
targets identify the essential learning required by every student which provides focus and
direction for the instructional staff in the development of lesson plans, activities and assessments
required for such levels of mastery.

83

Common Core State Standards Integration
In addition, the 4 Seasons District does not have a singular focus toward the improvement
or increase in STEM programs or initiatives. Rather, the focus is centered on a multi-phasic
process derived to improve academic achievement for all students in all content areas and
includes the establishment of a minimal equivalency level to achieve content mastery. In so
doing, it was noted that many of the identified STEM skills are imbedded into the Common Core
State Standards. The 4 Seasons District outlined a progressive plan for the implementation of the
Common Core State Standards, which includes the following phases; awareness,
implementation, integration and enhancement. The District is currently in the implementation
phase as it moves toward Common Core integration. Furthermore, the Common Core State
Standards focus on developing instructional strategies and methods designed to increase
student’s skills and abilities in the following areas; communicating, collaborating, creativity and
critical thinking. The mechanism with which these targeted skills and abilities will be fostered is
through the development of performance based learning tasks. Performance based learning tasks
extend the traditional lesson plan by including; writing assignments with in-text citations,
evidence to support ideas, relevant contextual application and the utilization of cross-content
knowledge. The focus is to utilize knowledge from a variety of sources to create or demonstrate
that knowledge in a purposeful or meaningful way. District Administration believe that through
the strengthening of these core skills interdepartmentally and across the curriculum, STEM skill
development will increase in addition to achievement levels.
21
st
Century Skills Integration
Specifically regarding STEM education, the 4 Seasons District outlines a plan to improve
student development of 21
st
Century Skills. This plan includes a heightened focus on the
84

Professional Development of all instructional personnel, in addition to the implementation of 21
st

Century learning proficiencies. The integration and development of 21
st
Century skills and
learning proficiencies enables the 4 Seasons District to begin the development of an integrated
STEM program. According to a District spokesperson, the establishment of this basic level of
instruction not only will assist students in developing the mastery level of content required by
higher education institutions, it will also equip students with valuable problem solving and
innovative skills and abilities that are sought after by industry leaders. Therefore, the 21
st

Century proficiencies in conjunction with the performance based learning tasks, outlined by the
Common Core State Standards, combine to define the key focal points that will be infused in all
departmental and course disciplines throughout the 4 Seasons District and school sites therein.
The direction toward mastery learning implemented by the 4 Season’s District solidified
into the following slogan; “Students must show what they know.” This mantra signifies a
movement or shift in the way that educators and students think about and interact with
knowledge. Student are required to manipulate and utilize varied content material through the
demonstration of understanding. Technology is a tool that has redefined the landscape of
education by providing students with access to an infinite amount of relevant, researched based
knowledge. The focus is no longer on getting students information, rather the focus is on how
students will use, manipulate or apply that knowledge to produce innovative and creative
products.
College and Career Readiness
College and Career Readiness is a primary focus for the 4 Seasons District. Aligning all
areas of curriculum into career pathways is a state wide initiative. The District is currently in the
implementation phase of this alignment, and as a result, curricular and programmatic expansion
85

is on hold. In the interim, surveys are being conducted to determine industry related trends,
student career interests and funding allocation opportunities. Once this information is analyzed a
decision making process will ensue to determine the direction and enhancement of the career
pathways offered to students within the 4 Seasons District.
Industry related trend data will play a vital role in the determination and optimization of
curricular content alignment to high propensity employment opportunities. The utilization of
Career Technical Education (CTE) programs have become a main focus for District
Administration. There is a variety of course offerings at the high school sites, however with the
implementation of the Common Core State Standards, there is a projection that this number will
increase as the implementation phase moves forward. Determining what classes will be
implemented to enhance the college and career readiness program will be decided in the next
phase of implementation.
District officials do agree that to achieve the goals outlined in the regional achievement
compact and ultimately the 40-40-20 goal requires a shift in the current educational culture to
align with a P-20 focus. As a result, the 4 Seasons District has begun a partnership with local
community colleges in adjacent areas. This partnership is an attempt to reduce the costs
associated with implementing a variety of course offerings. This partnership is referred to as the
Oregon Regional Achievement Collaborative and would allow students to take courses at the
community college level with the intent to earn an Associate’s Degree at the same time they are
completing the high school requirements for graduation (Oregon Department of Education,
2014).
The 4 Seasons District is also focused on strengthening their alignment with local 4-year
colleges and Universities. As a result, the District was awarded an Eastern Promise Grant. This
86

grant is designed to establish a partnerships between high school sites and local 4-year colleges
and Universities to create collaborative learning environments for both professors, high school
instructors and high school students (Oregon Department of Education, 2014). This arrangement
permits college professors to actively visit and engage in high school classrooms on a regular
basis. The student benefit is in the development and attainment of skills and performance
abilities required by higher education institutions. This partnership provides essential
articulation and cross training for the college professor, high school instructor, and student
population enrolled. Content calibration regarding the level of learning that is expected by
higher educational institutions is vital for the matriculation and sustainability of transitioning
students. This partnership aims to increase matriculation rates through an access model that
includes interventions to support the adequate preparation of students by the termination of
compulsory education.
With the reauthorization of NCLB, student academic achievement levels have taken
center stage amongst educators. The 4 Season’s District is committed to increasing academic
achievement levels for all students regardless of designated group affiliation. Reading levels
were identified as a significant area of concern. A targeted programmatic intervention strategy
was recently put in place to address this growing concern. Currently, student reading levels are
assessed annually and evaluated to identify students who read below grade level. Identifies
students are provided with an intervention course in replace of an elective to reduce the assessed
gap. District administration embodies the belief that is backed by research, regarding the notion
that improving reading levels contributes to the overall improvement of academic performance.
The 4 Seasons District believes that the accountability for increasing student achievement and
87

the successful matriculation of student to higher education requires a strategic plan that is
inclusive of professional development.
Professional Development
District leaders have identified that professional development is a critical component to
the success of the District, as identified by the goals in the achievement compact. Due to the
national recession, professional development decreased significantly across the District. With
the adoption of the Common Core State Standards and the corresponding assessments, new
funding measures were enacted to generate funding sources that would enable states and
Districts to develop implementation strategies. Federal funding was provided in the form of
Strategic Initiatives Grants. These grants were passes by the Oregon Legislative branch in July
of 2013 in an effort to provide critical funding to assist the school Districts of Oregon (Oregon
Department of Education, 2014). These investments provide matching funds to create
community partnerships, develop instructional best practices and expand research-based
programs in an attempt to improve student achievement levels across the state (Oregon
Department of Education, 2014). Specifically the Strategic Initiative Grants are awarded to
Districts to develop; early literacy programs, a college-going culture and the infusion of STEM /
CTE programs that connect students with relevant real-world subject matter and work
experiences (Oregon Department of Education, 2014). The 4 Seasons District is in the beginning
stages of receiving the fiscal distribution of that funding allocation and will implement the
strategic plan outlined in the regional achievement compact through the utilization of those
funds.
Additional funding is slated to emerge with regard to improving teacher quality. As
Oregon is developing a program called “The Network for Quality Teaching and Learning,”
88

Districts will have an opportunity to develop individual and cohort based professional
development that is inclusive of mentoring, training and instructional materials (Oregon
Department of Education, 2014). This additional funding has permitted the 4 Seasons District to
provide initial professional development in the following areas:
o Academic Conversations
o Close Reading Strategies
o Collaborative levels of rigor
o Common Core State Standards
o Curriculum Pathways
o Educator Effectiveness
o Intern programs
o Lesson Design – Project Based Learning
o Next Generation Science Standards
o Oregon Regional Achievement Collaborative
o Rigor and Relevance Curriculum Integration
As the implementation phase moves forward, additional professional development will be added
in a sequential format.

Accountability
The reauthorization of NCLB provided accountability measures for LEA’s across the
nation. Prior to the Common Core State Standards and the Smarter Balanced Assessments,
Oregon developed the OAKS assessment protocol to measure student achievement levels and
comparatively analyze student performance across the state. With the adoption of the Common
89

Core State Standards, Oregon will move to the Smarter Balanced Assessment model. This
protocol is designed to measure the achievement levels of students based on the Common Core
State Standards and allow cross comparability between students on a national scale. These
assessments will be implemented utilizing computer adaptive technology designed to meet the
academic performance level of the individual user. This test permits the assessor to identify to a
greater degree of accuracy, each student’s knowledge and ability level.
Resource Allocation
LEA resource allocation is a daunting task as the State has struggled through the recent
recession. As a result, the 4 Seasons District was required to make tough fiscal decisions in
order to sustain the daily operations for all sites. Each school sites was analyzed to determine the
efficiency, effectiveness and functionality of the services provided. At the conclusion of that
assessment, the 4 Seasons District selected to conserve fiscal allocations in strategic areas that
resulted in; the reduction of classified and certificated staff, limited the deployment of
professional development opportunities and reduced the length of the school year. The
byproduct of these reductions decreased productivity across the District and consequently
increased class size. Many programs that were formerly under development or up for
consideration were stalled. Key partnerships that were garnered with local industry leaders
became a primary focus for preservation, as they relieved bottom lines. As the recession eased in
severity, LEA’s adapted and with the addition of state leveraged grant opportunities, the 4
Seasons District was able to capitalize on many of those grants. The 4 Seasons District was
awarded two strategic grants that will provide fiscal relief and support to the District and site
infrastructures as outlined by the achievement compact.
90

The 4 Seasons School District was recently awarded a $102,514 a STEM, STEAM and/or
CTE programs and activity grant to increase student learning outcomes in the areas of STEM,
STEAM and CTE education (Oregon Department of Education, 2014). This grant was awarded
in March of 2014, and the initial phase of implementation is slated to commence in the 2014-
2015 school year. This revenue source will be utilized to develop capital facility improvements
with regard to the building of a STEM, STEAM and CTE building. The Oregon Department of
Education established funding programs to assist LEA’s, including the 4 Seasons District, to
modernize facilities and generate 21
st
century classroom learning environments (Oregon
Department of Education, 2014). In addition, the following grants were awarded to the 4
Seasons District;
 The Network for Quality Teaching and Learning – $45.6 million
o Creating a Network for Quality Teaching and Learning to ensure Oregon’s
teachers have the supports, mentoring, professional development, and training
needed to succeed in their profession.
 Strategic Initiatives for Student Success – $29.3 million
o Focusing on early literacy with the aim of getting all students reading at grade
level by the end of third grade.
o Connecting students to the world of work through expanding Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) and Career and Technical Education
(CTE) programs.
o Creating a college-going culture in Oregon schools through supporting
programs that prepare students for a successful transition to college and
encourage the completion of college credits while in high school
Summary of Sample School
Summer High School represents one of three high schools within the 4 Seasons School
District and is located in an urban area. It services grades 9-12 on a block schedule and boasts an
87% attendance rate, and a 72% graduation rate, both of which are higher than the state average.
The student population of Summer High School is moderately varied and consists of; 72%
91

Caucasian, 16% Hispanic, 5% students identified as two or more racial groups in combination,
3% Asian or Pacific Islander, 2% American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 2% African American
or black. Figure 4.2 below, represents the student demographic statistics for Summer High
School.
Figure 4.2: Ethnic Breakdown of Summer High School

http://www.education.com/schoolfinder/us/oregon/eugene/willamette-high-school/
Figure 4.2 above, demonstrates the variety of diversity exhibited by Summer High School, with
the primary ethnic group representing Caucasian or White. The Hispanic population which
compromises roughly 16% has been consistently rising along with the Asian population. This
trend it expected to continue. The entire student population consists of, 51% female students
while the remaining 49% are male. 54% of the students who attend Summer High School are
identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged.
Summer High School retains a 55 member instructional staff who serves 1,537 students,
resulting in a 28:1 student to teacher ratio. Table 4.3 below summarized the staffing allocation,
or number of teachers employed at Summer High School and their designated department of
instructional service.
92

Table 4.3: Summer High School Allocated Instructional Staff
Summer High School Instructional Staff
Department Number of Staff Members
Art 6
English 10
English Language Learner 2
Health 3
Mathematics 6
Physical Education 3
Reading 3
Science 6
Social Science 6
Career Technical Education (CTE) 5
World Language 5
Total 55

Table 4.3 above, outlines the curricular departments and the number of teachers assigned to each.
STEM related departments compromise approximately 31% of Summer High School’s total
course offerings. These departments include, Career Technical Education (CTE), mathematics
and Science.
Summer High school has partnered with local agencies to promote attendance and high
school completion. These partnerships along with the efforts put forth by the school and District,
has resulted in an increase in Summer High School’s graduation rate from 62% in 2008 to 72%
93

in 2011. This 10 point growth demonstrates a commitment to every student and is representative
of the third highest graduation rate in the state. Increasing attendance is also attributed to higher
student achievement levels. Figure 4.3 depicts the OAKs assessment data for the discipline of
Mathematics for Summer High School.
Figure 4.3: Mathematic OAKs Assessment Results for Summer High School.

Figure 4.3 indicates relatively stable mathematic assessment scores until 2009. This trend did
not hold between 2009 and 2010 as the resulting scores fell approximately 5%. Despite this
decline in the mathematic assessment scores, Summer High School achieved significant gains in
comparison to the overall 4 Seasons School District scores. However, while Summer High
School exceeded the District averages, they failed to exceed the state average. While the state
data continued to climb from 2009 to 2010, Summer High School declined.
Performance trend data was also recorded for the OAK achievement results in the content
area of science for Summer High School. Figure 4.4 shows performance data for the science
assessment scores.

94

Figure 4.4: Science OAKs Assessment Results for Summer High School.

http://www.education.com/schoolfinder/us/oregon/eugene/willamette-high-school/
Figure 4.4 depicts a parabolic growth trend for students at Summer High School in the area of
science achievement. The overall achievement level is now equivalent to that of the state data
and slightly above the District comparative data. Summer High School did experience a decline
from a high point of 63% in 2009 to 58% in 2010. A negative trend emerged between 2009 and
2010 with respect to both the mathematics and science overall student reported achievement
data. Both disciplines experienced a 5% decline in test scores. Desegregating the data by
student group and grade level would assist in the determination of what caused the decrease in
achievement levels.
The summative data outlined in Figures F2 and F3 depict a gap in achievement for the
students of Summer High School in the content areas of Mathematics and Science. Only 49% of
students are achieving a mastery level of mathematics and 58% of students are achieving a
mastery level of science in their respective grade and course level. In light of such proficiency
data, Summer High School realizes that significant reform measures need to be made in order to
95

increase the achievement levels for all students and reach the intended 40-40-20 goal outlined by
the OEIB.
Professional Development
Within a typical school week, there is time reserved for professional development. One
hour of time is set aside on a fixed day in the morning and is designated as a late start day.
Students arrive one hour later permitting the instructional staff to assemble for professional
development. This professional development is arranged in a variety of formats such as; whole
staff, departmental groups and small learning community groups. The small learning community
groups are comprised of instructional staff of the same content area. These meetings are
designed to train, teach and implement research-based instructional strategies which are proven
to increase student achievement and overall academic performance. Reserving dedicated
professional development time provides the mechanism necessary to ensure that the
implementation of Summer High School’s strategic plan and the achievement compact
developed by the 4 Season School District is implemented.
Summer High School is committed to supporting a rich culture and providing an
academically rigorous community of students who will graduate college and career ready. In
addition, Summer High School has adopted the following long term learning goals to meet the
District achievement compact goals:
o Provide 21
st
century technology
o Support innovation
o Develop and retain a high quality staff
o Maintain high caliber learning environments
o Integrity in the stewardship of resources
96

o Create avenues for volunteerism and engagement of the community
o Engagement through service learning
o Create equity in student performance outcomes
To assist in the implementation and successful completion of the long term learning targets each
content area developed supporting learning targets. These supporting learning targets are
organized according to content area and are further disaggregated by grade level appropriateness.
The small learning communities have defined the supporting learning targets for each content
area.
Summer High School has incorporated the strategic plan as outlined in the achievement
compact by the 4 Seasons School District. The implementation of that plan centered around five
areas of focus; implementation of the Common Core State Standards, preparation for the Smarter
Balanced Assessments, the development of a college and career readiness program and the
integration of 21
st
century skills.
Common Core State Standards Integration
Summer High School is focused on improving academic achievement for all students
based on a mastery based performance system. Throughout the 2012-2013 school year, Summer
High School has completed the introductory phase of the Common Core State Standards
initiative. This phase created awareness to the Common Core State Standard and identified the
fundamental shifts in instructional practice necessary to improve student achievement. The plan
that was developed and enacted in the 2013-2014 school year involved the implementation of the
actual Common Core State Standards. Summer High School is following a progressive multi-
phasic integration plan that will be implemented over the course of several years. To fully
97

