University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS I

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON’S ACHIEVMENT COMPACTS AS IT RELATES
TO DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS

by
Lynn Garrett
___________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2014

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS II

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Frank and children Emily and Graeson.
The love, support and encouragement you have provided throughout the last couple of years has
made this possible. Thank you for all your patience and understanding. You have made it
possible for me to achieve my goal. I love you very much.

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my thanks and gratitude to Dr. Larry Picus for serving as the chair
of my dissertation committee. The time you spent reading and re-reading countless drafts are
greatly appreciated and made the completion of this goal possible. I would also like to thank Dr.
Rudy Crew and Dr. Mike Seelig for the time they spent with our thematic group giving us ideas
and providing background on the educational reform project being implemented in Oregon.
I would also like to thank the members of my cohort and dissertation group. Together we
have completed this journey. Without the feedback, support and encouragement from the
amazing people I have met in the program I could not have succeeded. We have persevered and
even had fun along the way. I am forever grateful for the friendships I have developed while in
the program.

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS III
LIST OF TABLES VI
LIST OF FIGURES VII
Abstract VIII

CHAPTER 1- OVERVIEW 1
Background of the Problem 5
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Study 8
Importance of the Study 9
Summary of Methodology 10
Limitations 10
Delimitations 11
Assumptions 11
Definitions and Terms 11
Dissertation Organization 14

CHAPTER 2- LITRATURE REVIEW 15
History of Oregon School Reform 17
Current School Reform Project 25
Dropout Prevention and Disadvantaged Students 31
The Achievement Gap and Disadvantaged Students 36
Successful Programming for Disadvantaged Students 43

CHAPTER 3- METHODS 50
Purposeful Sample and Population 51
Identifying Schools 53
Instrumentation 57
Data Collection 57
Data Analysis 58
Summary 59

CHAPTER 4- FINDINGS 60
Introduction 61
Demographics and Characteristics 61
Popular Community College Enrolment 63
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS V

Local State University 65
Interview Data 66
Achievement Compact Outcomes for 2012-2013 79
Conclusions 93

CHAPTER 5- DISCUSSION 96
Background/Overview of the Study 96
Summary of Findings 96
Limitations 103
Recommendations for Further Research 104
Conclusions 105

REFERENCES 109

ENDNOTES 117

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – INTERVIEW SURVEY QUESTIONS 118

APPENDIX B – INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY 120

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS VI

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Overall Level Assignments 53

Table 3.2: Performance Indicators for Selected Schools 54

Table 3.3: School Demographics 55

Table 3.4: Student Improvement Table 56

Table 3.5: Demographics of Post –Secondary schools in the Region 58

Table 4.1: Enrollment Data 62

Table 4.2: Socioeconomic and Minority Population 64

Table 4.3 Popular Community College Demographics 65

Table 4.4 Local State University Undergraduate Demographics 66

Table 4.5: Overall Level Assignments 82

Table 4.6: Performance indicators for selected schools 82

Table 4.7: Growth Level Cutoffs 85

Table 4.8: Subgroup Growth: Pin Oak School 85

Table 4.9: Red Oak School 86

Table 4.10: Laurel Oak School 86

Table 4.11: Sawtooth Oak School 87

Table 4.12: Costal Oak High School 87

Table 4.13: Popular Community College –Achievement Compact Outcomes 89

Table 4.14: Local State University Achievement Compact Outcomes 2011-12 92

Table 4.15: Local State University Achievement Compact Outcomes 2012-13 93

Table 4.16: Local State University –Achievement Compact Targets 2013-14 94

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS VII

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: Breakdown of Minority 63

Figure 4.2: Local State University Achievement Compact- Outcomes 91

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS VIII

Abstract
This study focuses on the implementation of achievement compacts in Oregon as
they relate to historically underserved populations. The purpose of this study was to determine
how the goals for disadvantaged students were established, ascertain how the implementation of
the goals or programs differ for disadvantaged students, and understand how the goals will be
implemented and measured.
This study used a purposeful sample of urban schools within one region of Oregon. The
schools included in the study were all potential feeder schools to each other within the region. In
the public K-12 system, five Focus schools were chosen to participate in the study. Focus
schools are in the bottom 15% of Title I schools that need additional support to close the
achievement gap. The other two schools are public schools of higher education, a community
college and a local state university. Both have historically underserved populations between
32% and 35%. The public schools chosen for the study have historically underserved
populations between 61% and 83%. The study consisted of interviews with key educational staff
that were directly involved in designing the achievement compacts for their specific institution.
The interviews consisted of fifteen open-ended questions designed to support three research
questions. Additionally achievement compacts from 2011 to 2013 were reviewed to see if
changes have occurred in baseline, target, projections and outcomes for the educational
institutions since the implementation of the achievement compacts.
Findings included acknowledgement that the achievement compacts are keeping the discussion
regarding the achievement alive in the community and in the legislature. The achievement
compacts are still evolving, but are seen as a positive step toward closing the achievement gap.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 1

CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in 2002 brought intense focus on
the educational system in the United States and the ever increasing achievement gap between
White and disadvantaged students. A substantial body of past and current research documents a
persistent pattern demonstrating Asian and White students score higher on achievement tests
compared to Black, Latino, and American Indian students (Gregory, Skiba & Noguera, 2010).
NCLB requires states to develop an accountability system that will ensure all students become
proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics by spring of 2014. School districts
are required to conduct standardized assessments at select grade level to receive federal funding
(Center on Education Policy, 2007). However, states continue to struggle with closing the
achievement gap and implementation of the mandates outlined in NCLB. No Child Left Behind
is a test-driven system that requires yearly progress at increasing levels, which can label schools
making scholastic gains as failing schools. The ever-increasing targets for growth create the
appearance of larger gaps, even when the subgroup is demonstrating progress (Center for
Education Policy, 2007). President Barack Obama announced the Race to the Top (RTTT)
initiative in 2009. In general, this initiative aspired to fund innovative reform movements in K-
12 education at the state and district levels (ed.gov, 2013). RTTT also provided states with a
means to seek a waiver from NCLB requirements, provided the state demonstrates a plan to
address the achievement gap through high standards and accountability (ed.gov, 2013).
Compliance challenges were reported by many states, but Oregon was one of the first
states to seek a waiver from the NCLB requirements. Pursuing this further, Oregon has taken on
a statewide educational reform project and has proposed sweeping reform changes for its
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 2