implement the Common Core State Standards, cultural shifts must occur on behalf of the
students and instructional staff.
The Mathematical shifts are significant with the implementation of the Common Core
State Standards. One area of primary focus is the implementation of the 8 essential mathematical
practices. Professional development will be a critical component in the integration and
utilization of these concepts to improve the overall academic performance of the students at
Summer High School. In addition, a major shift in the field of mathematics relates to the
determination that Geometry is relegated as a ninth grade standard. This procedural change will
prohibit middle schools from offering Geometry as an 8
th
grade course which consequently may
cause Summer High School to adjust placement practices. Students who demonstrated high
levels of mathematic skill may be limited or unable to reach the highest levels of AP or IB
Calculus courses once offered by Summer High School. There is an option within the Common
Core State Standards to change from the traditional mathematic cycle to an integrated approach
to learning math. The traditional course selection includes; algebra 1, geometry, algebra 2, after
which students can transition on to higher levels of math beginning with pre-calculus. The
integrated approach offers the following; integrated math 1, integrated math 2, integrated math 3,
after which students transition on to higher levels of math beginning with pre-calculus. The
integrated approach does facilitate the change in standards outlined within the Common Core
State Standards. The current directive is to continue with the traditional model however, as the
state and District leadership move toward total integration this may change.
Statistics is another significant shift. Components of statistics are now required segments
in algebra 1 as opposed to algebra 2 where it previously resided. The move to integrate
statistical components into the various levels of math represents a significant shift that has
98

resulted from a need identified by higher education and industry related assessment information
(Common Core State Standards, 2012). Currently professional development and scheduled
curricular planning have begun to integrate statistical components into other content course
frameworks.
Summer High School is integrating and promoting the student development of four cross-
curricular academic behaviors as outlined by the Common Core State Standards which are;
communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking. The instructional staff is actively
working on implementing performance based learning tasks. These learning tasks require
students to; cite evidence for all writing assignments, utilize close reading strategies and produce
a performance based outcome to demonstrate their level of learning.
College and Career Readiness
A comprehensive College and Career Readiness plan is being formulated based on the
analysis of recent student achievement assessment data and industry related trends. The
alignment of curriculum into career pathways is a state wide initiative and it is actively being
enhanced by the Summer High School staff. As a result, the STEM and Career Technical
Education (CTE) related career pathways are currently under revision and development.
Summer High School currently offers a variety of course offerings, however the staff is looking
at several intervention and support strategies to include in those pathways. Interventions will be
designed to increase student achievement and increase the student sustainability and navigation
of those pathways. The next phase of the implementation plan will include determining what
additional classes will be implemented to enhance the college and career readiness program.
All staff members are making the shift and recalibrating their instructional focus. It was
noted that some staff members have embraced the change, while others are struggling to adapt to
99

the new instructional model. Students and teachers must go beyond simple regurgitation of facts
and explore ways to manipulate, express, experiment and demonstrate knowledge in a vastly
different manner.
Summer High School has established partnerships with local community colleges to
increase the variety of course offerings and provide advanced students with additional
opportunities for growth. This partnership, in accordance with the Oregon Regional
Achievement Collaborative, allows students to enroll in community college courses and work
toward an Associate’s Degree in addition to completing the high school graduation requirements
(Oregon Department of Education, 2014b). Summer High School also received funding from the
Eastern Promise Grant which has established a partnership with a local University to facilitate
the calibration of achievement expectations (Oregon Department of Education, 2014b). This
collaborative venture generates learning environments inclusive of both professors, high school
instructors and high school students. As college professors actively engage and instruct high
school students, connections are made which desensitize students to the stigma of college
professors and reduce the fear that students may have about attending college. The
administration is excited about the promise of content specific professional development which
will be imparted to high school instructors as they observe and learn from the college professor.
To maintain the accessibility for all students to participate in a variety of curricular
levels, Summer High School screens all student for reading comprehension and ability levels.
Students who demonstrate lexile level proficiency are free to select their desired courses.
Students who demonstrate reading proficiencies below the acceptable grade level equivalent will
be provided an intervention reading course. This reading program consist of 90 minutes of
intense focus utilizing computer technology, corrective fluency detection and comprehension
100

development. Reading ability was outlined by the OEIB as a strategic initiative and this program
has been implemented at Summer High School (Oregon Education Investment Board, 2013a).
Accurate assessment is not only applied to reading, rather it is actively being applied to
the process of identifying advanced students. Summer High School has an Advanced Placement
(AP) program inclusive of 18 course offerings, as well as an International Baccalaureate (IB)
program. The AP and IB programs provide opportunities for students to gain exposure to
collegiate level course work and are rewarded with a weighted grade point equivalent (College
Board, 2013 & International Baccalaureate, 2013). Many of the essential components of the IB
program are found in the New Common Core State Standards and are outlined as 21
st
century
skills. Those components are; student collaboration, creativity infused learning, development of
innovation and lessons founded on the premise of project-based learning (International
Baccalaureate, 2013).
21
st
Century Skills Integration
21
st
Century proficiencies outlined by the Common Cores State Standards identify four
main areas of focus which include; critical thinking, effective communication, collaboration and
creativity to generate innovation. Finally, Summer High School believes that students should
“Show what they know.”
Table 4.4 below delineates the identified STEM core competencies with regard to student
attainment of essential knowledge, skills and abilities that represent both STEM and 21
st
Century
Learning preparedness.

101

Table 4.4 - STEM Core Competencies and Associated Domains
STEM Core Competencies and Associated Domains
Core
Competencies
Associated Domains Description of Domain
Knowledge Biology Plant, animal and environmental functions, interdependencies and
interactions
Building & Construction Materials, methods and tools needed to create structures and
infrastructure
Chemistry Chemical compositions, atomic structures, properties, equations
chemical interactions, environmental and effects
Computers and
Electronics
Circuitry, processors, chips, electronic equipment, software and
hardware devices to create products and provide services
Design Concepts & principals governing effect, tools, techniques,
precision, accuracy, effect and process
Engineering and
Technology
Combination of many scientific disciplines that incorporate, design,
techniques, application and production of structurally sound and
sustaining products
Mechanics Design and utilization of machines and tools
Mathematics Using mathematical equations and formulas to solve problems
Physics Physical principals of thermodynamics, materials, mechanics,
fluids, electronics, and fundamental laws that govern the universe
Production & Processing Develop automaticity of ideas, systems, machines or objects
Skills Active Learning Fusing new information with existing information to problem solve
Critical Thinking The utilization of logic and reasoning to problem solve and identify
solutions or conclusions
Complex Problem
Solving
Evaluating multiple problems simultaneously to evaluate options
and create solutions
Equipment Selection &
Maintenance
Identification of tools and equipment needed to perform a task and
maintain functionality
Mathematics Using mathematical equations and formulas to solve problems
Operations & Control Maintaining operations and systems
Operations Analysis Analyzing processes, products or practices to evaluate & improve
Operation Monitoring Evaluation to ensure effective functioning
Programming Creating programs or fixing components
Quality Control Analysis Product inspection, service analysis or process evaluation to
determine effectiveness and performance quality
Science Using scientific methods and rules to solve problems
Systems Analysis Evaluating how systems work in response to changing conditions or
environmental factors
Systems Evaluation Identifying performance indicators and evaluation actions needed to
improve based on goals
Technology Design Creating new technology through innovation
Troubleshooting Active problem solving
Abilities Control Precision Accurately operate machines
Deductive Reasoning Application of rules when problem solving
Inductive Reasoning Connecting concepts and information to form conclusions
Mathematical Reasoning Using mathematical formulas to solve problems
Number Facility Fluently add, subtract, multiply and divide
Perceptual Speed Compare and Contrast letters, numbers, objects, pictures or patterns
Problem Sensitivity Recognition of problems or potential problems
Source: Carnevale, Smith & Melton, 2012
102

Table 4.4 above describes the essential skills that STEM employers are looking for. Many skills
and content areas outlined in the above table are included in the AP and IB math and science
courses offered at Summer High School. To fully implement the knowledge, skills and abilities
identified in Table 4.4, Summer High School is investing in the development of their STEM
career pathways in addition to the implementation of the Common Core State Standards.
College and Career Readiness
College and Career Readiness is a primary focus for Summer High School which aligns
all areas of curriculum into designated career pathways. The implementation phase includes the
alignment of curricular content, integration of professional development and facility
accommodation or expansion projects. Exact course determinations will be based on the analysis
of program needs, program quality, effectiveness and industry related impact trends. Sumer
High School currently offers a variety of course offerings, however course alignment, adequate
facilities and access to industry grade equipment remain critical areas of need.
Summer High School has developed measures to counteract such concerns. Facility
upgrades include the development of a new STEM building. Summer High School is slated to
break ground on this pioneering facility upgrade project in the summer of 2014. This capital
facility improvement project will provide the space, structure and the ability for the staff of
Summer High School to implement programmatic expansion in STEM related content areas.
The administration team is now developing plans to increase the focus on an engineering
pathway. This pathway sponsors the development of an electronic car program which focuses on
the design and production of cars that use alternative fuel sources. Annual state competitions
permit students to display, test and race the electronic cars in addition to preparing detailed
presentations regarding the design and innovative ingenuity that was utilized in the fabrication
103

and building process. This vital program not only provides career opportunities for students, but
it also has the potential to positively impact the environment at large. To augment this program,
a computer science pathway has begun to emerge and is currently under development.
School officials are implementing a plan to achieve the goals outlined in the regional
achievement compact and ultimately the 40, 40, 20 goal. To assist in this area, Summer High
School has implemented the development of an electronic education plan for all students. This
plan documents academic achievement, extracurricular activities, letters of recommendation and
volunteer work that students undertake throughout the high school experience in preparation for
their career or post-secondary educational endeavors beyond high school. Electronic portfolio
serves as the starting point in developing a working resume, which assists students with college
applications and employment opportunities.
In an attempt to increase graduation rates, and achieve the goal of 100% of all students
graduating from high school, measures have been designed to provide adequate alternatives
(Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013). The 4 Seasons District and Summer High School
provides tailored diploma options for its student body that address the individual needs of
students. Provisions have been made to both extend accommodations to students with various
levels of need as well as advanced courses of study. There are four types of diploma options
complete with guiding qualifications and requirements. These diploma pathways consist of a
traditional diploma, an honors diploma, a modified diploma and an extended diploma. The
traditional diploma is outlined in table 4.5 below.

104

Table 4.5: Tradition Diploma Requirements
Traditional Diploma Requirements for Summer High School
Subject Number of Credits Required
Art / Career & Technical Education (CTE) /
World Language
3
Electives 5
English Language Arts* 4
Health 1
Mathematics* 3
Personal Finance 0.5
Physical Education 1
Science* 3.5
Social Science* 3
Total Credits 24
*Indicates Core Course (English, Mathematics, Science & Social Science)
NOTE:
 The graduation class of 2014 will be required to complete three levels of math beginning at
the Algebra 1 level and extending higher.
 Personal Finance is required in addition to Economics, which is in the social studies category.
 Art / World Language / Career & Technical Education (CTE) can be taken in any
combination.

Table 4.5 above, reflects the increased state graduation requirements outlined by the OEIB
(Oregon Department of Education, 2013). Students seeking a traditional diploma must complete
24 total credits, of which 13 must be compiled in the core areas of English (4), mathematics (3),
science (3.5) and social science (3). The mathematic sequence must be inclusive of a minimum
of Algebra I and extend through Algebra II.
105

Students who exceed the requirement outlined in the traditional diploma and pursue a
more rigorous course of study are eligible to earn an Honors Diploma. Table 4.6 below, outlines
the requirements needed to achieve an Honors Diploma from Summer High School.
Table 4.6: Honors Diploma Requirements
Honors Diploma Requirements for Summer High School
Subject Number of Credits Required
Electives 6.5
English Language Arts* 4
Health 1
Mathematics* 4
Personal Finance 0.5
Physical Education 1
Science* 4
Social Science* 4
World Language* 3
Total Credits 28
*Indicates Core Courses (English, Mathematics, Science, Social Science & World Language)
NOTE:
 The graduation class of 2014 will be required to complete four levels of math beginning at the
Algebra 1 level and extending higher.
 Personal Finance is required in addition to Economics, which is in the social studies category.
 World language must include 3 credits in one language or 2 credits in each of 2 languages.
 Students must take at least 2 advanced courses, minimum of one each year.
 Students must successfully complete the required state assessments, complete 28 credits, maintain
a minimum GPA of 3.5 and attain 150 hours of community service to be eligible.

106

Table 4.6 above, depicts the requirements to achieve an honors diploma. This diploma path is
inclusive of heightened requirements from that of a traditional diploma. The honors diploma
requires the completion of 28 credits, of which 16 must be completed in the core areas. More
specifically, four credits are required in the areas of English, math, science and social science.
This diploma option was developed to generate student aptitude levels equivalent to that of the
requirements and expectations set forth by higher educational institutions. The Modified
Diploma includes provisions for students with disabilities and is outlined in Table 4.7 below.
Table 4.7: Modified Diploma Requirements
Modified Diploma Requirements for Summer High School
Subject Number of Credits Required
Art / Career Technical Education (CTE) /
World Language
1
Electives 11.5
English Language Arts* 3
Health 1
Mathematics* 2
Personal Finance 0.5
Physical Education 1
Science* 2
Social Science* 2
Total Credits 24
*Indicated Core Courses (English, Mathematics, Science & Social Science)
NOTE:
 Course content may be modified and/or students may be provided accommodations to access the
curriculum according to the specific student needs.
 Electives selection is specified by the student’s individual educational plan (IEP).
 Personal Finance is requirement but may be waived by school administration.
107

Table 4.7 above, details a reduction of credits that are required for students who are unable to
demonstrate proficiency in the full range of curricular content area standards. The modified
diploma requires students to complete 24 total credits of which 9 credits must be completed in
the core areas. More specifically the credit requirements are as follows; English 3, mathematics
2, science 2 and social science 2.
Limited English Proficient (LEP) students do not qualify for a modified diploma. Rather,
LEP students are granted the following options for graduation. LEP students who have resided
in the United States for 5 years or less, and have not had sufficient time to master the English
Language, but have demonstrate the ability to achieve all other graduation requirements may
meet the essential skills requirement with the following conditional provisions.
o Demonstration of proficiency in mathematics in their language of origin.
o Demonstration of proficiency in reading, writing and essential skills in their
language of origin.
o Demonstration of a level 3 or intermediate proficiency on the English
Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA)
The final diploma option is the extended diploma which is provisional and granted to
students based on specific qualifying criteria and extenuating circumstances. The extended
diploma requirements are outlined in Table 4.8 below which offers significant credit reductions
to the overall requirements to graduate from Summer High School due to that student’s identified
extenuating circumstance.

108

Table 4.8:Extended Diploma Requirements
Extended Diploma Requirements for Summer High School
Subject Number of Credits Required
Art / Career Technical Education (CTE) / World
Language
1
Electives
English Language Arts* 2
Health 1
Mathematics* 2
Personal Finance
Physical Education 1
Science* 2
Social Science* (History, Geography, Economics or
Civics)
3
Total Credits 12
NOTE:
 Course content may be modified and/or students may be provided accommodations to access the
curriculum according to the specific student needs.
 Electives consist of additional courses as specified by the student’s individual educational
plan (IEP).
 Personal Finance is requirement but may be waived by school administration.