educational system. To achieve the goals of the reform project, Oregon had to secure a waiver
from NCLB requirements.
In February 2012, Oregon filed a request for an NCLB waiver. In the application, the
Oregon Education Association (OEA) stated that NCLB was over reliant on high stakes testing
and failed students as well as undermining the quality of public education. A formidable portion
of the waiver application was grounded in the creation of Oregon’s new achievement compacts
between local school districts and the state, which was outlined in a letter of support for the
waiver application created by the Oregon Education Association in 2012. In order to achieve its
goals, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 253 (SB 253) in 2011, which established the
most aggressive high school and college completion goals of any state in the country (Oregon
Learns, 2011). SB 253 established what is commonly referenced as the 40/40/20 goal. It states
by 2025, the following goals will be achieved: 40% of adult Oregonians will have earned a
bachelor’s degree or higher, 40% will have earned an associate’s degree or post-secondary
credential, and the remaining 20% or less will have earned a high school diploma or its
equivalent (Oregon Learns, 2011). Therefore, a systematic and collaborative effort amongst all
educational entities in Oregon is necessary to realize these goals.
Subsequently, Senate Bill 909 (SB 909) was passed in 2011, which called for the creation
of a unified, student-centered public education system from preschool through graduate school.
Senate Bill 909 also established the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) and charged it
with ensuring the success of SB 253’s 40/40/20 goal. The OEIB mission is to guarantee all
public school students in the state realize the educational outcomes established for the state. The
OEIB reports directly on progress regularly to the state legislature (Oregon Learns: Executive
Summary, 2011). The OEIB consists of the Governor, John Kitzhaber, and twelve additional
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 3

members nominated by the Governor and confirmed by the Oregon Senate in November 2011.
The members represent state educators and leaders of businesses and industry in Oregon as well
as leaders from community organizations (Oregon Learns, 2011). OEIB identified three key
strategies to implement in the reform project. The first was to create a coordinated, public
education system from preschool through college as well as career readiness to enable all Oregon
students learn at their best pace and achieve their full potential. The second strategy was to focus
state investment on achieving student outcomes. The core educational outcomes include all
children enter kindergarten ready for school, all students move along the learning pathway at
their best pace, and all students graduate from high school. Further outcomes are that all
students are college and career ready and of those who pursue education beyond high school
complete their chosen programs of study prepared to contribute to Oregon’s economy. The third
strategy was to build statewide support systems such as setting standards, providing guidance,
and conducting assessments. The state will also build a longitudinal data system to track
important information on student progress and returns on statewide investments from preschool
through college and into careers.
The Oregon Education Investment Board formally adopted a job description for the Chief
Education Officer (CEO) in December 2011. The CEO was charged with leading the
development of an integrated, public education system. Dr. Rudy Crew, a nationally recognized
educator, was hired in 2012 to serve as the Chief Education Officer with the mission of
providing leadership necessary to implement this broad, educational reform project. A change in
leadership occurred on July 1, 2013. Dr. Nancy Golden was appointed as the interim Chief
Education Officer, after Dr. Crew announced his decision to resign the position. Additional
legislation has also passed to support the reform efforts. In 2012, Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581)
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 4

was passed. It required all school districts, educational service districts, and community college
districts as well as public universities in Oregon to enter into annual achievement compacts with
the OEIB beginning in the 2012-2013 school year (OEIB, 2012). Achievement compacts were
introduced to all school entities in April 2012. Guidelines and templates were sent to all school
districts within Oregon to be completed and approved by July 2, 2012 prior to the
implementation in the fall, 2012 (OEIB, 2012). These compacts required all public school
entities to network in a coordinated and collaborative effort to set goals and report results based
on common measures of progress and outcomes in all stages of learning and for all groups of
learners. Additionally, in February 2013, a proposal for a regional achievement compact was
introduced in the form of a pilot program. The regional programs bring together institutions in a
region to share ideas, pool resources, and ensure all institutions, regardless of the age of the
students, contribute to the development of a P-20 continuum that prepares all students to be
successful in post-secondary experiences (Regional Achievement Compact, 2013). Schools
participating in the pilot had to write individual compacts for their schools, but additionally had
to collaborate with other schools in the region and write regional achievement compacts.
Each institution participating in the pilot had to complete a compact that looked at two
levels of performance. Level One data were provided by ODE on traditional, student academic
growth targets within a region. The data were used to present a picture of the region’s critical
data points, disaggregating them by subgroup. Level Two was to be a collaborative process in
which schools/intuitions in a given region analyzed data with the goal being to work together as
a larger region to address challenges that exist beyond the classroom and help change the culture
of schools and colleges. The compacts will address regional and local issues as they relate to
community building along with institutional and cultural transformation (Crew, 2013).
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 5

Background of the Problem
Disadvantaged students in Oregon rank among the lowest performing in the nation and
have ‘lost ground’ since 2003 (Oregon Learns, 2011). The progressive closure of the
achievement gap is a constant struggle in Oregon and persists despite a number of well-
intentioned programs (i.e., The Educational Services Act, No Child Left Behind, and Race to the
Top) that have been lauded for being solutions for closing the gap. A reoccurring theme of these
solutions is that every state has a success story that tells of a failing school with an incredible
return around only to find that the success is short-lived and has non-reproducible results.
Consequentially, Oregon, along with four other states, showed an overall widening of the
achievement gap between 2003 and 2007 (Oregon Learns, 2011).
Oregon’s definition of disadvantaged students includes students who live in poverty, or
are socioeconomically disadvantaged, racial, and ethnic minority students, and English Language
Learners. Students with disabilities are also identified within this subgroup. One of Oregon’s
goals includes identifying the contributory sources that affect achievement gaps, and take
measures using achievement compacts to address them. By addressing more than just the
educational issues, the State wants to document and implement best practices for closing or at
least reducing the achievement gap that currently exists. The State’s assessment asserts that
students who grow up in poverty frequently face the issues of gang affiliation, incarceration, and
truancy as well as minority status, lack of role models, and mental health issues (Oregon Learns:
Report to the Legislature, 2011). Spanish speaking students represent close to 14% of the
student population (K-12) in Oregon schools. While not all English Language Learners live in
poverty, the lack of proficient English language skills puts them at risk of dropping out, or failing
to meet their academic potential (OEIB, 2011).
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 6