Table 4.8 above depicts the criteria for the extended diploma which outlines a significant
reduction in the total number of credits required for graduation from 24 to 12. The most
significant reductions occur in the core areas. Only 9 credits are required in the core subject
areas to graduate. These credits are as follows; English requires 2 credits, mathematics require 2
credits, science require 2 credits and social science requires 3 credits. In an attempt to increase
109

graduation rates the OEIB allows for identified students to apply for an extended diploma. This
category of diploma is awarded to students who exhibit an inability to meet or complete the
traditional graduation requirements for reasons that are beyond the control of the student.
o A documented history of a significant learning disability or barrier obstructing
learning or achievement.
o A documented history of an illness or medical condition obstructing learning.
o The student qualified for an alternative assessment program from grade 6 on.
o Upon admission to high school a student suffered an injury or illness that
obstructs learning and is now qualified for the alternative assessment program.
In addition, to providing differentiated diploma options, Summer High School provides
articulated career pathways that educate, guide and direct students toward the exploration and
selection of career opportunities in industry and degree options at higher educational institutions.
Pathway selection is solidified in the formulation of a high school and post high school plan.
This plan is inclusive of goals and detailed course selection options that are designed to
adequately prepare each student for their transition into their selected career path.
Partnerships with local community colleges have formed to create flexibility and provide
additional opportunities for the students and families of Summer High School. The Oregon
Regional Achievement Collaborative permits students to work toward an Associate’s Degree at
the same time they are completing the high school requirements for graduation (Oregon
Department of Education, 2014 a). Summer High School was awarded an Eastern Promise Grant
which established a partnership between the high school site and the surrounding local colleges
to create collaborative learning environments for both professors, high school instructors and
high school students (Oregon Department of Education, 2014 a). Both programs provide
110

articulation and calibration opportunities for high school instructors and college professors to
ensure that students are adequately prepared to meet the demands and expectations of higher
education. Professional development will then be needed to address, train, equip and implement
the research-based strategies to adequately prepare students for success beyond graduation.
Professional Development
Professional development offered at Summer High School has decreased significantly, as
the 4 Seasons District has implemented strategic budget cuts due to the recent recession. The
Common Core State Standard and the corresponding adoption of the Smarter Balanced
Assessments has generated new federal revenue sources to implement critically needed
professional development and training. Professional development will continue throughout the
implementation of the Common Core State Standards as an integral component of the
achievement compact.
Intern programs that were previously established were preserved throughout the
recession. These programs provide a valuable resource to Summer High School as they afford
high school students the opportunity to gain employment related skills and experiences that
Summer High School was unable to facilitate or simulate within the confines of the classroom.
A goal outlined in the College and Career Readiness plan and Regional Achievement Compact
identifies the need for students to gain relevant industry level experience through direct hands on
learning activities and environments.
Accountability
Preserving partnerships is not only financially beneficial to Summer High School, it also
provides the mechanisms to stay current and relevant with industry related challenges, changes
and advancements that students will be asked to address. Table 4.9 outlines school elements,
111

characteristics and personnel resource segments that create the overall funding provisions
outlined in the Evidence-Based Model and how Summer High School compares to that model.
Table 4.9: Evidence-Based Model Staffing and funding provision Compared to Summer High School
Staffing and funding provisions outlined in the Evidence-Based Model
School Elements EBM High School Summer High School
Characteristics & Personnel Resources
Grades 9-12 Grades 9-12
Prototypical School Size 600 1,600
Class Size (student to teacher ratio) 25:1 28:1
Number of Teacher Work Days 210 total days
(200 work days + 10 for intensive
training)
180 total days +2 for professional
development

Core Teachers 24 22
Specialist Teachers 33% of Core Teacher
8.0
6
Instructional Facilitators 1 for every 200 students
3.0
0

Tutors for struggling students 1 Certificated Teacher for every 100
students in poverty
0
Teachers for English Language Learners 1 ELL Teacher for every 100 students 1
Extended Day 0.25 FTE Certified Teachers for ½ of
students in poverty with a class size of 15
0
Summer School 0.25 FTE Certified Teachers for ½ of
students in poverty with a class size of 15
Reduced / online options
Students with learning disabilities mildly or
moderately disabled
Funding for equivalent of 4 additional
teaching positions, and 2.0 aide positions
IDEA funded program no additional
instructional staff provided
Student who are severely disabled 100% state reimbursement minus federal
special education funds
IDEA funding no additional funding
provided
Gifted Students $25 per student 0

Career and Technical Education No additional cost
Substitutes 5% of lines 1-11 As needed for absences
Pupil Support Staff 1 for every 100 students in poverty
Non-Instructional Aides 3 0
Librarians, and Media Specialists 1 Librarian & 1 Media Specialist 1
Principal 1 1
School Site Secretary 3 3
Professional Development $100 per pupil
Technology $250 per pupil
Instructional Materials $200 per pupil
Student Activities (Student Enrichment) $250 per pupil
Counselors 1 per 250 students 3
Nurse’s Aide 0 0
Registered Nurse 0 1
District Administration 9 Professional & 9 Support Positions for
a District of 3,500

Operations & Maintenance State average per pupil
Pupil Transportation Previous year district expenditure per
pupil pending a formula based on needs

Characteristics Adjustment Hedonic or Comparable Wage Index
Note: Adapted from Review and Analysis of Ohio’s Evidence-Based Model by Odden & Picus (2009). Adapted
without permission.
112

Table 4.9 indicated a discrepancy between the provisions outlined in the EBM and the actual
provisioning of resources at Summer High School. The prototypical school is relatively small in
size and scope, having only 600 students. The National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities,
(2009) documents the impact of school size on graduation rates and student achievement, in
addition to the creation of unique learning environments. In contrast, Summer High School is
composed of 1,600 students and by all accounts is considered to be a large school (National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2009). Class size can be closely related to school size,
but in this case it is interesting to note that the prototypical school outlines a student to teacher
ratio of 25 to 1 respectively and Summer High School has achieved a relatively similar ratio of
28 to 1. Despite the fact that Summer High School has 1,000 additional students above the scope
of the prototypical school, the student to teacher ratio is relatively low. This was a conscious
attempt on the part of administration, to make a large school feel smaller and increase a student’s
ability to access instructional resources.
Upon further analysis, Summer High School does not have instructional facilitators,
designated tutors, extended day opportunities, non-instructional aides and 1 pupil support staff
for every 100 students. Summer school programs, once offered, were drastically decreased as
on-line opportunities for credit recovery emerged in addition to the option of attending an
alternative high school that would facilitate on-time graduation. The EBM apportions the need
to fund students with severe disabilities through state agencies and funding sources. The state of
Oregon does not fund students with severe disabilities through any extra external sources, which
is a very costly expenditure that is incurred by the 4 Seasons District and Summer High School.
Likewise, there is no additional funding sources to support the gifted and talented student
population or provide provisions for additional substitutes. The gifted and talented student
113

population is served by an Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate program that
has continued to develop and thrive. These programs do consume additional funding for
Instructor conferences, mandated supplies and smaller class sizes. It is difficult to estimate if
that allotment meets the $25 dollars per student budgetary amount outlined in the EBM program,
but it certainly does not meet the mark of $25 per student for the total student body.
Substitutes are provided for instructor absences as needed, not as a courtesy to attend
meetings, consult with colleagues or observe classrooms. Many of the items listed in the EMB
equip the educational institution to provide interventions for both students and staff. Due to the
budget reductions incurred in recent years, significant reductions resulted in the areas of student
interventions and proactive developmental measures. This also, resulted in a significant decrease
in professional development, technology integration, instructional materials and student
enrichment opportunities. The reductions affected the quality of the programs and services
offered throughout the 4 Seasons District. The student population of Summer High School felt
the impact of these critical fiscal cutbacks. As the economic crisis subsides, Summer High
School plans to reinstate and even implement additional professional development opportunities,
support structures and intervention programs to assist the instructional staff and student
populations.
Summary of Sample District and Current Regional Achievement Compact
In summary, The Oregon Educational Board has outlined specific focus areas that are
aimed at aligning the entire P-20 educational system. These focus areas were prioritized to
increase academic achievement and career advancement opportunities for the emerging youth of
Oregon with the ultimate goal of increasing the economic prosperity of the state at large. The 4
114

Seasons District has outlined a plan for educational improvement through the development of
their Regional Achievement Compact. That compact outlines the enhancement of STEM
education across the District. As that plan is executed, it effects segments of the organization
differently. The 4 Seasons District is actively working with all of its educational institutions to
ensure that adequate support is provided to reach the outlined goals set forth by the Oregon
Educational Investment Board.
In order to provide such services, a District wide needs assessment was conducted which
was reflected in the Regional Achievement Compact. The results of which fostered the
development of a comprehensive programmatic and instructional plan that permitted the District
to apply for grants to be directed to the 4 Seasons District in order to execute those plans. With
this additional funding, the District is now in the process of implementing the professional
development and facility upgrade initiatives necessary to establish the foundation to support the
key programs identified within the Achievement Compact.
Summer High School is utilizing the increase of funding to implement the common core
state standards and equip the instructional leadership team to enhance current levels of practice
and instruction. Utilizing time afforded by the bell schedule, Summer High School has permitted
the instructional staff to collaborate and incorporate the performance-based lesson tasks into all
curricular areas within the past school year. In addition, the refocus has permitted the
administrative teams to streamline and define the plan for student achievement, increasing focus
on key areas with high potential for a return on the investment. This focus has created an
efficient environment for effective change. This initial implementation phase includes
incorporating 21
st
century skills and performance based learning tasks into the general
curriculum. It also includes accurately placing students and assessing each students reading
115

ability. Interventions will follow to ensure that students with academic gaps receive the
corrective mechanisms to increase learning and achievement levels. In addition, the grants
awarded to the 4 Seasons District and Summer High School have permitted the infusion of
collegiate professors to augment the professional development of the secondary instructional
team. Upon completion of the initial phase of the implementation model, Summer High School
will actively enhance the emerging STEM program.
Conclusion
In terms of the resource allocation that is needed to completely revitalize and service the
needs of an emerging workforce, Oregon is still not quite there. Federal and state grants are the
beginning of that movement and provide both needed and necessary funding to kick start the
reform movement. The current resource allocation has permitted class size reductions by
lowering the student to teacher ratio in core class areas. The teacher to student ratio is still above
the national average and the targeted average outlined by the EBM model. Furthermore, when
the current fiscal structure is compared to the EBM model, many of the points outlined in the
EMB model are not yet addressed due to the budget crisis and resultant lack of funding. This
significant deficit, has limited the ability of Summer High School to provide tutoring, ancillary
instructional staff, instructional facilitators, professional development and technology upgrades.
In conjunction to the District’s decision to make significant cuts to the length of the school day
and reductions of work force, Summer High School has struggled to provide the basic levels of
service.

116

CHAPTER FIVE – DISCUSSION
Background
The Oregon Educational Investment Board (OEIB) has actively developed and provided
guidance and oversight into the educational reform measures that have now defined the state of
Oregon’s educational focus. The OEIB has identified and articulated the goal to have graduation
rates of 100% and achieve a mission to have 40% of those students attend 4-yar Universities,
40% of students attending Community Colleges and 20% of students entering into the world of
work at the conclusion of their high school career. The OEIB also has required every
educational institution to implement achievement compacts which will serve as an action plan to
ensure that the aforementioned goals come to fruition. The achievement compacts outline the
specific areas that each educational institution must focus on and implement. From that point
forward each educational institution will determine and define the action steps required to deploy
successful implementation.
The OEIB has created the following focus areas:
1) Early Reading Initiatives – Develop pre-Kindergarten programs to improve school
readiness along with increasing 3
rd
-grade reading proficiency levels for all students.
2) Recruit and Develop Professional Educators – Creating regional professional
development centers and networks for teachers and administrators.
3) Connect Students to the world of work – Increase articulation between all educational
entities and industry to enhance student’s knowledge of Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math and develop STEM programs and regional centers.
4) College / Career guidance, support and early interventions – Develop a college going
culture for students, educational staff and community members in an effort to
117

increase; graduation rates, matriculation rates to higher education and industry sector
preparation.
Regarding the increased focus on STEM education, research has shown that there is an
inherent connection between state economic prosperity and generating a workforce adept with
STEM related skills and abilities. Therefore, all educational institutions are charged with the
task of increasing the STEM skills and abilities of the emerging workforce and increasing the
total amount of Oregonians seeking higher education and career opportunities in STEM related
fields.
Overview of the Study
One school District in the state of Oregon agreed to be a participant in this research
study. This was a purposeful study that focused on one District, inclusive of one comprehensive
high school, with the focus on understanding the degree of STEM integration within that
educational organization and environment. In addition, this study focused on the resource
allocation distribution provided to support STEM integration within the high school setting. The
documented national disparity of minority representation in STEM related fields, highlights the
importance of attaining a goal of providing all students access to STEM opportunities, regardless
of demographic origin. Table 5.1 outlines the demographic populations of both the District and
school site for the 2013-2014 school year.

118

Table 5.1 – Sample District and Site Demographics
District Sample Demographic
by percentage (%) of student population
American
Indian /
Alaskan
Native
Asian /
Pacific
Islander
Black /
African
American
Hispanic White Multiple
Racial
Designation
4 Seasons
District
Demographics
1% 4.2% 2% 8% 82% 3%
Summer High
School
Demographics
2% 3% 2% 16% 72% 5%
Note: Adapted from Oregon Department of Education

Table 5.1 depicts a general similarity between the demographic population of the District and the
targeted high school in terms of overall diversity and demographic makeup. The discrepancy
between the two occurs in the Hispanic and Caucasian populations, in which there is an inverse
correlation. Summer high school has an 8% increase with regard to the Hispanic population but
conversely has a 10% decrease in the Caucasian population. The other subgroups are relatively
similar in population makeup. Currently, a mechanism to accurately track a student’s academic
focus and pursuit of STEM related fields is very limited. The establishment of higher education
transitional data and the further development of the career pathway system within Summer High
School, will facilitate the disaggregation of student data to determine the degree of student
participation in STEM related career fields.
Emphasis was placed on assessing the level of resource allocation that was attributed to
the implementation of support mechanisms aimed at improving student achievement levels in
STEM related areas. The framework used to analyze the current resource allocation structure
was the Evidence-Based Model by Odden and Picus (2006). Due to the recent National
recession, large discrepancies existed between the case study school and the prototype high
119

school outlined by the EBM. While the teacher to student ratios were relatively similar and
within scope, all other measures were not.
Summary of Findings
The current achievement goals outlined in the District Accountability Compact or plan as it
relates to STEM subject areas at the High School level is multi-phasic. The 4 Season’s District
and Summer High School are currently in the initial phase of that process. A needs assessment
was conducted and foundational elements were implemented in a comprehensive plan. Facility
upgrades are currently underway along with programmatic alterations to career pathway and
professional development plans. Partnerships with institutions of high education have been
fostered in an attempt to calibrate a united P-20 educational system. Ongoing communication
with industry leaders regarding relevant labor related data trends have both guided and directed
the decision to expand STEM offerings in areas with the greatest potential for employability.
As the state of Oregon and the federal government recover from the current recession,
outside funding sources and additional revenue streams have provided the critical support needed
to execute the initiatives and plans outlined in the achievement compacts. The target school is
vastly underfunded when compared to the EBM model. Ironically, several strategies outlined in
the achievement compacts are in alignment with the critical components depicted in the EBM.
It is assumed that as funding sources increase, both the 4 Seasons School District and High
schools therein will implement those strategies and become in a greater alignment with the EBM
model. Throughout this study evidence was generated to indicate that with regard to STEM
program development a greater emphasis would be placed on partnerships, support, student
interventions and professional development geared to forge a workforce based on developing
experts in their chosen fields.
120

The District has indicated that progress will be measured annually through the evaluation of
the benchmark goals and task completion targets as outlined in the achievement compacts. More
specifically, the District goals related to STEM subject areas and programs will be measured in
relation to phase completion aligned with the multi-phasic plan. Furthermore, evaluative
measures are slated to be conducted annually to determine programmatic needs, areas of interest
and next steps.
Upon the conclusion of this study it has been found that there is a disparity between the
number of students selecting STEM programs and career pathways in relation to other career and
course opportunities. More research is needed to determine the correlating factors that have
contributed to this overall trend as well as the mitigating factors that could be implemented. It
was found that although many students initially expressed interest in STEM related career fields
and educational pursuits, over time that interest level decreased drastically as the students
progressed toward high school completion. Additional research would need to be conducted to
determine what contributing factors are linked to this pervasive lack of STEM persistence among
students who initially express interest in a STEM related career field.
Limitations
The following limitations are presented in this study:
 The data collection method included structured interviews which may include bias.
 The information gained from the interview portion of the data collection process constituted
a small segment of the educational community and the perceptions, knowledge, and
implementation stages may not reflect other educational organizations.
 The small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings to other school settings,
student populations, and geographic regions.
121

 The early implementation stage of STEM school reform may limit the inclusion of
governmental STEM incentives or awards.
 The study relies on the voluntary agreement from school Districts to participate.
Delimitations
The following delimitations are presented in this study:
 The administrative officials interviewed were limited to one district.
 This study district was selected based on having multiple high schools with a diverse
population that may fluctuate during the course of the study.
 This study was conducted in year two of a multi-year process.
 The study focused on the current implementation of STEM programs and the resource
allocation pertaining to the 2012-2013 school year only.
Recommendations for Future Research
Areas of future research includes:
1) Research STEM focused schools and programs to discern which strategies, interventions
and programs continue to increase student achievement in STEM courses and fields.
2) Research the transition rates of students who go on to select degree pathways in STEM
related fields.
3) Research should be conducted on young professionals in STEM related fields to gain
insight and understanding on identifying key elements and critical components that exist
throughout the educational process designed to prompt or enable the selection of a STEM
career.
122

4) Research would need to be conducted to determine what contributing factor are linked to
this pervasive lack of STEM persistence among students who initially express interest in
a STEM related career field.
Conclusion
The intended purpose of this study was aimed at: 1) Identifying the integration level of
STEM education into a selected District and high school site within the Oregon educational
system, utilizing the achievement compact as a benchmark and 2) to do a thorough investigation
of the literature regarding the integration of STEM programs into Districts and high schools with
relation to the resource allocation requirement outlined in the EBM as a benchmark.
The world of work that emerging citizens must be prepared for has drastically changed in
terms of the knowledge and skills that are required to capitalize on post-secondary and
employment opportunities. Due to this increase in demand for a high skilled workforce, STEM
education reform has taken center stage. President Obama has continuously identified the
development of STEM programs as a critical educational and economic need for the United
States in order for Americans to compete in a global marketplace (The Whitehouse, 2013).
Competitive trade markets, technological ingenuity, and pressing environmental concerns are
dominating forces affecting America’s economic strength and have become the driving forces
shaping educational reform. Oregon is definitely an educational leader in the movement with the
development of the 40-40-20 goal. More specifically, Oregon has outlined the need to critically
infuse STEM education into all facets of the educational landscape and employee lifespan to
ensure a prepared workforce. As industry leaders respond to the increased demands of global
markets and the competition for enterprise business sectors they have counter demanded a
workforce equipped with 21
st
century skills of which STEM skills are a primary component.
123

In review of the findings of this study, the researcher found that in order for the emerging
workforce of Oregon to increase 21
st
Century STEM skills, the Oregon K-12 educational system
is actively integrating the Common Core State Standards, identifying college and career
pathways, increasing the level of teacher expertise and providing opportunities for STEM
integration. These critical components were identified and included in the establishment of the
achievement compact. The District and high school outlined in this study have increase the
following; STEM subject area student participation, STEM career awareness and STEM focused
career pathway integration. In addition, the 4 Seasons District and Summer High School have
built comprehensive plans inclusive of a multi-phasic design that is geared toward relative
industry requirements and infused with partnerships that serve to equip staff and student in
addition to calibrating instructional expectations. Furthermore, facility upgrades will enable the
expansion of STEM related programs to ensure that future endeavors and increased levels of
student participation will be afforded.
One critical area of concern remains with respect to the funding allocation for school
improvement and reform. As indicated from the research findings, the recent recession had a
tremendous impact on the growth and prosperity of Oregon’s educational system. Lack of
funding thwarted progress and negatively impacted the development of instructional experts at
all educational levels. With the addition of critical programmatic grants, partnerships and
external revenue streams the educational system is gradually recovering. Continuing to work
toward the outlined criteria in the EBM model will guide the interventions and structural support
needed to reach a multitude of student populations and provide the mechanism for equal access
for all students.
124

Intensive funding supplements have bolstered planning, preparatory measures and
productivity in the areas of STEM integration, academic attainment levels and equipping an
expert workforce. As these endeavors strengthen and continue to develop, student achievement
in STEM related courses and career pathways will also increase. However, this is a labor
intensive process that is highly time dependent. The multi-phasic nature of the achievement
compact design permits the development of a consistent, comprehensive and formulaic
instructional foundation to emerge and solidify. This foundation and structure will enable the
scaffolding of interventions and programmatic flexibility needed to create the sustaining power,
longevity and incremental success of the p-20 educational system at large.
This study indicates the need for STEM education to become a District wide and school
wide focus of which staff buy-in and support is critical. In addition, it also places a great deal of
emphasis and importance on the need for adequate funding and critical support by way of
financial investment into the development and execution of the achievement compact and STEM
reform plans. Annual, comprehensive needs assessments must to be conducted as well as
programmatic evaluations to determine if benchmark targets are achieved in an efficient and
effective manner. In addition, evaluative measures permit comprehensive understanding and
shared knowledge with the decision makers to ensure that specific challenges, critical needs and
adaptive measures are incorporated throughout the longevity of the achievement compact. In
effect, the achievement compact process enables educational leaders to create a comprehensive
plan that has been developed collaboratively and has been critically evaluated through the
utilization of data. The affirmation of that plan was communicated to all stakeholders and facets
of the educational environment. The cultivation of this process represents the very definition of
the four “C” components of the Common Core State Standards which are creativity,
125

collaboration, critical thinking and communication (Common Core Standards, 2012). Through
the development and execution of the achievement compacts, Districts and sites exemplify the
very model that the Common Core State Standards designated as a target instructional model.

126

REFERENCES
Achieve. (2013). The Next Generation Science Standards. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved
April 13-2013 from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
America’s Health Rankings. (2012). United States: High School Graduation Rate (1990-2012).
Author United Health Foundation. Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://www.americashealtherankings.org/all/graduation
Baker, B., Sciarra, D., Farrie, D. (2012). Is school funding fair? A national report card 2
nd

edition. Newark, NJ: Rutgers Graduate School of Education – Education Law Center
(June).
Barrett, C., R. (2010). Chair of Change the Equation. (September). Retrieved March 23, 2013
from http://showyou.com/ukituki/y%3A26vb5Y6UuPo
Bit Locker Drive Encryption (2013). Encryption system overview. Retrieved March 13, 2013
from http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/features/bitlocker
Bucknellbison. (2012). Definition of a Core Course. Retrieved October 20, 2012 from
http://www.bucknellbison.com/graphics/recruit-4-5.pdf
Bureau of labor and statistics. (2011). Occupational outlook handbook employment change by
education and training category. Washington DC: Author
Retrieved (October).
Carnevale, A., P., Smith, N., & Melton, M. (2012). STEM: Science, Technology, Engineering
and Mathematics. Washington DC: Georgetown University: Center on Education and the
Workforce. Retrieved March 23, 2013 from
http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/stem-completee.pdf
127

Chambers J., G. & Levin, J., D. (2009). Determining the Cost of Providing Adequate Funding
for all Students. Washington DC: National Educational Association. (July). Retrieved
February 18, 2013 from
http://www.keysonline.org/about/education_funding.attachment/cost_of_adequate_educa
tion/Cost_of_Adequate_Education.pdf
Childress, S., Elmore, R., & Grossman, A. (2006). How to manage urban school districts.
Harvard Business Review, 55-68.
Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press
College Board. (2013). AP Central: The Advanced Placement Program. New York, NY: Author.
Retrieved 4-01-2013 from
http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/program/index.html
Common Core State Standards. (2012). Implementing the Common Core State Standards.
Retrieved March 23, 2013 from http://www.corestandards.org/
Conley, D. T., & Picus, L.O. (2003). Oregon’s quality education model: Linking adequacy and
outcomes. Educational Policy, 17(5), 586-612.
Council on Foreign Relations. (2011). Education Reform and U.S. Competitiveness. Washington
DC: Author
Retrieved March 11, 2013 from http://www.cfr.org/education-reform-us-
competitiveness/p25816
Duke, D. D., DeRoberto, T., & Trauttutter. S. (2009). Reducing the Negative Effects of Large
Schools. National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities. Washington DC:
128

Department of Processional Employees. (2012). The Stem Workforce: An Occupational
Overview. Washington DC: Author.
Retrieved March 10, 2013 from http://www.dpeaflcio.org/wp-content/uploads/The-
STEM-workforce-2012.pdf
Ed. Source. (2013a). Average Daily Attendance (ADA). Mountain View, CA: Author.
Retrieved March 06, 2013 from http://www.edsource.org/1077.html
Ed. Source. (2013b). Categorical Aid: Special Dollars for Special Purposes. Mountain View,
CA: Author.
Retrieved March 06, 2013 from http://www.edsource.org/pub_abs_categorical.html
Ed. Source. (2013c). Dollars to Districts. Mountain View, CA: Author.
Retrieved March 22 2013 from
http://www.edsource.org/iss_fin_sys_dollarstodistricts.html
Ed. Source. (2013d). No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Mountain View, CA: Author.
Retrieved March 09, 2013 from http://www.edsource.org/iss_fedlaws-nclb.html
Ed. Source. (2013e). Student Demographic data. Mountain View, CA: Author.
Retrieved March 06, 2013 from http://bluebook.state.or.us/education/educationintro.htm
Engler, J. (2012). STEM Education is the Key to the U.S.’s Economic Future. U.S. News.
Retrieved March 12, 2013 from
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/06/15/stem-education-is-th-key-to-the-
usss-economic-future
English Learner Service Procedures Manual. (2010). Retrieved October 7, 2012.
http://www.wccusd.net/cms/lib03/CA01001466/Centricity/Domain/76/1_EIA_LEP_Expe
nditure_Guidelines.pdf
129

FACMAT. (2007). “Who is a Special Assignment Teacher and What is the Scope of Duties?”
Retrieved October 13, 2012 from
http://www.fcmat.org/stories/storyReader$5139?print-friendly=true
Fullerton, J., Hochman, D. (2011). Title 1 Requirements and School District management: The
Consequences of Intergovernmental Distrust. Retrieved October 13, 2012 from
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/events/2011/03/av/intergovernmental.pdf
Giegerich, A. (2012). Oregon Unemployment Rate Down a Fraction. Portland Business
Journal. Retrieved March 10, 2013 from
http://www.bizjournals.com/protland/news/2012/06/12/Oregon-unempoloyment-rate-
down-a-fraction
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & a Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from comprehensive
school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hanushek, E. A., & Lindseth, A. A. (2009). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses:
Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America’s public schools. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Hart, D., Teeter, R., (2004). Equity and Adequacy: Americans Speak on Public School Funding.
Educational Testing Service. (June). Received January 28, 2013 from
http://www.ets.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/2004report.pdf
International Baccalaureate Organization. (2013). International Baccalaureate: Americas Global
Center. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved April 01,2013 from
http://occ.ibo.org/ibis/occ/guest/home.cfm
130

Jackson-Winegardner, B. (2012). Working in Science and Math: It Pays to be a geek. Oregon
Employment Department: Worksource Retrieved March 12, 2013 from
http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/ArticleReader?itemid=00007234
Lumina Foundation. (2012). A Stronger Nation Through Higher Education: Oregon. (March).
Retrieved April 01, 2013 from
http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/state_data/2012/Oregon-2012.pdf
Mora, J. K. (2009). From the Ballot Box to the classroom. Educational Leadership. 66 (7). 14-
19. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr09/vol66/num07/From-
the-Ballot-Box-to-the-Classroom.aspx
McClure, P. (2005). School Improvement Under No Child Left Behind. Center for American
Progress. Retrieved April 1, 2013 from http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/kf/mcclure3-03-2005.pdf
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012a). Graduation rates. Washington DC: Author.
Retrieved February 22, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012b). Public High School Graduation Rates.
Washington DC: Author Retrieved February 22, 2013 from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_scr.asp
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). Fast facts on school statistics. Retrieved April
03, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2013). Status and Trends in the Education of Racial
and Ethnic Minorities. Retrieved April 01, 2013 form
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/minoritytrends/tables/table_7_2.asp?referrer=report
131

National Education Association (NEA). (2011). C.A.R.E.: Strategies for Closing the
Achievement Gaps, fourth edition. Washington DC: Author.
Retrieved March 03, 2013 from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/CAREguide2011.pdf
National Education Association (NEA). (2013). NEA on ESEA Reauthorization: The time for
change is now. Washington DC: Author.
Retrieved March 01, 2013 from http://www.nea.org/home/54438.htm
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2012). IDEA – The Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Washington DC: Author.
Retrieved September 12, 2012 from. http://nichcy.org/laws/idea
National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM Education – Identifying Effective
Approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. The National
Academies Press.
National Science Board. (2007). National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the
U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education System. National
Science Foundation. NSB-07-114 Retrieved January 11, 2013 from
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/stem_action.pdf
National Science Foundation. (2012). Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
Education: A Nation Advancing? Washington, DC: Author. (November). Retrieved
March 23, 2013 form
http://www.nsf.gov/news_summ.jsp?org=NSF&cntn_id=126071&preview=false
New America Foundation. (2012). Federal Education Budget Project: No Child Left Behind
Funding. Washington, DC: Author. (April). Retrieved April 01, 2013 from
http://febp.newamerica.net/backgroud-analysis/no-child-left-behind-funding
132

New America Foundation. (2013). Federal Education Budget Project: School Finance Inequity
Among Districts - % Per Pupil Spending. Washington, DC: Author (). Retrieved April
10, 2013 from http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/OR/compare/schofiineq
Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., & Gross, B. (2003). Defining school-level expenditure
structures that reflect educational strategies. Journal of Education Finance, 28, 323-356.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O. (2008). School finance: A policy Perspective, (4
th
ed.). New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Odden, A., Picus, L. O., Archibald, S., & Smith, J. (2009). Wyoming School Use of Resources 2:
Making More Progress in Identifying How Schools Use Resources in Ways that Boost
Student Performance on State Tests. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates. Prepared for the Wyoming Department of Education.
Oregon Department of Education. (2013a). Academic Education Overview. Salem, OR: Author..
Retrieved February 07, 2013. From http://www.ode.state.or.us/home/
Oregon Department of Education. (2013b). Common Core State Standards Implementation
Toolkit. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved February 07, 2013 from http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3430
Oregon Department of Education. (2013c). Education Funding Team – Summary
Recommendations to the Governor Strategic Investments overview. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved January 13, 2013 from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/1EFT.pdf
Oregon Department of Education. (2013d). Little Growth in Oregon Grad Rates; State Leaders
Call for Systems Change. Salem, OR: Author. Retrieved January 13, 2013 from
http://www.ode.state.or.us
133

http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/announcements/announcement.aspx?ID=8845&TypeID
=5
Oregon Department of Education. (2013e). Smarter Balanced Assessments. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved January 13, 2013 from http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3298
Oregon Department of Education. (2013f). State Board of Education Adopts Changes to
Graduation Proficiency Requirements. Salem, OR: Author. (August). Retrieved February
15, 2013 from
http://ode.state.or.us/news/annoncements/announcement.aspx?od=6857&typeid=5
Oregon Department of Education. (2013h). Oregon Policies and Programs Related to K-12
Standards. Salem, OR: Author. Retrieved March 23, 2013 from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/news/announcements/announcement.aspx?=7983
Retrieved February 12, 2013 from http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachers/specialty/pre-
post/standards/orpollandprogrelk12.aspx
Oregon Department of Education (2014a). Oregon Grant Opportunities. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved March 23, 2014 from. http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3958
Oregon Department of Education (2014b). Oregon Education Investment Board – Regional
Achievement Collaborative. Salem, OR: Author. Retrieved March 23, 2014 from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/media_room/Pages/press_releases/press_083013.aspx
Oregon Department of Revenue. (2012). Local Budgeting in Oregon. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved March 6, 2013 from http://www.oregon.gov/dor/forms/property/local-
budgeting-in-oregon_504-400_2012.pdf
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2013a). Oregon Educational Investment Board Overview.
Salem, OR: Author.
134

Retrieved January 01, 2013 from
http://WWW.osba.org/Resources/Article/Improving_Education/SAG/OEIB.aspx
Oregon Educational Investment Board. (2013b). Oregon learns: Executive summary. Salem, OR:
Author.
Retrieved March 3, 2013 from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/oregonlearnsexecsumwithlink.pdf
Oregon Legislative Assembly -76th. (2010). Senate Bill 253. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved February 13, 2013 from
http://www.leg.state.or.us/11reg/measpdf/sb0200.dir/sb0253.intro.pdf
Oregon Legislative Assembly -76th. (2011). Senate Bill 909. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved February 13, 2013 from http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/OEIT/docs/sb0909.a.pdf
Oregon Legislative Assembly -76th. (2012a). House Bill 4165. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved February 13, 2013 from
http://www.leg.state.or.us/12reg/measpdf/hb4100.dir/hb4165.en.pdf
Oregon Legislative Assembly -76th. (2012b). Senate Bill 1581. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved February 13, 2013 from http://www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/sb1581.pdf
Oregon University system. (2011). Undergraduate Admission Requirements for 2012-2013
Academic Year. Salem, OR: Author. (February). Retrieved April 01, 2013 from
http://www.ous.edu/sites/default/files/stucoun/propstu/files/Admissionpolicy2012-
13FINAL.pdf
Orfield, G., Losen, D/. Wald, J., & Swanson, C. B. (2004). Losing our Future: How Minority Youth
are Being Left Behind by the Graduation Rate Crisis. The Civil Rights Project at Harvard
135