Oregon has opted not to act in concert with the federal government or other model
programs presented in the media or the politically driven environment. Instead, it has developed
the idea of academic compacts as its vehicle for accomplishing the task of improving student
achievement and outcomes. The achievement compacts focus on improving academic
achievement, similar to academic performance plans, but take it a step further by developing
targets for achievement and documenting how the measured outcomes were implemented and
achieved (OEIB, 2011). This approach also ensures documentation of best practices in order to
reproduce the results in other school districts or regions of Oregon. Achievement compacts
consist of several parts; including identifying baseline achievement and setting a target goal that
are both attainable and meaningful. In addition to the achievement goals, compacts require
school districts to describe programs and measurement tools or methods to determine if students
are making progress toward the goals throughout the school year (OEIB, 2011). Finally, the
achievement compacts seek to organize a system of accountability and support to ensure student
success from pre-K to college and career readiness (OEA, 2011). The addition of the pilot
program for regional compacts also ensures collaboration between all levels in the P-20
continuum (Regional Achievement Compact Pilot, 2013).
Intrinsic to the Achievement Compact is its strategic initiatives that include knowledge
transfer and accountability both of which provide synergy to the program. The transfer of
knowledge within a district-wide system would seem a simple task. Yet, the ingrained
philosophies and ideologies of educational silos and isolated success dominate many educational
systems under the concept of competition. To overcome these obstacles, the compacts provide a
system whereby programs that prove successful with specific subgroups can then be initiated in
other school districts. The goal of the program is to ensure all students receive the education and
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 7

intervention that guarantees progress in addition to a subsequent reduction and contraction of the
achievement gap. Accountability to initiate, contribute, and expand the achievement compact is
paramount to its success.
Statement of the Problem
Oregon faces a two-pronged problem. The first problem is identifying and defining the
achievement gap. Oregon’s Statewide Report Card of 2011-2012 deduces the disadvantaged
students’ subgroup as follows: 78% are considered Limited English Proficient (LEP),
approximately 23% of students under six live in poverty, and minority students represent 34.7%
of the total enrollment. The second problem is defining how achievement compacts will monitor
student success. The school districts must design achievement compacts to include a description
of outcomes and measures of progress that capture student completion rates, and ensure students
have acquired the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in the workforce, society, and
the economy (Oregon Learns, 2011). In the first submission, approximately one third of all
districts had their original achievement compacts returned by the state due to inadequate goals.
In addition, the compacts will require districts to set target numbers and/or percentages for the
outcomes, both as an aggregate number and in the disaggregate form for disadvantaged students.
By strategically identifying goals and requiring meaningful measurement strategies,
academic achievement can be increased (Fernandez, 2009). Terms frequently used when
measuring achievement include "best practices" and "research-based interventions." These terms
are not relevant unless they can be connected or credited with improved student achievement in a
specific area or with a defined population. Best practices, while not always research-based, have
been substantially used and evidence exists that the incorporation of best practice will result in
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 8

some level of increased achievement, or support the idea that the intervention is able to be
supported (OEIB, 2011).
The focus of the achievement compact is on measures of student progress and target
setting around those measures (Oregon School Boards Association, 2011). The OEIB wants
school districts to develop ambitious but realistic achievement targets for students. Target
setting should be goal driven and attainable, but require solid intervention programs that promote
increasing student achievement and affect the closure of the achievement gap (OEIB, 2012).
Purpose of the Study
Achievement compacts are forward-looking plans designed to set targets for defined
outcome measures that reflect student success. Senate Bill 1581 required that all school districts,
education service districts, and community college districts as well as public universities in
Oregon enter into annual achievement compacts with the OEIB beginning the in 2012-2013
school year (OEIB, 2012). The purpose of this study is three fold: 1) determine how the goals
for disadvantaged students were established; 2) ascertain how the implementation of the goals or
programs differ for disadvantaged students; 3) understand how the goals will be implemented
and measured. Oregon has implemented programs and interventions to address the academic
success of at-risk students historically. The difference in this innovative approach will be the
baseline measures, target measures, measures of progress, and outcomes. Systematic
documentation and analysis of best practices for intervention with disadvantaged students will
help replicate the efforts in other areas of the state and perhaps the nation.

Research Questions
The Research Questions for this study are:
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 9

1. What goals are established for disadvantaged students in the achievement
compacts?
2. We know the goals for disadvantaged students differ from typical students, but
how is the implementation of the goals or programs different for disadvantaged
students?
3. How do districts plan to implement the goals focused on disadvantaged children
and how will achievement of the goals be measured?
Importance of the Study
The goal of OEIB is to provide schools with the needed resources to ensure student
achievement and success for all learners. As a state, Oregon wants to close the gap that exists
between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students. The study will highlight the goal-
setting process, which is intended to lead to academic growth of the disadvantaged student
subgroup. The achievement compacts are a direct, systemic method for increasing accountability
and achievement across the state. The data generated by the achievement compacts will tell the
stakeholders whether the intervention programs are successful in closing the gap with
disadvantaged students. When the first year the achievement compacts were created,
approximately one third of all districts had their original plans returned due to having inadequate
goals and had to rewrite/resubmit them.
In the end, administrators will benefit from quantitatively researched intervention
programs that increase achievement of disadvantaged students. Teachers, parents, and the
community will collectively and individually learn how to support and help their students access
the tools they need to be academically successful. Understanding how the data, interventions,
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 10