University, Harvard College. Cambridge, MA: Retrieved April 10, 2013 from
http://www.urban.org/UploadPDF/410936_LosingOurFuture.pdf
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). OECD: Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA). Paris Cedex, France: Author Retrieved April 01,
2013 from http://www.oecd.org/contact/
Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills. (2011). Need title. Citi, state: Author.
Retrieved March 03, 2013 from http://www.p21.org/
Picus, L. O. (1999). Collection of School Level Data in Oregon: An Analysis of the Database
Initiative Project. Technical paper. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee
Washington State Legislature Center for Research in Education Finance USC Rossier
School of Education 1-19.
Picus, L., O (2001). Retrieved April, 03, 2013 from
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/3257/picus.pdf;jsessio
nid=7E71429266E9491EA3CF83245BF682A3?sequence=1.
Picus L. O. (2009). Implementing school finance adequacy: School level resource use in
Wyoming following adequacy-oriented finance reform. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence
O. Picus and Associates.
Picus, L. O., Odden, A. R., Aportela, A., Mangan, M. T., & Goetz, M. (2008). Implementing
school finance adequacy: School level resource use in Wyoming following adequacy-
oriented finance reform. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates.
136

Picus, L. O. (2010). Using an Evidence-Based Approach to Estimate School Finance Adequacy.
Lawrence O. Picus and Associates. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and
Associates.
Retrieved March 17, 2013 from http://www.ncsl.org/print/educEBmodel.pdf
Proximity One. (2009). Oregon School District Demographic Characteristics. Citi, State:
Author.
Retrieved February 26, 2013, from http://proximityone.com/sd_or,htm
Ravitch, D. (2011). School ‘Reform’: A Failing Grade. The New York Review of Books.
Retrieved March 03, 2013 from
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/sep/29/school-reform-
failinggrade/?pagination=false
The State of Oregon. (2013a). Governor John A. Kitzhaber, M. D. State of the State 2013. Salem,
OR: Author. Retrieved March 05, 2013 from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/media_room/Pages/speeches/StateoftheState2013.aspx
The State of Oregon. (2013a). The Governor’s Budget & Message. Salem, OR: Author.
(January). Retrieved March 25, 2013 from
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/priorities/Documents/GBB_Complete.pdf
The State of Oregon. (2013b). The Recovery Act in Oregon. Salem, OR: Author.
Retrieved March 01, 2013, from
http://www.oregon.gov/recovery/page/arra_impact_ed.aspx
The White House. (2011). The State of the Union: Winning the Future. Washington DC: Author.
(January). Retrieved March 30, 2013 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-th-union-
2011
137

The White House. (2013a). Education: Knowledge and Skills for the Jobs of the Future.
Washington DC: Author. Retrieved March 01, 2013 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/reform
The White House. (2013b). President Obama Calls for New Steps to Prepare America’s
Children for Success in College and Careers. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved March
06, 2013 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-calls-new-
spets-prepare-america-s-childen-success-college-and-careers
The White House. (2013c). U.S. Government Spending: US Federal Budget Analyst – Budget
Estimated outlays. Washington DC: Author. (April). Retrieved April 01, 2013 from
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail
University of Southern California. (2013). University of Southern California: The ABC’s of the
IRB Process for Student Investigators. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Retrieved on March
13, 2013 from http://www.usc.edu/admin/oprs/private/docs/oprs/Stud_Res.pdf
US Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Employment outlook: 2010-2020 Occupational employment
projections to 2020. Washington, DC: Lockard, C. B., & Wolf, M. (January). Retrieved
April 01, 2013 from http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/01/art5full.pdf
US Chamber of Commerce. (2012). Help Wanted The Role of Foreign Workers in the
Innovation Economy. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved April 01, 2013 from
http://www/renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pneastem-reprot.pdf
US Congress Joint Economic Committee. (2012). STEM Education: Preparing For the Jobs of
the Future. Washington DC: Author. (April). Retrieved April 01, 2013 from
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=6aaa7e1f-9586-
47be-82e7-326f47658320
138

US Department of Commerce. (2011). Education Supports Radical and Ethnic Equality in
STEM: Executive Summary Brief #05-11. Washington DC: Author Economic and
Statistic Administration (September). Retrieved April 02, 2013 from
http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/educationsupportsracialande
thnicequalityinstem_0.pdf
US Department of Education. (2001). No Child Left Behind. Washington DC: Author.
Retrieved February 02, 2013, from http://www.2ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.
US Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher
education. Washington, D.C: Author. Retrieved October 2, 2012, form
www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/pre-pub-report.pdf.
US Department of Education. (2010). A Blueprint For Reform: The Reauthorization of
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved January
26, 2013 from http://www.2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf
US Department of Education. (2011). Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington
DC: Author. Retrieved January 20, 2013 from http://www.ed.gov/esea
US Department of Education. (2012a). Elementary and Secondary Education Act Flexibility
Request: OMB Number: 1810-0708. Washington DC: The State of Oregon – Department
of Education. (December).
Retrieved March 1, 2013 from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/or.pdf
US Department of Education. (2012a). Definitions. Washington, DC: Author. (May).
US Department of Education. (2013a). High School Graduation Rate at Highest Level in Three
Decades. Washington DC: Author. Brenchley, C. (January). Retrieved April 01, 2013
139

from http://www.ed.gov/blog/2013/01/high-school-graduation-rate-at-highest-level-in-
three-decades/
US Department of Education. (2013b). Public Law print of PL 107-110. The No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001. Washington DC: Author.
Retrieved March 01, 2013 from http://www2ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/eaes02/index.html
US Department of Education. (2013c). The Federal Role in Education Overview. Washington
DC: Author.
Retrieved march 03, 2013 from http://www.2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
US Department of Labor & U.S. Department of Labor Statistics. (2011). STEM Occupations: A
Visual Essay. Washington DC: Author. (June). Retrieved April 01, 2013 form
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/05/mlr201105.pdf
West Ed. (2000). From Equity to Adequacy: A policy brief. San Francisco, CA: Author:
Retrieved March 2, 2013 from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/po-00-03.pdf
Whilden, B. E. (2010). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act: A Primer on
Reauthorization in 2010. Federal Relations and Policy Analysis.
World Economic Forum. (2013). The Global Competitiveness Report. Geneva, Switzerland:
Author. Retrieved March 22, 2013 from http://report.weforum.org/global-
competitiveness-report-2012-2013/#

140

APPENDIX A – STEM OCCUPATIONS & STANDARD OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION (SOC) NUMBER
STEM Category STEM Occupation SOC) Number
Computer &
Mathematics
Computer Scientist & Systems Analyst 15-10xx
Computer Programmer 15-1021
Computer Software Engineer 15-1030
Computer Support Specialist 15-1041
Database Administrator 15-1061
Network & Computer Systems Administrator 15-1071
Network Systems & Data Communication Analyst 15-1081
Mathematician 15-2021
Operations Research Analyst 15-2031
Statistician 15-2041
Miscellaneous Math / Science Occupation 15-2090
Engineering &
Surveying &
Technicians
Surveyors & Cartographers & Photogram-met 17-1020
Aerospace Engineer 17-2011
Agriculture Engineer 17-2021
Biomedical Engineer 17-2031
Chemical Engineer 17-2041
Civil Engineer 17-2051
Computer Hardware Engineer 17-2061
Electrical & Electronic Engineer 17-2070
Environmental Engineer 17-2081
Industrial Engineer (Including Health & Safety) 17-2110
Materials Engineer 17-2121
Mechanical Engineer 17-2131
Mining & Geologic Engineer (Including Health & Safety) 17-2141
Nuclear 17-2161
Petroleum 17-2171
Engineering all other 17-2199
Drafters 17-3010
Engineering Technician 17-3020
Surveying & Mapping Technician 17-3031
Sales Engineer 41-9031
Physical & life
Science
Occupations
Agriculture & Food Scientist 19-1010
Biological Scientist 19-1020
Conservation Scientist & Forestry 19-1030
Medical Scientist 19-1040
Astronomers & Physicist 19-2010
Atmospheric & Space Scientist 19-2021
Chemist & Materials Scientist 19-2030
Environmental Scientist & Geologist 19-2040
Physical Scientist 19-2099
Agriculture & Food Science Technician 19-4011
Biological Technician 19-4021
Chemical Technician 19-4031
Geological & Petroleum Technician 19-4041
Nuclear Technician 19-4051
Other Life/Physical & Social Science Technician 19-40xx
STEM Managerial
Occupations
Computer & Informational Systems Manager 11-3021
Engineering Manager 11-9041
Natural Sciences Manager 11-9121
NOTE: U.S. Department of Commerce: Economics & Statistics Administration (2011).
141

APPENDIX B – STEM UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS
Computer Science Majors
Computer & Information Systems Information Science
Computer Programming & Data Processing Computer Administration & Management & Security
Computer Science Computer Networking & Telecommunication

Mathematic Majors
Applied Mathematics Mathematics / Computer Science
Mathematics Statistics & Decision Science

Engineering & Technology Majors
Engineering Technology
Aerospace Engineering Engineering Technology
Architectural Engineering Electrical Engineering Technology
Biological Engineering Mechanical Engineering Related Technology
Biomedical Engineering Miscellaneous Engineering Technology
Chemical Engineering Military Technology
Civil Engineering
Computer Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Engineering & Industrial Management
Engineering Mechanics & Physics Science
Environmental Engineering
General Engineering
Geological & Geophysical Engineering
Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering
Mechanical Engineering Related Technology
Materials Engineering & Materials Science
Mechanical Engineering
Metallurgical Engineering
Mining & Mineral Engineering
Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering
Nuclear Engineering
Petroleum Engineering
Miscellaneous Engineering

Physical & Life Science Majors
Animal Science Microbiology
Astronomy & Astrophysics Miscellaneous Biological Sciences
Atmospheric Science & Meteorology Molecular Biology
Biochemical Science Neuroscience
Biology Nuclear, Industrial & Radiological Sciences
Biological Technologies Nutrition Science
Botany Oceanography
Chemistry Pharmacology
Cognitive & Biopsychology Physical Science
Ecology Physics
Environmental Science Plant Science & Agronomy
Food Science Soil Science
Genetics Zoology
Geosciences
NOTE: U.S. Department of Commerce: Economics & Statistics Administration (2011).
142

APPENDIX C – EMAIL INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN STUDY
Initial Email:
Dear (Insert Principal’s name here),
Please allow me to introduce myself, I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California involved in a thematic study on the integration of STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics) education in the state of Oregon. I will be utilizing the
achievement compacts designed by the District and site along with the Odden and Picus
Adequacy Model to determine the level of STEM integration.
To complete my study, a School District within the state of Oregon must be chosen. The
research study parameters include an urban district with a diverse student population. Your
District satisfies the requirements outlined in the study. I would like to include your School in
the body of research that will contribute to this study. In order to conduct the necessary
research, an interview would be required and could be conducted over the phone for your
convenience. The interview would be recorded and transcribed to document my research,
however pseudonyms would be used to protect the privacy of your school and district. You
would have the ability to review the translation of the recording prior to the destruction of the
document, which would occur at the conclusion of the study.
In addition I would need access to the following documentation;
 Achievement Compact
 Site Master schedule
 Mission & Vision
 Site Student Achievement Plan or Accreditation Plan
 School Calendar and Bell Schedules
 Site Staff Roster
The enclosed attachment highlights details about my study and information/safeguards
pertaining to exempt non-medical research studies.
Please let me know if you are will to participate in the proposed research study. Once I have
confirmation, I will be in contact to schedule the phone or personal interview.
Thank you for your time and attention to this request, I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Fricker
Kimberly Fricker
143

APPENDIX D – LETTER INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN STUDY
Initial Letter:
2/2/2013
Kimberly Fricker
[Type the sender company name]
Dear (Insert Principal’s name here),
Please allow me to introduce myself, I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California involved in a thematic study on the integration of STEM or STEAM (Science,
Technology, Engineering, Art and Mathematics) education in the state of Oregon. I would very
much like to include your District and school in my research study. The main objective of this
study is to gain understanding of the strategic Plan designed by the District and site in
conjunction with the Odden and Picus Adequacy Model to determine the level of STEM or
STEAM integration within the high school setting.
To complete my study a School District must be chosen. The research study parameters include
an urban district with a diverse student population. I would like to include your School in the
body of research that will contribute to this study. In order to conduct the necessary research,
a 60 minute interview would be required. The interviews could be conducted over the phone
for your convenience or in person if preferred. In addition I would need access to the following
documentation.
 Site Master schedule
 Mission & Vision
 Site Student Achievement Plan or Accreditation Plan
 School Calendar and Bell Schedules
 Site Staff Roster
Please consider being included in this voluntary research study. The optimal gain is to
understand how individual schools are incorporating STEM or STEAM related programs into the
fabric of the educational landscape. Please let me know your level of interest in participating in
the proposed research study. I would greatly appreciate it. After I receive confirmation of
your consent to participate we can schedule a convenient time for the interview and transfer of
documents. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter, I look forward to
hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Kimberly Fricker
Kimberly Fricker
144

APPENDIX E – INFORMATION FACT SHEET FOR EXEMPTION NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Analysis of STEM programs in Public High Schools
You are invited to participate in a research study on the integration of Science Technology
Engineering, Art and Mathematic (STEAM) into high school settings. This research study will
include only those individuals who volunteer to take part. This document aims to explain the
pertinent information about this study. Please ask questions about the study that are unclear.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to analyze one district with specific interest in the high school site
data regarding the Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Mathematic (STEAM) programs.
This research study aims to determine how that school district and high school sites within that
district utilizes resource to increase STEAM related classes and programs. The study involved
the comparison and analysis of four high schools within a large public school district.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
All participants need to be willing participants in this study. You will be asked to participate in an
interview which will take approximately 60 minutes. You are not obligated to answer any
questions that you are uncomfortable with. The interview can be completed in person or over
the phone. The interview will be audio-taped to preserve the information gathered from the
interview. If you are not willing to participate in an audio-taped interview then the interview will
be captured through transcription. Follow-up interviews may be necessary to gather all
information. In addition to the interview session, documents will be needed to be gathered from
each high school site. The following documents can be sent electronically:

 The District Strategic Plan
 The District Budget
 The District Placement Criteria
 The School Site Master Schedule
145

 The School Mission & Vision
 The School Plan for Student Achievement and/or Accreditation Plan

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There will be no payment / compensation given for participation in this survey.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION

There are no alternatives to participating in this study. In no way will your participation effect
your employment.
CONFIDENTIALITY

All information pertaining to this study will be kept and will remain confidential. Your name,
address or other identifiable information will not be collected throughout this study. The responses
captured during the interview process will be coded under false names. The audio-tapes will be
destroyed once transcription has occurred. You will have the right to review your audio-tape
recording upon request prior to its destruction. Transcription will be conducted by the chief
investigator only, which is myself. All information will be maintained in a data-encryption
password protected computer system. The information will be kept for a finite amount of time to
be determined by the University of Southern California.

The members of the research team, and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator: Kimberly Fricker
email kfricker@usc.edu
phone (949)232-2178
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Picus
email lpicus@usc.edu
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
146

APPENDIX F – DOCUMENT REQUEST LIST

Information requested from School District and School Site during the 2013-2014 school year.

Achievement Compact
 A formalized strategic action plan outlined to guide and direct the School District and
site through the implementation of the school reform measures.
Class Size
 The master calendar depicts all course offerings, staff members assigned to those
courses and number of courses offered in each department based on class size ratio.
Consultants
 Districts may seek out and utilize consultants that represent a variety of professional
development programs and services designed to train, teach or guide school districts and
school sites in an attempt to increase academic achievement levels. Any fee or
budgetary amount that is reserved for consultants of this nature should be indicated.
 Districts may seek out and utilize consultants that represent the district at large or
provide services directly to the district or the site locations that is not affiliated with
professional development services. Any fee or budgetary amount that is reserved for
consultants of this nature should be indicated.
Mission and Vision
 The adopted school mission and vision are considered to be the benchmark with which
all decisions center around at the site.
Placement Criteria
 The established rules and procedures designed to ensure that students are placed in the
appropriate grade level courses based on each student individual ability level.
 Placement criteria should be gathered for all departments within the school site.

147

Professional Development
 An indication of the amount of funding that is provided to a research-based program,
service provider or instructional expert for the professional development of any staff
member, certificated or classified, should be identified.
 An indication of the amount of funding that is provided to any member of the staff,
certificated or classified, as a measure of compensation to attend the professional
development should be indicated.
 An indication of the amount of funding needed to provide transportation to and from the
professional development should be indicated.
 An indication of the amount of materials, equipment and facility usage required to
conduct the professional development should be indicated.
 An indication of the fees associated with the registration process to attend the
professional development should be indicated.
School Bell Schedule
 The bell schedule designates the hours of operation and the instructional time afforded
to each class period and course.
 The bell schedule will also indicate any reserved or banked allotment of time that is
utilized for non-instructional purposes. An example may be a day each week that
students come to school at a later starting time or a day where students are release from
school earlier in order to provide professional development for the instructional staff.
School Calendar or Annual Schedule
 The school calendar or annual schedule will indicate the number of days of the year that
instruction will take place.
 The school calendar or annual schedule will indicate any reserved or banked allotment
of time that is utilized for non-instructional purposes. An example may be required
furlough days, which are days that have been approved to close down the sites in an
attempt to reserve or save funding revenue.
Staff Employee Roster for the High School Site
 A roster of district employees who work at the identified high school site.
 A roster of district employees who provide services to the identified high school site,
but are not on the site employee roster.
 The roster information should include and indicate all full time equivalent and part time
equivalent employees who provide a direct service to the targeted school site and are
funded in total or in part by the District.

148

Student and Parent Handbook
 A documented student and parent handbook outlines all of the required and pertinent
information that needs to be transmitted annually to parents and students. This critical
handbook includes; activities, attendance, codes of conduct, complaint procedures,
discipline or consequences, grading information, resources, school and district policies.
Substitutes
 Substitutes are provided in the event of a staff member needing to be absent from work.
 The rate of pay for a substitute should be indicated.
 A separate indication should be made for substitutes that are required to release the
instructional staff to participate in professional development.

149

APPENDIX G - OPEN-ENDED DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL
The protocol used at the school site is comprised of open-ended questions intended to capture the
degree to which each school has implemented and developed a STEM STEAM program. The
questions were asked in the order that they appear and this questioning technique was replicated
exactly without deviation for each school site involved in the research study. The principal’s
answers were recorded and later transcribed to document the interview process.
Curriculum & Instructional Inquiry:
1. What is your current focus on STEM or STEAM education?
2. How is STEM education addressed in the achievement compact?
3. In what areas are you currently expanding?
4. What positive gains or outcomes have you witnessed?
5. What negative drawbacks have surfaced?
6. How has technology played a role in this endeavor?
7. What areas are in need of assistance?
8. Working toward the goals in the achievement compacts, what changes in curricula are
needed or have been observed?
9. How has instruction changed?
Assessment & Intervention:
1. What is the level of support from the district, staff and parents?
2. What process have you developed to assess the master schedule and Stem program?
3. What assessments are used to determine program effectiveness and how often are they
implemented? How do you use the data to inform practice?
4. What interventions do you provide for struggling students?
5. How does the district assess the progress and success of the programs and sites?
Resources:
1. What is the current class size?
2. What is the current schedule for professional development, PLC time and department
time?
3. Do you have instructional coaches, facilitators or district led content mentors?
4. What resource needs do you have that are not being met?
5. What resources do you have that have provided assistance?

150

APPENDIX H – CASE STUDY: 4 SEASON DISTRICT
District Background
4 Seasons District is a diverse district that is comprised of approximately 10,000 students
which represent several national origins, speaking a variety of different native languages. Figure
H1 below represents the demographic makeup of the student population, broken down into
cluster groups by percent, which include; 82% Caucasian, 8% Hispanic, 4% Asian, 2% African
American, 1% American Indian, .2% Hawaiian or Pacific Islander and 3% representing all other
demographic categories.
Figure H1: Population Break Down by Demographic Category for the 4 Season School District

Figure H1 portrays a visual representation of the distribution of the demographic categories of
the student population for 4 Seasons School District. The majority of students are identified as
Caucasian, representing 82% of the total school population.
Population Break Down by Demographic Category for the
4 Season School District
Caucasion Hispanic Asian
African American American Indian Hawaiian / Pacific Islander
All Other
151

This school district is quite large covering 200 square miles and consists of 5 elementary
schools, 3 middle schools, 2 high schools, 1 alternative high school facility and 1 district office.
Regional Achievement Compact
The development of the District’s Achievement Compact was in part derived from the
improvement strategies identified by the OEIB (Oregon Educational Investment Board, 2013).
Each District within the state designed a strategic plan around common focus areas outlined by
the OEIB to unify the P-20 educational system and create alignment (Oregon Educational
Investment Board, 2013). The 4 Seasons District has selected 5 main focus areas, which include;
1. Development of a standards based academic achievement system
2. Integrate long term learning targets
3. Develop supporting learning targets
4. Implement the Common Core State Standards
5. Provide a rigorous college and career readiness program inclusive of 21
st
Century
Skills.
The Standards based System
4 Seasons District is committed to a standards based system to increase student academic
achievement and performance. This standards based system defined the minimum competency
level for each content area with clearly established student expectations geared toward
developing student mastery in that given subject area (Oregon Educational Investment Board,
2013). An academic achievement rating scale was developed to further delineate knowledge and
skill attainment which is outlined in Table H1 below.

152

Table H1: Standards Based Academic Achievement Scale
Standards Based Academic Achievement Scale
Score / Rating Level of Mastery
4 Highly Proficient
3 Proficient
2 Newly Proficient
1 Developing

The academic achievement scale outlined in Table H1 provides a range from 1-4 indicating a
students present ability or performance level when evaluating the mastery of content. This rating
scale mimics a similar rating scale outlined by the Advanced Placement (AP) and International
Baccalaureate (IB) programs (College Board, 2013 & International Baccalaureate Organization,
2013). In addition, to the academic achievement rating, an academic behavior rating was
established. Behavior ratings indicate the level of skill development as a progressive function to
measure a student’s ability to demonstrate the level to which they can learn independently.
Table H2 outlines the following behavior rating scale that was devised and implemented.
Table H2: Standards Based Academic Behavior Scale
Standards Based Academic Behavior Scale
Score / Rating Level of Mastery
I Independent consistently
G Generally
S Sometimes
R Rarely
153

Table H2 depicts a student’s level or ability to work as a self-directed learner, who is
intrinsically motivated and engaged in the learning process as exemplified by the student’s
academic behavior.
To support a standards based system the 4 Seasons District has developed the following
focus areas of interest or goals:
o Establish clear learning targets
o Provide instruction that is linked to learning targets
o Implement consistent assessment with scoring guides and rubrics
o Utilize formative assessments to adapt instruction
o Regular progress reporting of student achievement levels
o Professional development of instructional staff focused to develop expertise
Long Term and Supporting Learning Targets
In an effort to support the standard based system, long term learning targets have been
developed. These learning targets centralize content knowledge and learning around a common
theme to create a deep knowledge base that is interconnected with other content areas. Such a
design permits the development of a broad holistic perspective of integrated student knowledge.
Supporting learning targets define the key elements that are required to achieve a mastery level
of knowledge and skill outlined by the long term learning targets. The supporting targets
identify the essential learning required by student which provides focus and direction for the
instructional staff in the development of lesson plans, activities and assessments required for
such levels of mastery.

154

Common Core State Standards Integration
In addition, the 4 Seasons District is not only focused on the improvement or increase in
STEM programs or initiatives. Rather, the focus is on improving academic achievement for all
students including the establishment of a minimal equivalency level to achieve content mastery.
In so doing, it was noted that many of the identified STEM skills are imbedded into the Common
Core State Standards. The 4 Seasons District outlined a progressive plan for the implementation
of the Common Core State Standards, which includes the following phases; awareness,
implementation, integration and enhancement. The District is currently in the implementation
phase of the movement toward Common Core integration. Furthermore, the Common Core State
Standards focus on developing instructional strategies and methods designed to increase
student’s skills and abilities in the following areas; communicating, collaborating, creativity and
critical thinking. The mechanism with which these targeted skills and abilities will be fostered is
through the development of performance based learning tasks. Performance based learning tasks
extend the traditional lesson plan to include; writing assignments with in-text citations, relevant
contextual application and cross-content knowledge acquired to produce a functional
performance based outcome. The District Administration believes that strengthening these core
skills interdepartmentally and across the curriculum, STEM skill development will increase in
addition to achievement levels.
21
st
Century Skills Integration
Regarding STEM education, the 4 Seasons District outlines a plan to improve student
development of 21
st
Century Skills. This plan includes a heightened focus on the Professional
Development of all instructional personnel, in addition to the implementation of 21
st
Century
learning proficiencies. The integration and development of 21
st
Century skill and learning
155

proficiencies enables the 4 Seasons District to begin the development of an integrated STEM
program. According to a District spokesperson, the establishment of this basic level of
instruction not only will assist students in developing the mastery level of content required by
higher education institutions, it will also equip students with valuable problem solving and
innovative skills and abilities that are sought after by industry leaders. Therefore, the 21
st

Century proficiencies in conjunction with the performance based learning tasks, outlined by the
Common Core State Standards, combine to define the key focal points that will be infused in all
departmental and course disciplines throughout the 4 Seasons District and school sites therein.
The 4 Seasons District has formulated the following slogan regarding student achievement,
“Students must show what they know.” This mantra is the solidification of a movement or shift
in the way that educators and students think about and interact with knowledge. Student are
required to demonstrate a true utilization of varied content material through the demonstration of
understanding. Technology has redefined the landscape of education by providing student with
access to an infinite amount of researched based and relevant knowledge. The focus is no longer
on getting students information, rather the focus is on how students will use, manipulate or apply
that knowledge to produce innovative and creative products.
College and Career Readiness
College and Career Readiness is a primary focus for the 4 Seasons District. Aligning all
areas of curriculum into career pathways is a state wide initiative. The District is currently in the
implementation phase of this alignment, and as a result, curricular and programmatic expansion
is on hold. In the interim, surveys are being conducted to determine industry workforce trends,
student career or academic interest and funding allocation opportunities. Once this information
156

is analyzed an informed decision making process will ensue to determine the direction and
enhancement of the career pathways offered to students within the 4 Seasons District.
Industry related trend data will play a vital role in the determination and optimization of
student curriculum that will prepare and foster career pathway growth aligned to high propensity
employment opportunities. The utilization of Career Technical Education (CTE) programs have
become a main focus of the current District Administration. There is a variety of course
offerings at the high school sites, however with the implementation of the Common Core State
Standards, there is a projection that this number will increase as the implementation phase moves
forward. Determining what classes will be implemented to enhance the college and career
readiness program will be decided in the next phase of implementation.
District officials do agree that to achieve the goals outlined in the regional achievement
compact and ultimately the 40-40-20 goal requires a shift in the educational culture in alignment
with a P-20 focus. As a result, the 4 Seasons District has begun a partnership with local
community colleges in adjacent areas. This partnership is an attempt to reduce the costs
associated with implementing a variety of course offerings. This partnership is referred to as the
Oregon Regional Achievement Collaborative and would allow students to take courses at the
community college level with the intent to earn an Associate’s Degree at the same time they are
completing the high school requirements for graduation (Oregon Department of Education,
2014).
The 4 Seasons District is also focused on strengthening their alignment with local 4-year
colleges and Universities. As a result, the District was awarded an Eastern Promise Grant. This
grant is designed to establish a partnerships between high school sites and local 4-year colleges
and Universities to create collaborative learning environments for both professors, high school
157

instructors and high school students (Oregon Department of Education, 2014). College
professors actively visit and engage in high school classroom on a regular basis to assist in the
development and attainment of skills and performance abilities required by higher education
institutions. This partnership provides cross training for the high school instructor, as well as
students, as they can calibrate the level of learning and educational expectations required to
move on successfully at the collegiate level. This partnership aims to increase the successful
matriculation and sustainability of high school students as they transition on to higher education.
With the reauthorization of NCLB, student academic achievement levels have taken
center stage amongst educators. The 4 Seasons District is committed to increasing academic
achievement levels for all students regardless of designated group affiliation. Reading levels
were identified as a significant area of concern. A targeted programmatic intervention strategy
was recently put in place to address this growing concern. Student reading levels are annually
assessed, and interventions are implemented to generate the improvement of core reading levels
for all students. District administration believe that the improvement of students reading levels
will generate an overall improvement in other academic performance areas. The 4 Seasons
District believes that the accountability for increasing student achievement and the successful
matriculation of student to higher education requires a strategic plan that is inclusive of
professional development.
Professional Development
District leaders have identified that professional development is a critical component to
the success of the District as identified by the goals in the achievement compact. Due to the
national recession, professional development decreased significantly across the District. With
the adoption of the Common Core State Standard and the corresponding assessments, new
158

funding measures were enacted to generate the funding allocation sources that would enable
states and Districts to establish implementation strategies. Federal funding was provided in the
form of Strategic Initiatives Grants. These grants were passes by the Oregon Legislative branch
in July of 2013 in an effort to provide critical funding for the Districts and students of Oregon
(Oregon Department of Education, 2014). These investments provide matching funds to create
community partnerships, develop instructional best practices and expand research-based proven
programs or develop new programs in an attempt to improve student achievement levels (Oregon
Department of Education, 2014). Specifically the Strategic Initiative Grants are awarded to
Districts to develop; early literacy programs, a college-going culture and the infusion of STEM /
CTE programs that connect students with relevant real-world subject matter and work
experiences (Oregon Department of Education, 2014). The 4 Seasons District is in the beginning
stages of receiving the fiscal distribution of that funding and will implement the strategic plan to
utilize those funds.
Additional grant money is being pursued with regard to improving teacher quality. As
Oregon is developing a program called “The Network for Quality Teaching and Learning,”
Districts will have an opportunity to develop individual and cohort based professional
development that is inclusive of mentoring, training and instructional materials (Oregon
Department of Education, 2014). This additional funding has permitted the 4 Seasons District to
provide initial professional development in the following areas:
o Close Reading Strategies
o Collaborative levels of rigor
o Common Core State Standards
o Curriculum Pathways
159

o Dialogue
o Educator Effectiveness
o Intern programs
o Lesson Design – Project Based Learning
o Next Generation Science Standards
o Oregon Regional Achievement Collaborative
o Rigor and Relevance Curriculum Integration
As the implementation phase moves forward additional professional development in these and
other critical areas will be addressed.
Accountability
The reauthorization of NCLB provided accountability measures for LEA’s across the
nation. Oregon developed the OAKS assessment protocol to measure student achievement levels
and comparatively analyze student performance across the state. With the adoption of the
Common Core State Standards, Oregon will move to the Smarter Balanced Assessment model.
This protocol is designed to measure the achievement levels of students based on the Common
Core State Standards and allow cross comparability between students on a national level. These
assessments are designed to be implemented utilizing computer adaptive technology designed to
meet the academic performance level of the individual user and generate an accurate assessment
of each student’s knowledge and ability.
Resource Allocation
LEA resource allocation is a daunting task as the State has struggled through the recent
recession. As a result, the 4 Seasons District needed to make tough fiscal decisions in order to
sustain the daily operations for all sites. Each school sites was analyzed to determine the
160

efficiency, effectiveness and functionality of the services provided. At the conclusion of that
assessment, the 4 Seasons District made critical fiscal decisions in strategic areas that resulted in;
the reduction of classified and certificated staff, limited professional development opportunities
and reduced the length of the school year. The reduction of classified and certificated staff
decreased productivity and consequently increased class size. Many programs that were
formerly under development or up for consideration were stalled. Key partnerships that were
garnered with local industry organizations became a primary focus for preservation. As the
recession eased in severity, LEA’s adapted and with the addition of state leveraged grant
opportunities, the 4 Seasons District developed strategic plans to apply for such grant
opportunities. The 4 Seasons District was awarded two strategic grants that will provide fiscal
relief and support to the District and site infrastructures as outlined by the achievement compact.
The 4 Seasons School District was recently awarded a $102,514 a STEM, STEAM and/or
CTE programs and activity grant to increase student learning outcomes in the areas of STEM,
STEAM and CTE education (Oregon Department of Education, 2014). This grant was awarded
in March of 2014, and implementation of the initial phase of that proposed plan is slated to
commence in the 2014-2015 school year. Is revenue source will be utilized to develop capital
facility improvements with regard to the building of a STEM, STEAM and CTE building. The
Oregon Department of Education established the following funding programs to assist LEA’s
including the 4 Seasons District (Oregon Department of Education, 2014).
 The Network for Quality Teaching and Learning – $45.6 million
Creating a Network for Quality Teaching and Learning to ensure Oregon’s teachers have
the supports, mentoring, professional development, and training to the best they can be
at their jobs.
 Strategic Initiatives for Student Success – $29.3 million
161

o Focusing on early literacy with the aim of getting all students reading at grade
level by the end of third grade.
o Connecting students to the world of work through expanding Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) and Career and Technical Education
(CTE) programs.
o Creating a college-going culture in Oregon schools through supporting
programs that prepare students for a successful transition to college and
encourage the completion of college credits while in high school.
APPENDIX I – CASE STUDY: SUMMER HIGH SCHOOL
School Site Background
Summer High School represents one of three high schools within the 4 Seasons School
District and is located in an urban area. It services grades 9-12 on a block schedule and boasts an
87% attendance rate, and a 72% graduation rate. The student population of Summer High School
is moderately varied and consists of; 72% Caucasian, 16% Hispanic, 5% students identified as
two or more racial groups in combination, 3% Asian or Pacific Islander, 2% American Indian or
Alaskan Native, and 2% African American or black. Figure I1 below, represents the student
demographic statistics for Summer High School.
Figure I1: Ethnic Breakdown of Summer High School

http://www.education.com/schoolfinder/us/oregon/eugene/willamette-high-school/
162