and progress measures are established and implemented will lead to better practices throughout
the state with respect to interventions with disadvantaged students.
Summary of Methodology
In an effort to study the design of the achievement compacts as they relate to
disadvantaged students, a qualitative case-study approach will be utilized. The design structure
will involve interviewing staff members that had input into the development and establishment
of the goals included in the achievement compacts that focus on disadvantaged students.
Three public institutions/entities participated in the study. All three are within the same
region and include an urban K-12 school district, a community college, and a state university.
The K-12 system serves a large percentage of disadvantaged students and has several schools
labeled as “Focus” schools by the Oregon Department of Education. Information from Oregon’s
Statewide Report Card 2011-2012 as well as demographic information from the Oregon
Department of Education was used to identify potential school districts to participate in the
study. Interviews with the key developers of the achievement compacts was conducted with
each educational /entity, in single sessions and recorded. The analysis was done after the
interview had been transcribed and coded using a computer program. A follow-up phone call to
clarify missing or incomplete information was made if necessary.
Limitations
The following limitations are present in the study: data collection was predicated upon a
structured and semi-structured interview process with results that may be subjective. Further, the
information gathered from the interviews was derived from the perceptions of the limited
number of staff members interviewed and they may not constitute a representative sample of all
other staff. The implementation of the Achievement Compacts was enacted for the 2012-2013
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 11

school year. Approximately one third of all districts had their original plans returned due to
inadequate goals. Therefore, the outcome of this study may be skewed due to the limited
timeframe districts had to plan and implement the achievement compacts.
Delimitations
The following delimitations are present in the study. The staff interviewed for this study
was restricted to a specific urban region in Oregon. In general, the study focuses on the first year
of implementation of the achievement compacts; future goal writing and measures of success
may be different. Additionally, the focus of the study is only exploring the disadvantaged
students within a specific region.
Assumptions
The following assumptions are made in this study. The staff members interviewed for
this study were conscientious and honest in their responses to the interview questions. All school
documents, data, and goals were assumed complete, accurate, and reflective of how goals were
operationally defined and progress was monitored. The methodology chosen for this study is
appropriate for the subject of the study.
Definitions and Terms
40/40/20 Goal: by 2025, 40% of adult Oregonians will have earned a bachelor’s degree or
higher, 40% will have earned an associate’s degree or post-secondary credential, and the
remaining20% (or less) of Oregonians will have earned a high school diploma or its equivalent
(OEIB, May 2012).
Achievement Compact: the agreement between the Oregon Education Investment Board and
the governing body of an education entity (OEIB, 2012).
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 12

Achievement Gap: the difference in scores on student achievement tests among groups of
students (OEIB, 2012).
Connections: a term used by the OEIB to refer to the inter-relationship of institutions and the
progress of students from one stage of learning to the next, e.g. from high school to community
college and from academia to careers (OEIB, 2012).
Disadvantaged Students: term that includes groups of students who are; (1) economically
disadvantaged; (2) Limited English Proficient; (3) students ("OEIB Definitions," 3/27/2012) with
disabilities; (4) Black (not of Hispanic origin); (5) Hispanic origin; (6) American Indian/Alaskan
native; (7) Multi-racial/multi-ethnic (OEIB, 2012).
Education Entity: is used in SB1581 and OEIB rules to include K-12 school districts, education
service districts, and community college districts as well as the Oregon University System
(OUS), the seven public universities, and of OUS and Oregon Health Science University (OEIB,
2012).
Goals: is used in two contexts, (1) to describe the state’s 40/40/20 goal for high school and
college completion and other educational goals established by statue; (2) used in the legislation
in the term ‘goals for outcomes’ to reference diverse outcome measures the legislature and the
OEIB define for achievement compacts (OEIB, 2012).
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): NCLB is the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, which increased the federal government’s focus on accountability and
achievement (Ed Source, 2010).
Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB): the Oregon Educational Investment Board
chaired by the Governor of Oregon overseeing the effort to create a seamless, unified system for
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 13

investing and delivering public education from early childhood through college so that all
citizens of Oregon are well prepared for careers in Oregon (Oregon.gov, 2013).
Outcome Measures: are the elements in the achievement compacts that require target testing.
The outcome measures established by the OEIB are linked to those that capture completion rates,
validations of the quality of knowledge, and skills acquired by students as well as the relevance
of the knowledge and skills necessary for success in the workforce, economy, and society
(OEIB, 2012).
Poverty: poverty is commonly defined as the state of living in a family with income below the
federally defined poverty line as defined by the Department of Agriculture. This term is used in
eligibility determinations for certain benefit programs. It is the set minimum amount of income
that a family needs for food, clothing, and transportation as well as shelter and other necessities
(ed.gov, 2013).
Race to the Top (RTTT): this initiative offered incentives to states willing to lead innovative
systematic reform to improve teaching and learning in the United States (ed.gov, 2013).
Senate Bill 253(SB 253): established the most aggressive high school and college completion
goals of any state in the country (OEIB, 2012).
Senate Bill 909 (SB 909): called for the creation of a unified, student-centered system of public
education from preschool through graduate school (P-20) to achieve the state’s educational
outcomes (OEIB, 2012).
Senate Bill 1581 (SB 1581): legislation passed in 2012 that requires all school districts,
education service districts, and community college districts as well as public universities in
Oregon to enter into annual achievement compacts with the OEIB beginning with the 2012-2013
school year (OEIB, 2012).
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 14

Socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED): a student who is eligible for free or reduced lunch,
and who lives in poverty (ed.gov, 2013).
Targets: refer to the numbers and percentages of students established by districts for the
outcome measures specified in the achievement compacts (OEIB, 2012).
Dissertation Organization
Chapter 1 of the study presented the introduction, statement of the problem, and purpose
of the study in addition to research questions, importance of the study, and summary of the
methodology used as well as limitations, delimitations, assumptions, definition of terms and the
organization of the dissertation.
Chapter 2 of the study presents a review of the literature in the following areas: the
history of Oregon school reform, current school reform project, and dropout prevention as well
as disadvantaged students, the achievement gap, and goal setting for disadvantaged students.
Chapter 3 of the study presents the research methodology used, the data collection
process, and the methods used to perform the data analysis.
Chapter 4 reports the findings from the study, including a summary of the sample of the
schools’ demographics and characteristics, and achievement data for disadvantaged students.
Chapter 5 provides a summary of the study, research conclusions, and implications
from the study.