Figure I1 above, demonstrated the variety of diversity exhibited by Summer High School, with
the primary ethnic group representing Caucasian or White. The Hispanic population which
compromises roughly 16% has been consistently rising along with the Asian population. This
trend it expected to continue. The entire student population consists of, 51% female students
while the remaining 49% are male, within that student group, 54% is identified as
socioeconomically disadvantaged.
Summer High School has a 55 member instructional staff who serves 1,537 students,
resulting in a 28:1 student to teacher ratio. Table I1 below summarized the staffing allocation, at
Summer High School and their department of instructional service.
Table I1: Summer High School Allocated Instructional Staff
Summer High School Instructional Staff
Department Number of Staff Members
Art 6
English 10
English Language Learner 2
Health 3
Mathematics 6
Physical Education 3
Reading 3
Science 6
Social Science 6
Career Technical Education (CTE) 5
World Language 5
Total 55

Table I1 above, outlines the curricular departments and the number of teachers assigned to each.
STEM related departments compromise approximately 31% of Summer High School’s total
163

course offerings. These departments include, Career Technical Education (CTE), mathematics,
Science,
Summer High school has partnered with local agencies to promote attendance and high
school completion. Summer High School has experienced significant growth in increasing the
graduation rate from 62% in 2008 to 72% in 2011. This 10 point growth demonstrates the
commitment to every student and is representative of the third highest graduation rates in the
state. Figure I2 depicts the OAKs assessment data for the discipline of Mathematics for Summer
High School.
Figure I2: Mathematic OAKs Assessment Results for Summer High School.

Figure I2 indicates relatively stable mathematic assessment scores up until to 2009. This trend
did not hold between 2009 and 2010 as the resulting scores fell approximately 5%. Despite this
decline in the mathematic assessment scores, Summer High School achieved significant gains in
comparison to the overall 4 Seasons School District scores. However, Summer High School
achieved mathematic scores that not only exceeded the District scores, they also exceeded the
state averaged scores. While the state data continued to climb from 2009 to 2010, Summer High
School declined.
164

Performance trend data was also recorded for the OAK achievement results in the content
area of science for Summer High School. Figure I3 shows the performance data for science
assessment scores.
Figure I3: Science OAKs Assessment Results for Summer High School.

http://www.education.com/schoolfinder/us/oregon/eugene/willamette-high-school/
Figure I3 depicts a parabolic growth trend for students at Summer High School in the area of
science achievement. The overall achievement level is now equivalent to that of the state data
and slightly above the District comparative data. Summer High School did experience a decline
from a high point of 63% in 2009 to 58% in 2010.
The summative data outlined in Figures F2 and F3 depict a gap in achievement for the
students of Summer High School in the content areas of Mathematics and Science. Only 49% of
students are achieving a mastery level of mathematics and 58% of students are achieving a
mastery level of science in their respective grade and course level. In light of such proficiency
data, Summer High School realizes that significant changes needed to be made in order to
increase the achievement levels of all student in order to gain traction toward the 40-40-20 goals
outlined by the OEIB.
165

Key Elements of Increasing Student Performance
Professional Development
Within a typical school week, there is time reserved for professional development. One
hour of time is set aside on a fixed day in the morning and is designated as a late start day.
Students arrive one hour later, permitting the instructional staff to assemble for professional
development. This professional development is arranged in a variety of formats such as; whole
staff, departmental group or small learning community group. The small learning community
groups are comprised of instructional staff of the same content area. These meetings are
designed to train, teach and implement research-based instructional strategies which are proven
to increase student achievement and overall academic performance. Reserving dedicated
professional development time provides the mechanism necessary to ensure that the
implementation of Summer High School’s strategic plan and the achievement compact
developed by the 4 Season School District is implemented.
Summer High School is committed to supporting a rich culture and providing an
academically rigorous community of students who will graduate college and career ready. In
addition, Summer High School has adopted the following long term learning goals to meet the
District achievement compact goals:
o Provide 21
st
century technology
o Support innovation
o Develop and retain a high quality staff
o Maintain high caliber learning environments
o Integrity in the stewardship of resources
o Create avenues for volunteerism and engagement of the community
166

o Engagement through service learning
o Create equity in student performance outcomes
To assist in the implementation and successful completion of the long term learning targets each
content area developed supporting learning targets. These supporting learning targets are
organized according to content area and are further disaggregated by grade level appropriateness.
The small learning communities have defined the supporting learning targets for each content
area.
Summer High School has incorporated the strategic plan as outlined in the achievement
compact by the 4 Seasons School District. The implementation of that plan centered around five
areas of focus; implementation of the Common Core State Standards, preparation for the Smarter
Balanced Assessments, the development of a college and career readiness program and the
integration of 21
st
century skills.
Common Core State Standards Integration
Summer High School is focused on improving academic achievement for all students
based on a mastery based performance system. Throughout the 2012-2013 school year, Summer
High School completed the introductory phase of the Common Core State Standards initiative.
This phase created awareness to the Common Core State Standard and identified the
fundamental shifts in instructional practice necessary to improve student achievement. The plan
that was developed and enacted in the 2013-2014 school year involved the implementation of the
actual Common Core State Standards. Summer High School is following a progressive plan for
the implementation which includes several years of integration. To fully implement the
Common Core State Standards, shifts in thinking need to occur on behalf of the students and
instructional staff.
167

The Mathematical shifts are significant with the implementation of the Common Core
State Standards. One area of primary focus is the implementation of the 8 essential mathematical
practices. Professional development will be a critical component in the integration and
utilization of these concepts to improve the overall academic performance of the students at
Summer High School. In addition, a major shift in the field of mathematics relates to the
determination that Geometry is relegated as a ninth grade standard. This procedural change will
prohibit middle schools from offering Geometry as an 8
th
grade course which consequently may
cause Summer High School to adjust placement practices. Students who demonstrated high
levels of mathematic skill may be limited or unable to reach the highest levels of AP or IB math
courses once offered by Summer High School. There is an option within the Common Core
State Standards to change from the traditional mathematic cycle to an integrated approach to
learning math. The traditional course selection includes; algebra 1, geometry, algebra 2, after
which students can transition on to higher levels of math beginning with pre-calculus. The
integrated approach offers the following; integrated math 1, integrated math 2, integrated math 3,
after which students transition on to higher levels of math beginning with pre-calculus. The
integrated approach does facilitate the change in standards outlined within the Common Core
State Standards.
Statistics is another significant shift. Components of statistics are now required segments
in algebra 1 as opposed to algebra 2 where it previously resided. The move to integrate
statistical components into the various levels of math represents a significant shift that has
resulted from a need identified by higher education and industry related assessment information
(Common Core State Standards, 2012).
168

Summer High School is integrating and promoting the student development of four cross-
curricular academic behaviors as outlined by the Common Core State Standards which are;
communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking. The instructional staff is actively
working on implementing performance based learning tasks. These learning tasks require
student to; cite evidence for all writing assignments, utilize close reading strategies and produce
a performance based outcome to demonstrate their level of learning.
College and Career Readiness
A comprehensive College and Career Readiness plan is being formulated based on the
analysis of recent student achievement assessment data and industry related trends. The
alignment of curriculum into career pathways is a state wide initiative and actively being
enhanced by the Summer High School staff. As a result the STEM and Career Technical
Education (CTE) related career pathways is actively being developed. Summer High School
currently offers a variety of course offerings, however the staff is looking at intervention and
support strategies to include in those pathways in an attempt to increase student achievement and
increase student sustainability of successful pathway navigation. The next phase of the
implementation plan will include determining what additional classes will be implemented to
enhance the college and career readiness program.
All staff members are making the shift and recalibrating their instructional focus. It was
noted that some staff members are accepting this challenge with ease, while others are struggling
to adapt to this new and innovative instructional model. As students must go beyond simply
regurgitating facts to demonstrating knowledge, and so must the instructional staff. Teachers are
required to manipulate, express, prepare exercises and apply knowledge in a vastly different
manner. The administration of Summer High School is working to address this challenge.
169

Summer High School has established partnerships with local community colleges to
increase the variety of course offerings and to provide advanced students with additional
opportunities for growth. This partnership is in accordance with the Oregon Regional
Achievement Collaborative and allows students to take community college courses while
working toward an Associate’s Degree in addition to completing the high school requirements
for graduation (Oregon Department of Education, 2014b). In addition to the Oregon Regional
Achievement Collaborative, Summer High School recently received funding from the Eastern
Promise Grant which has established a partnership with a local University to facilitate a
calibration of achievement expectations (Oregon Department of Education, 2014b). This
collaborative venture generates learning environments inclusive of both professors, high school
instructors and high school students. As college professors actively engage and instruct high
school students, connections are made which desensitize students to the stigma of college
professors and reduce the fear that students often have about attending college. The
administration is excited about the promise of content specific professional development
imparted to the high school instructor as they observe and learn from the college professor.
To maintain a student’s ability to access all types of curriculum at all levels, Summer
High School has invested in screening all student for reading comprehension and ability level.
Students who demonstrate lexile level proficiency are free to select their desired course
offerings. Students who demonstrate reading proficiency levels below the acceptable grade level
equivalent will be provided an intervention reading course. The outlined reading program
consist of 90 minutes of intense focus utilizing computer technology, corrective fluency
detection and comprehension development. Reading ability was outlined by the OEIB as a
170

strategic initiative to address and has been implemented at Summer High School (Oregon
Education Investment Board, 2013a).
Accurate assessment is not only applied to reading, rather it is actively applied in the
discovery of advanced students. Summer High School has an Advanced Placement (AP)
program inclusive of 18 course offerings, as well as an International Baccalaureate (IB) program.
The AP and IB programs provide opportunities for students to gain exposure to collegiate level
course work and are rewarded with a weighted grade point equivalent (College Board, 2013 &
International Baccalaureate, 2013). Many of the essential components of the IB program are
found in the New Common Core State Standards. Some of those components are; student
collaboration, creativity infused learning, development of innovation and lessons founded on the
premise of project-based learning (International Baccalaureate, 2013). These skills are also
supported by the movement to develop 21
st
century skills.
21
st
Century Skills Integration
21
st
Century proficiencies outlined by the Common Cores State Standards identify four
main areas of focus for students and they include; critical thinking, effective communication,
collaboration and creativity to generate innovation. Finally, Summer High School has adopted a
focus for the development of 21
st
Century Skills. That focus has formulated into the slogan,
“Show what you know.”
Table I.2 below delineates the identified STEM core competencies with regard to student
attainment of essential knowledge, skills and abilities that represent both STEM and 21
st
Century
Learning preparedness.

171

Table I.2 - STEM Core Competencies and Associated Domains
STEM Core Competencies and Associated Domains
Core
Competencies
Associated Domains Description of Domain
Knowledge Biology Plant, animal and environmental functions, interdependencies and
interactions
Building & Construction Materials, methods and tools needed to create structures and
infrastructure
Chemistry Chemical compositions, atomic structures, properties, equations
chemical interactions, environmental and effects
Computers and
Electronics
Circuitry, processors, chips, electronic equipment, software and
hardware devices to create products and provide services
Design Concepts & principals governing effect, tools, techniques,
precision, accuracy, effect and process
Engineering and
Technology
Combination of many scientific disciplines that incorporate, design,
techniques, application and production of structurally sound and
sustaining products
Mechanics Design and utilization of machines and tools
Mathematics Using mathematical equations and formulas to solve problems
Physics Physical principals of thermodynamics, materials, mechanics,
fluids, electronics, and fundamental laws that govern the universe
Production & Processing Develop automaticity of ideas, systems, machines or objects
Skills Active Learning Fusing new information with existing information to problem solve
Critical Thinking The utilization of logic and reasoning to problem solve and identify
solutions or conclusions
Complex Problem
Solving
Evaluating multiple problems simultaneously to evaluate options
and create solutions
Equipment Selection &
Maintenance
Identification of tools and equipment needed to perform a task and
maintain functionality
Mathematics Using mathematical equations and formulas to solve problems
Operations & Control Maintaining operations and systems
Operations Analysis Analyzing processes, products or practices to evaluate & improve
Operation Monitoring Evaluation to ensure effective functioning
Programming Creating programs or fixing components
Quality Control Analysis Product inspection, service analysis or process evaluation to
determine effectiveness and performance quality
Science Using scientific methods and rules to solve problems
Systems Analysis Evaluating how systems work in response to changing conditions or
environmental factors
Systems Evaluation Identifying performance indicators and evaluation actions needed to
improve based on goals
Technology Design Creating new technology through innovation
Troubleshooting Active problem solving
Abilities Control Precision Accurately operate machines
Deductive Reasoning Application of rules when problem solving
Inductive Reasoning Connecting concepts and information to form conclusions
Mathematical Reasoning Using mathematical formulas to solve problems
Number Facility Fluently add, subtract, multiply and divide
Perceptual Speed Compare and Contrast letters, numbers, objects, pictures or patterns
Problem Sensitivity Recognition of problems or potential problems
Source: Carnevale, Smith & Melton, 2012
172

Table I.2 above describes the essential skills that STEM employers are looking for. Many of
skills and content areas outlined in the above table are included in the AP and IB courses in the
areas of math and science offered at Summer High School. To fully implement the knowledge,
skills and abilities identified in Table F3, Summer High School is investing in the development
of their STEM pathways in addition to the implementation of the Common Core State Standards.
College and Career Readiness
College and Career Readiness is a primary focus for Summer High School. Aligning all
areas of curriculum into career pathways is a state wide initiative that Summer High School is
currently developing. The implementation phase includes the alignment of curricular content
and facility accommodation or expansion projects necessary to implement the comprehensive
plan. Exact course determinations will be solidified as the current analysis of program needs,
quality, effectiveness and industry related impact are completed. Sumer High School currently
offers a variety of course offerings, however course alignment, adequate space availability and
access to industry grade materials or equipment have been identified as critical concerns.
Summer High School has developed measures to counteract such concerns. A new
STEM facility development project has been initiated. Plans for the project have been
developed, approved and funded. Summer High School is slated to break ground on this
pioneering facility upgrade project in the summer of 2014. This capital facility improvement
project will provide the space, structure and the ability for the staff of Summer High School to
implement programmatic expansion in STEM related content areas. The administration team is
now developing plans to increase the focus on an engineering pathway. This pathway sponsors
the development of an electronic car program which focuses on the design and production of cars
using alternative fuel sources. Annual state competitions permit students to display, test and race
173

the electronic cars in addition to preparing detailed presentations regarding the design and
innovative ingenuity that was utilized in the fabrication and building process. This vital program
not only provides career opportunities for students, but it also has the potential to positively
impact the environment at large. To augment this program, a computer science pathway has
begun to emerge and is currently under development.
School officials are implementing a plan to achieve the goals outlined in the regional
achievement compact and ultimately the 40, 40, 20 goal. To assist in this area, Summer High
School has implemented the development of an electronic education plan for all students. This
plan documents academic achievement, extracurricular activities, letters of recommendation and
volunteer work that students undertake throughout the high school experience in preparation for
their career or educational advancement beyond high school. Electronic portfolio serves as the
starting point in developing a working resume, which assists students with college applications
employment opportunities.
In addition, Summer High School provides tailored diploma options for its student body.
These diploma pathways consist of a traditional diploma, an honors diploma, a modified diploma
and an extended diploma. The traditional diploma is outlined in table I.3 below.

174

Table I.3 - Tradition Diploma Requirements
Traditional Diploma Requirements for Summer High School
Subject Number of Credits Required
Art / Career & Technical Education (CTE) /
World Language
3
Electives 5
English Language Arts 4
Health 1
Mathematics 3
Personal Finance 0.5
Physical Education 1
Science 3.5
Social Science 3
Total Credits 24
NOTE:
 The graduation class of 2014 will be required to complete three levels of math beginning at
the Algebra 1 level and extending higher.
 Personal Finance is required in addition to Economics, which is in the social studies category.
 Art / Second Language / Career & Technical Education (CTE) can be taken in any
combination

Table I.3 above, reflects the increased state graduation requirements outlined by the OEIB
(Oregon Department of Education, 2013). Students seeking a traditional diploma must complete
24 total credits, of which 13 must be compiled in the core areas of English (4), mathematics (3),
science (3.5) and social science (3). The mathematic sequence must be inclusive of a minimum
of Algebra I and extend through Algebra II.
175

Students who exceed the requirement outlined in the traditional diploma and pursue a
more rigorous course of study are eligible to earn an Honors Diploma. Table I.4 below, outlines
the requirements needed to achieve an Honors Diploma from Summer High School.
Table I.4 - Honors Diploma Requirements
Honors Diploma Requirements for Summer High School
Subject Number of Credits Required
Electives 6.5
English Language Arts* 4
Health 1
Mathematics* 4
Personal Finance 0.5
Physical Education 1
Science* 4
Social Science* 4
World Language* 3
Total Credits 28
*Indicates Core Courses (English, Mathematics, Science, Social Science & World Language)
NOTE:
 The graduation class of 2014 will be required to complete four levels of math beginning at the
Algebra 1 level and extending higher.
 Personal Finance is required in addition to Economics, which is in the social studies category.
 World language must include 3 credits in one language or 2 credits in each of 2 languages.
 Must take at least 2 advanced courses, minimum of one each year
 Students must successfully complete the required state assessments, complete 28 credits and
maintain a minimum GPA of 3.5 and attain 150 hours of community service

176

Table I.4 above, depicts the requirements to achieve an honors diploma. This diploma path
includes the heightened requirements from that of a traditional diploma. The honors diploma
requires the completion of 28 credits, of which 16 must be completed in the core areas. More
specifically, four credits are required in the areas of English, math, science and social science.
This diploma option was developed to generate student aptitude levels equivalent to that of the
requirements and expectations set for by higher educational institutions. The Modified Diploma
includes provisions for students with disabilities and is outlined in Table I.5 below.
Table I.5 - Modified Diploma Requirements
Modified Diploma Requirements for Summer High School
Subject Number of Credits Required
Art / Career Technical Education (CTE) /
World Language
1
Electives 11.5
English Language Arts* 3
Health 1
Mathematics* 2
Personal Finance 0.5
Physical Education 1
Science* 2
Social Science* 2
Total Credits 24
NOTE:
 Course content may be modified and/or students may be provided accommodations to access the
curriculum according to the specific student needs.
 Electives consist of additional courses specified by the student individual educational plan.
 Personal Finance is requirement but may be waived by school administration.
177

Table I.5 above, details a reduction of credits that are required for students who are unable to
demonstrate proficiency in the full range of curricular content standards. The modified diploma
requires students to complete 24 total credits of which 9 credits must be completed in the core
areas. More specifically the credit requirements are as follows; English 3, mathematics 2,
science 2 and social science 2.
Limited English Proficient (LEP) students do not qualify for a modified diploma. Rather,
LEP students are granted the following options for graduation. LEP students who have resided
in the United States for 5 years or less, and have not had sufficient time to master the English
Language, but have demonstrate the ability to achieve all other graduation requirements may
meet the essential skills requirement with the following conditional provisions.
o Demonstration of proficiency in mathematics in their language of origin.
o Demonstration of proficiency in reading, writing and essential skills in their
language of origin.
o Demonstration of a level 3 or intermediate proficiency on the English
Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA)
The extended diploma requirements are outlined in Table I.6 below and provide a reduction in
the overall requirements to graduate from Summer High School due to extenuating
circumstances.

178

Table I.6 - Extended Diploma Requirements
Extended Diploma Requirements for Summer High School
Subject Number of Credits Required
Art / Career Technical Education (CTE) / World
Language
1
Electives
English Language Arts* 2
Health 1
Mathematics* 2
Personal Finance
Physical Education 1
Science* 2
Social Science* (History, Geography, Economics or
Civics)
3
Total Credits 12
NOTE:
 Course content may be modified and/or students may be provided accommodations to access the
curriculum according to the specific student needs.
 Electives consist of additional courses as specified by the student individual educational
plan.
 Personal Finance is requirement but may be waived by school administration.

Table I.6 above depicts the criteria for the extended diploma which outlines a significant
reduction in the total credits required for graduation from 24 to 12. Significant reductions occur
in the core areas. Only 9 credits are required in the core subjects more specifically; English
requires 2 credits, mathematics require 2 credits, science require 2 credits and social science
requires 3 credits. In an attempt to increase graduation rates the OEIB allows for identified
179

students to apply for an extended diploma. This category of diploma is awarded to students who
exhibit an inability to meet or complete the traditional graduation requirements for reasons that
are beyond the control of the student.
o A documented history of a significant learning disability or barrier obstructing
learning or achievement.
o A documented history of an illness or medical condition obstructing learning
or achievement.
o The student qualified for the alternative assessment program from grade 6
forward.
o Upon admission to high school a student suffered an injury or illness that
obstructs learning and achievement and is now qualified for the alternative
assessment program.
In addition, to providing differentiated diploma pathways, Summer High School provides
career pathways that will educate, guide and direct students toward selecting degree paths at
higher educational institutions and eventually career fields that provide opportunities for
employment.
Partnerships with local community colleges have formed to create flexibility and provide
additional opportunities for the students and families of Summer High School. This partnership
is referred to as the Oregon Regional Achievement Collaborative, which permits students to
work toward an Associate’s Degree at the same time they are completing the high school
requirements for graduation (Oregon Department of Education, 2014 a). In addition, Summer
High School was awarded an Eastern Promise Grant which established a partnership between
high school sites and local colleges to create collaborative learning environments for both
180

professors, high school instructors and high school students (Oregon Department of Education,
2014 a). Both programs provide calibration opportunities for high school instructors and college
professors to ensure that students are adequately prepared to meet the demands and expectations
of higher education. Professional development will then need to be addressed to train, equip and
implement the research-based strategies to adequately prepare students for success beyond
graduation.
Professional Development
Professional development offered at Summer High School has decreased significantly, as
the 4 Season’s District has need to make strategic budget cuts due to the recent recession. The
Common Core State Standard and the corresponding assessments adoption has generated new
revenue sources to implement professional development and training. Professional development
will continue throughout the implementation of the Common Core State Standards.
Intern programs that were previously established were preserved throughout the
recession. These programs provide a valuable resource to Summer High School as they afforded
high school students the opportunity to gain employment related skills and experience that
Summer High School was unable to facilitate or simulate within the confines of the classroom.
A goal outlined in the College and Career Readiness plan and Regional Achievement Compact
identifies the need for students to gain relevant industry level experience through direct hands on
learning activities and environments.
Preserving such partnerships is not only financially beneficial to Summer High School, it
also provides the mechanisms to stay current and relevant with industry related challenges,
changes and advancements that the next generation will have to address. In addition, new
partnerships are now beginning to formulate as this college and career initiative is developing.
181

Accountability
Preserving partnerships is not only financially beneficial to Summer High School, it also
provides the mechanisms to stay current and relevant with industry related challenges, changes
and advancements that students will be asked to address. Table I.7 outlines school
characteristics, personnel resources segments and elements that create the overall funding
provisions as outlined in the Evidence-Based Model and how Summer High School compares to
that model.

182

Table I.7: Evidence-Based Model Staffing and funding provision Compared to Summer High School.
Staffing and funding provisions outlined in the Evidence-Based Model
School Elements EBM High School Summer High School
School Characteristics
School configuration Grades 9-12 Grades 9-12
Prototypical School Size 600 1,600
Class Size (student to
teacher ratio)
25:1 28:1
Number of Teacher Work
Days
210 total days
(200 teacher work days + 10 days
for intensive training)
180 total days
2 professional development
training days
Personnel Resources
Core Teachers 24 22
Specialist Teachers 33% of Core Teacher 8.0
Instructional Facilitators 1 for every 200 students 3.0 0
Tutors for struggling
students
1 Certificated Teacher for every
100 students in poverty

Teachers for English
Language Learners
1 ELL Teacher for every 100
students
1
Extended Day 0.25 FTE Certified Teachers for
½ of students in poverty with a
class size of 15
0
Summer School 0.25 FTE Certified Teachers for
½ of students in poverty with a
class size of 15

Students with learning
disabilities - mildly or
moderately disabled
Funding for equivalent of 4
additional teaching positions, and
2.0 aide positions

Student who are severely
disabled
100% state reimbursement minus
federal special education funds

Gifted Students $25 per student 0
Career and Technical
Education
No additional cost
Substitutes 5% of lines 1-11
Pupil Support Staff 1 for every 100 poverty students
Non-Instructional Aides 3 0
Librarians, and Media
Specialists
1 Librarian & 1 Media Specialist 1
Principal 1 1
School Site Secretary 3 3
Professional Development $100 per pupil
Technology $250 per pupil
Instructional Materials $200 per pupil
Student Activities
(Student Enrichment)
$250 per pupil
Counselors 1 per 250 students 3
Nurse’s Aide 0 0
Registered Nurse 0 1
District Administration 9 Professional & 9 Support
Positions for a District of 3,500

Operations& Maintenance State average per pupil
Pupil Transportation Previous year district expenditure
per pupil pending development of
a formula based on needs

District Characteristics Comparable Wage Index
Note: Adapted from Review and Analysis of Ohio’s Evidence-Based Model by Odden & Picul (2009).
Adapted without permission.
183

Table F7 indicated a discrepancy between the provisions outlined in the EBM and the actual
provisioning of resources at Summer High School. The prototypical school is relatively small in
size and scope, having only 600 students. The National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities,
(2009) documents the impact of school size on graduation rates and student achievement, in
addition to the creation of unique learning environments. In contrast, Summer High School is
composed of 1,600 students and by all accounts is considered to be a large school (National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, 2009). Class size can be closely related to school size,
but in this case it is interesting to note that the prototypical school outlines a student to teacher
ratio of 25 to 1 respectively and Summer High School has achieved a relatively similar ration of
28 to 1. Despite the fact that Summer High School has 1,000 additional students above the scope
of the prototypical school, the student teacher ratio is relatively low. This was a conscious
attempt to make a large school feel smaller and increase a student’s ability to access instructional
resources.
Upon further analysis, Summer High School does not have instructional facilitators,
designated tutors, extended day opportunities, non-instructional aides and 1 pupil support staff
for every 100 students. Summer school programs, once offered, were drastically decreased as
online opportunities for credit recovery emerged in addition to the option of attending an
alternative high school that would facilitate on-time graduation. The EBM apportions the need
to fund students with severe disabilities through state agencies and funding sources. The state of
Oregon does not fund students with severe disabilities through any extra external sources, which
is a very costly expenditure incurred by the 4 Seasons District and Summer High School.
Likewise, there is no additional funding sources to support the gifted and talented student
population or provide provisions for additional substitutes. The gifted and talented student
184

population is served by an Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate program that
has continued to develop and thrive. These programs do consume additional funding for
Instructor conferences, mandated supplies and smaller class sizes. It is difficult to estimate if
that allotment meets the $25 dollars per student budgetary amount outlined in the EBM program,
but it certainly does not meet the mark of $25 per student for the total student body.
Substitutes are provided for instructor absences as needed, not as a courtesy to attend
meetings, consult with colleagues or observe classrooms. Many of the items listed in the EMB
equip the educational institution to provide interventions for both students and staff. Due to the
budget reductions incurred in recent years, significant reductions resulted in the areas of student
interventions and proactive developmental measures. This also, resulted in a significant decrease
in professional development, technology integration, instructional materials and student
enrichment opportunities. The reductions affected the quality of the programs and services
offered throughout the 4 Seasons District. The student population of Summer High School felt
the impact of these critical fiscal cutbacks. As the economic crisis subsides, Summer High
School plans to reinstate and even implement additional professional development opportunities,
support structures and intervention programs to assist the instructional staff and student
populations.

185

Summary of Sample District and Current Regional Achievement Compact
In summary, The Oregon Educational Board has outlined specific focus areas that are
aimed at aligning the entire P-20 educational system. These focus areas were prioritized to
increase academic achievement and career advancement opportunities for the emerging youth of
Oregon with the ultimate goal of increasing the economic prosperity of the state at large. The 4
Seasons District has outlined a plan for the educational improvement through the development of
their Regional Achievement Compact. That compact outlines the enhancement of STEM
education across the District. As that plan is executed, it effects segments of the organization
differently. The 4 Seasons District is actively working with all of its educational institutions to
ensure that adequate support is provided to reach the outlined goals set forth by the Oregon
Educational Investment Board.
In order to provide such services, a District wide needs assessment was conducted which
was reflected in the Regional Achievement Compact. The results of which fostered the
development of a comprehensive programmatic and instructional plan that permitted the District
to apply for grant funds to be directed to the 4 Seasons District to execute those plans. With this
additional funding, the District is now in the process of implementing the professional
development and facility upgrade initiatives necessary to establish the foundation for the further
development of key programs identified within the Achievement Compact.
Summer High School is utilizing the increase of funding to implement the common core
state standards and equip the instructional leadership team to enhance current levels of practice
and instruction. Utilizing time afforded by the bell schedule, Summer High School has permitted
the instructional staff to collaborate and incorporate the performance-based lesson tasks into all
curricular areas within the past school year. In addition, the refocus has permitted the
186

administrative teams to streamline and define the plan for student achievement, increasing focus
on key areas with high potential for a return on the investment. This focus has created an
efficient environment for effective change. This initial implementation phase includes
incorporating 21
st
century skills and performance based learning tasks into the general
curriculum. It also includes accurately placing students and assessing each students reading
ability. Interventions will follow to ensure that students with academic gaps receive the
corrective mechanisms to increase learning. In addition, the grants awarded to the 4 Seasons
District and Summer High School have permitted the infusion of collegiate professors to
augment the professional development of the secondary instructional team. Upon completion of
the initial phase of the implementation model, Summer High School will actively enhance the
emerging STEM program.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to analyze district and site data regarding the current increase in focus in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematic (STEM) programs to determine how resource are used to achieve the 40-40-20 goal as outlined by Oregon school reform initiative. The study involved the analysis of one District with a minimum of one comprehensive high school within the Oregon Public School system. The goal was to determine the level of STEM focus and integration upon post implementation of the District’s Achievement Compacts. ❧ A review of the achievement compact was conducted with specific focus on STEM enhancement and the overall plan to increase student participation and pursuit of STEM related career fields. The District of focus included a STEM component in their Achievement Compact. A multi-phasic plan was developed and included

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

An examination of the Oregon state college and career education investment and the Eastern Promise program

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

School funding and the evidence based model: an examination of high school budget allocation in Hawaii

PDF

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

PDF

Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

A needs assessment and evaluation of an elementary afterschool STEM program in a small urban school district

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies: a case study of schools in a southern California school district

PDF

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

PDF

STEM teacher education: An evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Fricker, Kimberly Mae (author)

Core Title Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon public high schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 12/17/2014

Defense Date 12/16/2014

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

Tag evidence based model,OAI-PMH Harvest,OEIB,Oregon,STEM

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email kfricker@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-522070

Unique identifier UC11298403

Identifier etd-FrickerKim-3110.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-522070 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FrickerKim-3110.pdf

Dmrecord 522070

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Fricker, Kimberly Mae

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