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 15

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides an overview of the literature related to Oregon School Reform and
current legislative mandates as they relate to student achievement and student outcomes. Oregon
has a long history of leadership in the school reform movement. Educational reform in Oregon
is an ongoing process of reciprocation between districts, state legislators, and the voters. Oregon
was one of the first states to mandate outcome-based educational standards. School districts
have traditionally focused on the accrual of credits for high school graduation rather than the
mastery or attainment of skills (Venezia & Kirst, 2006). Oregon has chosen to challenge that
traditional way of thinking and move toward mastery of skills that will lead all Oregonians to
higher achievement in school or their chosen career.
This literature review has been separated into five areas. The first area is the history of
Oregon school reform. The state has a reputation for being a leader in this movement. Over the
past decade and a half, Oregon has embarked on several ambitious initiatives seeking to improve
college readiness of high school students (Venezia & Kirst, 2006, p. 1). Oregon has a unique
way of developing and implementing K-16 reform. Historically, Oregon’s reform initiatives
were not mandated by the state, have received little state funding, and the governor was not
actively involved in the design or in the initiation of school reform. Generally, the reform
movements have been led by staff members of K-12 and higher education systems, working
collaboratively to create consensus around issues like alignment of K-12 standards and
expectations for college-level academic work (Venezia & Kirst, 2006). The prevailing school
reform is very diverse, with active involvement by the governor and the state legislature.
The second section discusses the current Oregon school reform initiatives. Initiatives are
being spearheaded by the governor and supported by the legislature. The legislature has
supported the governor with his reform measures by passing several senate bills. One of the
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 16

most important senate bills to be passed established the Oregon Education Investment Board
(OEIB) in June 2011 for the purpose of ensuring all public school students in this state reach the
educational outcomes established for the state (Oregon Learns, 2011, p. i). The OEIB’s goal is
to establish a unified school system that begins with early childhood services and continues
throughout public education from kindergarten to post-secondary education (Oregon Learns,
2011).
Section three of the literature review will review dropout prevention and disadvantaged
students. To achieve Oregon’s long-term goals, schools and educational institutions must
address the learning as well as social/emotional and behavioral needs of disadvantaged students
throughout the state. Disadvantaged students include those who have limited English
proficiency, students with special needs, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students as well
as Black, Hispanic, Native American, Native Alaskan, and multi-ethnic and multi-racial students.
An overall graduation rate for this group of student’s is between 42% and 73%. Special
education students had the lowest graduation rates in 2011at 42%, and multi-ethnic/multi-racial
students had the highest graduation rates of 73%. Graduation rates for Black, Hispanic, and
Native American/Alaskan Native as well as limited English speaking students were 54%, 58%,
52%, and 52% respectively (ODE, 2012). Developing goals and determining successful
programming that ensure high achievement and graduation rates are a focus within the reform
movement. Providing services for disadvantaged students to ensure academic success is a focus
of the new school reform movement (OEIB, 2011).
The fourth section will review the achievement gap and disadvantaged students.
The gap in achievement across racial and ethnic groups has been a focus of education research
for decades (Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010, p. 59). In 2004, Secretary of Education Rod
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 17

Paige stated, “The academic achievement gap is the major driver of racial inequity in this
country” (Clotfelter, Ladd, &Vigdor, 2009). Very little has changed irrespective of the research,
federal, and state initiatives including NCLB. Oregon is attempting to close the achievement gap
as part of the new achievement compacts, which include goals and measures of success for all
disadvantaged students, regardless of which subgroup in which they are listed.
The last section will review successful programming for disadvantaged students.
Providing intervention programs is only successful if you can get students engaged. Theories of
motivation (Parker, 2012) include providing high levels of encouragement, inspiration, and hope
in addition to hard work, positive relationships, and teaching decision-making. Other theories
for increasing achievement include class-size reduction and different school configurations such
as the school within a school approach. Most interventions and theories emphasize the need for
small group, or individual interventions. With large class sizes, students who need extra help are
often hesitant to ask due to social pressures or feelings of inadequacy. Successful programming
for disadvantaged students will require schools to look at the whole child and their needs, not
just their academic needs. The following section will review the history of school reform in
Oregon.
The History of Oregon School Reform
Oregon has a national reputation school regarding reform. This state has initiated and
been the leader of school reform since it became a state in 1859. At that time, its constitution
required the establishment of a school system. Initially, the state provided basic school support
from a common school fund (Baylis, 1997). Throughout the history of Oregon, the state has
been proud of how it educated its citizens, and its reputation in school reform. Important in the
history of school reform is the initiatives that passed and those that failed. School reform must
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 18

be accompanied by school funding. Lack of funding has played a key role in the failure and
success of many of Oregon’s educational reform projects, but there are encouraging signs of
progress in Oregon schools. At all levels, educators are pioneering new practices that have
enabled students to achieve their potential as students and members of the community (Oregon
Learns, 2011).
According to Baylis (1997), during the early history of Oregon, the state provided basic
school support from a common school fund, but soon this fund was insufficient to support the
school system. Therefore, county taxes and other fees were levied to make up the difference. In
the 1940’s, the state established a minimum annual payment to school districts of fifty dollars per
student from the state general fund. By 1961, over one-third of the state’s general fund was
being spent on school funding. According to the Oregon constitution, the Legislative Assembly
is required by law to provide for the establishment of a uniform and general system of Common
Schools (Baylis, 1997). Oregon has taken on many school reform measures. Many of the
measures required increasing taxes to pay for the reforms, but failure to get enough votes to
increase taxes lead to either abandonment of a reform idea, or parts of a reform measure having
to be scrapped due to lack of funding.
School funding is and has been a challenging subject for state legislatures to overcome.
Disparities in spending on a per-pupil level were significant between school districts in 1972
prior to the first school financing litigation began in Oregon. Spending per pupil ranged from
$642 to $1,795 in 1972. A breakdown of school funding indicated that 78% of school funding
was dependent on local property taxes, 16% came from state funding, primarily from income
taxes, and 4% came from federal funding (Baylis, 1997). In 1988-1989, the range was $2,596 to
$5,832. Tax rates per student property values varied from $19,000 to $203,000 in 1972. In
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 19

1988-1989, the per-student property values varied from $97,882 to $453,497. The tax rate in
1972 varied from $9 to $20 per $1,000 in assessed property value; by 1988-1989, the tax rates
ranged from $6.95 to $29.11 per $1,000 in assessed property value (Baylis, 1997). At the same
time, state and federal educational mandates had increased, both in number and in intensity of
their demands, further stressing the education system. Additional revenue from federal,
severance, and ad valorem taxes on timberlands within certain districts also contributed to this
disparity (Baylis, 1997). Districts that received revenue from the sale of timber were at an
advantage, since this tax was not taken into account when calculating revenue. The state tried
numerous methods to equalize funds including a system called Inter Education Districts, but this
did not prove very effective in reducing the inequity between rich and poor school districts.
Every year, the state would set a minimum amount in guaranteed expenditures per pupil and a
minimum tax rate to qualify for equalization funds. If a school district did not have enough
property value to raise the minimum amount to meet the minimum tax rate, the state would
supply the balance needed from its equalization fund. The issue was the state education grants
for this comprised only 16% of the total education budget, and of that, only about 2% of the total
budget was earmarked for equalization. As a result, in 1972, even the most disadvantaged
district spent $81 per pupil more than the guaranteed amount. Failure to increase funding to
schools lead to continued disparities between the spending on public education from one location
to another across Oregon.
After numerous attempts, Oregon finally got a tax initiative to pass that would help
equalize funding to schools. Oregon passed Measure 5 in 1991, shifting the responsibility for
school funding from the local districts to the state (Baylis, 1997). This was, in part, a property
tax revolt, similar to Proposition 13 that had passed in California (in the 1970s), limiting
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 20

property tax increases. The principal reason people voted for property tax limitations was to
decrease their tax burden without diminishing service levels. This tax revolt limited the ways in
which public school districts and other local governments could collect and spend tax revenues.
A widely held belief was that local governments were inefficiently providing services and that
limitations would lead to similar public service levels at lower costs (Figlio, 1998). This tax
revolt had both beneficial and detrimental aspects to it. Many felt public services could be
provided at a lower cost if they were open to competition. Sometimes this proved successful, but
when it came to schools, it was a failure.
Measure 5 was not the first attempt to change or modify the school funding system in
Oregon, but it was the first measure to succeed and pass. This forced real reductions in property
tax revenues, which subsequently jeopardized school funding mechanisms. Measure 5 capped
property tax rates for a specific percentage of assessed property value, which by Oregon law
must reflect fair market value (Figlio, 1998). Measure 5 called for partial state replacement of
lost revenues; the state compensation was very little. Prior to Measure 5, almost every
jurisdiction in Oregon had higher property tax rates that what Measure 5 allowed. Consequently,
local governments had little flexibility in re-assessing property. While the limits were designed
to equalize funding, the actual results were a larger gap in per-pupil spending and overall school
revenues (Figlio, 1998). The loss of revenue had a direct impact on service levels in school
districts.
Initially, the public thought limiting property tax revenues would lead to more efficient
and effective government services such as fire, police, and education. Doing more with less
would lead to innovation, savings, and increased efficiency. Figlio (1998) reported two principal
short-term effects of Measure 5 on Oregon’s schools. First, the student-teacher ratio was
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 21

increased, but the administrative overhead was not immediately decreased, resulting in a cut to
instructional services. Figlio (1998) found the student-teacher ratio increased by approximately
5% after Measure 5 passed. Another example was the graduation rate. In Oregon, the
graduation rated dropped from twenty-third among states to thirtieth in 1988. In the same time
period, per pupil spending dropped from sixth to thirteenth, and the estimated teacher salary had
decreased from twelfth to eighteenth. Oregon also ranked thirty-ninth in student-teacher ratio
during that same period. (Baylis, 1997) Figlio reported he could not find any suggestion that
any school districts had higher service levels because of Measure 5. Measure 5 may have helped
equalize the funding to schools, but schools were still underfunded and unable to initiate
substantial educational reforms to increase the state rankings when it came to student
achievement, teacher training or salary, teacher-to-student class rations, or graduation rate.
Oregon has a political structure that requires voters to approve any initiatives or
referendums via a ballot measure system. Oregonians seem to be proud of their direct voting
power, but it has proven difficult to increase taxes or pass measures that ensure a consistent
funding stream or funding system for school districts (Angeli, 2006). The Oregon Legislature
passed the Oregon Educational Act for the 21
st
Century in 1991. This educational reform project
focused on improving schools by raising standards, encouraging local innovation, community
partnerships, and focusing on student performance outcomes (Baylis, 1997). Each district was
required to create a 21
st
Century Schools Council to oversee the act and develop local programs.
The reform movement required schools to shift away from diplomas, instead when students had
passed certain classes they were awarded Certificates of Initial Mastery (CIM) and Certificates
of Advanced Mastery (CAM). CIMs were awarded at the end of tenth grade and CAMs were
awarded at the end of 12th grade. Diplomas were not eliminated, but they were not clearly
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 22

mentioned in the proposal. The CIM was a set of high standards for basic education and the
CAM would be awarded in an area of specialization of the student’s interest and intended to be
more careers oriented (Baylis, 1997). Specialized certificates emphasized the use of several
types of assessments, work samples, and student portfolios to measure mastery as well as
benchmark assessments in grades three, five, eight, ten and twelfth (Venezia & Kirst, 2006).
Oregon’s legislature also tried to pass additional funding legislation to pay for the
implementation of the new program, but this failed. The failure of the legislature to provide
additional funding limited the effect of the 21
st
Century School reforms.
One provision in the act required schools to extend the school year from the standard
170-180 days to 220 days a year by the turn of the 21st century. With lack of additional
resources, this mandate of the proposal was unfeasible (Angeli, 2006). The uproar caused by the
prospect of costly unfunded mandates forced the legislature to remove the provision of a longer
school year in 1995. Lottery money was allocated to pay for the initial stages of the Act. The
first two years after the act was passed, the Department of Education (DOE) worked on research
and development to determine how the Act should be implemented. A task force of 200 people
from all aspects of the education community was involved in setting standards and proposing
outcomes. Based on the proposals and recommendations from the task force, the Department of
Education developed content standards and performance standards for use in assessing student in
the classroom and developed assessments for grades three, five, eight and tenth.
Measure 15 was brought by initiative petition in 1994, as an attempt to guarantee
continued school funding. Measure 15 proposed a constitutional amendment setting a minimum
level of funding for the public school system at the 1993-1995 funding level, adjusted for
inflation or deflation. This measure was defeated (Baylis, 1997). Other types of proposals
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 23

include a split roll tax or a temporary lifting of Measure 5s limit on school property taxes and
permit for a local option for each district’s voters to increase local taxes dedicated to school
funding as well as lobbying for a repeal of Measure 5.
In April 1996, Governor Kitzhaber proposed a new funding and reform project aimed at
developing a system that accepts equity as a necessity and focuses on adequacy and
accountability. The Governor established the Governor’s Quality Education Finance Project
and the Governor’s Local Option Task Force. The governor’s idea was to ascertain what to buy
with educational dollars rather than financing education based on the total amount of money that
could be appropriated for schools.
Numerous initiatives and reform ideas continued to be implemented in Oregon. In 1997,
the legislature passed HB 3636 directing the DOE to update the K-12 budget and accounting
systems in order accurately report and compare spending information for districts and schools
statewide (Venezia & Kirst, 2006). The goal was to have the data be stored in a publicly
accessible database. Other reform measures include dual enrollment between school districts
and community colleges in Oregon as another collaborative effort between K-12 and the
university system. Dual enrollment is coordinated at a local and regional level without state
mandates, guidance, or leadership: GEAR UP is an initiative that helps disadvantaged students
acquire the skills needed to get into college. Oregon continues to be a national leader in the area
of school reform.
Oregon’s legislature established the Quality Education Commission (QEC) in 2001. The
goal of this commission was to determine the amount of funding needed to meet the state’s
quality education goals. The commission was also charged with identifying best practices with
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 24

regard to high student performance and achievement. This commission was to report to the
governor and legislature each year, the current K-12 practice, and best practices as well as costs,
student performance, and alternatives to meeting the state’s educational goals (Venezia & Kirst,
2006).
Regardless of the continued defeat of ballot measures designed to increase funding,
Oregon continues to innovate and lead the nation in educational reform. They have been
successful in building collaboration between their K-12 and college systems. When Oregon
began to focus on the CIM and CAM, the Oregon University System began a reform initiative of
its own focused on student proficiencies. The university system initiated the Proficiency-based
Admissions Standards System (PASS) in 1993 to examine how higher education’s needs could
integrate with the CIM and the CAM). Oregon’s universities had a vested interest in preparing
students who would be enrolling in the universities throughout Oregon (Venezia & Kirst, 2006).
In conclusion, attempts at educational reform in Oregon have been numerous.
Historically, many proposed initiatives failed. The beginning of major reform came with the
passage of Measure 5 in 1991, which attempted to equalize educational funding and the passage
of the Oregon Educational Act for the 21
st
Century also in 1991. Several years later, the
Governor established the Governor’s Quality Education Finance Project and the Governor’s
Local Option Task Force in 1996. The biggest change to the educational reform movement in
Oregon has been the direct intervention of the governor, and support from the legislature to pass
reform measures and address school funding issues and inequity. The following section will
review the current school reform movement in Oregon.

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 25

Current School Reform Project
Oregon has taken on a statewide, educational reform project that will encompass
preschool through college. The goal is to have a highly educated work force by 2025 (Oregon
Learns, 2011). This section will review the prevailing educational reform project starting with
the major legislative reforms that initiated the reform project and ending with what the next steps
will be. The reform project reflects collaboration, cooperation, and accountability by the local
school districts and communities, the higher educational institutions, the governor and the state
legislative bodies.
Oregon embarked on an ambitious educational reform project in 2011(Executive Summary from
OEIB, 2012). The legislature passed two major pieces of legislation. The first was Senate Bill
253 (SB 253) which established the most aggressive high school and college completion goals of
any state in the country. The second was Senate Bill 909 (SB 909) which called for the creation
of a unified, student-centered system of public education from preschool through graduate school
(P-20) to achieve the state’s educational outcomes (Executive Summary OEIB, 2012). These
two senate bills set in motion the path for educational reform in Oregon that will take it to the
year 2025. The bills established the goals for reform and set up the governance structure and
funding strategies to ensure the success of the project.
The next move the legislature made was to pass Senate Bill 253, which established the
most aggressive high school and college completion goals of any state in the country (Executive
Summary OEIB, 2011). The goal of Senate Bill 253was to ensure by 2025 that 40% of adults in
Oregon have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, that 40% have earned an associate’s degree or
post-secondary credential, and that the remaining 20% or less have earned a high school diploma
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 26

or its equivalent. The target is referred to as the “40/40/20” goal (Executive Summary OEIB,
2011). Passage of Senate Bill 253 by the legislature "raised the bar" for educational attainment
in Oregon. The high school graduates of 2025 will start kindergarten in September 2012.
Improving academic achievement starts with this class/cohort (Executive Summary OEIB,
2011). The plan is founded on three key strategies. The first is to create a coordinated public
education system. The second is to focus state investment on achieving student outcomes, and
the third is to build a statewide support system (Executive Summary, OEIB, 2011).
Senate Bill 909 created the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) in 2011, which
is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that all public school students in the state reach the
educational outcomes established for the state (Oregon Learns, 2011). The reference to “all
public school students in Oregon” is essential to the achievement of the 40/40/20 goal.
Disadvantaged students are a subgroup that will require comprehensive and systematic programs
to ensure it will improve their academic achievement at a rate and success level that will ensure
they are ready to pursue a college education or highly skilled job in the workforce of Oregon.
SB 909 also authorized the OEIB to hire a Chief Education Officer. The Chief Education Office
was given the authority that a leader would need to draw on the resources and capacities of the
state’s education agencies to organize a newly integrated state system of education from
preschool to college and careers (Oregon Learns, 2011). This person’s role is the key to
establishing the momentum, motivation, and success of this reform movement.
The Oregon Education Investment Board was directed to report to the legislature with
recommendations February 2012 (OEIB, 2011). This program is founded on three key
strategies: The creation of a coordinated public education system, focus state investment on
achieving student outcomes, and build statewide systems. Creating a preschool through college
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 27

and career readings program will enable all Oregon students to learn and achieve to their full
potential. This will require the state to better integrate capacity, and require better use of
resources to support successful teaching and learning across the entire P-20 system. Focusing
state investment on achieving student outcomes will ensure that all children enter kindergarten
ready for school, all children move along the learning pathway at their best pace to success, and
all students graduate from high school and are college and career ready. The program further
suggests all students who pursue education beyond high school complete their chosen programs
ready to contribute to Oregon’s economy. The state will set standards, provide guidance,
conduct assessments, and coordinate with all education entities to ensure success along this
pathway.
The OEIB was instrumental in the passage of another key piece of legislation in 2012.
SB 1581 required all school districts, education service districts, community college districts,
and public universities in Oregon enter into annual achievement compacts with the Oregon
Education Investment Board, beginning with the 2012-2013 school year. The compacts are
intended to focus funding and strategies at the state and local levels on the achievement of the
statewide, 40/40/20 educational goal. The compacts were designed with a description of
outcomes and measures of progress that capture student completion rates, validation of the skills
and knowledge gained by the students, and how that knowledge and skills will transition students
into society and the workplace.
In the February 2012 legislative session, the OEIB approved and recommended two key
ideas: organize a high-functioning and well-coordinated system of early childhood programs and
orchestrate a system of accountability and support to ensure student success from Pre-K to
College and Career Readiness. To accomplish the goal of high functioning and well-coordinated
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 28

systems of early childhood programs, the state has authorized the transfer of programs operated
by the state Commission on Children and Families and Child Care Commission to the Early
Leaning Counsel. They will also establish a Youth Development Council under the OEIB and
transfer all functions of the Juvenile Crime Prevention Advisory Committee and Juvenile Justice
Advisory Committee to this new council under the OEIB. Accountability hubs will be
established to serve as administrative agents for coordination of early learning services across
Oregon beginning July 1, 2012 (OEIB, Executive Summary 2011). The accountability and
support system will be based on information from the achievement compacts. These compacts
will become partnership agreements with educational institutions and living documents that will
enable the state to foster communication, establish a mechanism to promote intentionality in
budgeting at the local level. The compacts will also provide a basis for comparisons of outcomes
and progress with districts and between districts with comparable student populations and give
the Chief Education Officer the authority needed to organize the state’s integrated P-20
education system (OEIB, Executive Summary, 2011).
Beginning in the 2012-2013 school year, the OEIB proposed to have in place a system of
achievement compacts that would require all educational entities in the state to set goals and
report results focused on common outcomes and measures of progress in all states of learning
and for all groups of learners (OEIB, Executive Summary 2011). In April 2012, the OEIB sent
out a memo entitled, Guidance for Completion of Achievement Compacts for 2012-2013. In the
document, the purpose of the achievement compacts is outlined. It states that the compacts are
forward-looking documents designed to set targets for defined outcome measures indicative of
student success. Achievement compacts are intended to connect a district’s plan for student
achievement to the allocation of resources needed to accomplish its plan. This idea of writing
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 29

out a plan, then asking for the resources to accomplish goals, is very different from the
traditional practices of states and school districts. In general, school districts are allocated a
defined amount of money and must render decisions about what to keep and what to cut based on
the given amount (Oregon Learns, 2011). Oregon has taken a different approach, tell us what
you need to accomplish your goals, and we (the legislature) will allocate the resources necessary
to achieve the outcomes.
In February 2013, the Chief Education Officer proposed new regional achievement
compact pilot program. Basically, the pilot’s aim was to bring together institutions in a region to
share ideas, pool resources, and ensure that all educational institutions recognize and contribute
to the development of a P-20 continuum with strong learning foundations that will-prepare
students for a successful post-secondary experience (Crew, 2013). Three distinct purposes
driving the changes in the proposed achievement compact: to focus, align, and measure the value
of state resources against models designed specifically to increase student growth while
decreasing historical gaps in student outcomes. Another objective is to transition away from
institutional silos, isolation of best practices such that parents, students, teachers, and leaders
share knowledge, collaborate, and build a statewide culture of collaboration over competition.
1. In a paper entitled Deliverables for the Chief Education Officer (March 2013),
Crew outlined six projects the OEIB has adopted and will use as a general work
pan. The projects; design, organize, and implement a state level P-20 system,
develop an outcomes-based budget for education within the framework of the
Governor’s statewide ten-year budget project, and oversee the implementation
and advance the use of achievement compacts for all public education entities in
Oregon. Other goals include the ensuring the timely development of a
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 30

longitudinal data base, oversee the implementation of the reorganization plan for
early childhood services, and reach agreement on the terms and implementation
plan for university boards within the Oregon University System. This new and
cutting edge reform Oregon is spearheading may be the state’s answer to No
Child Left Behind, or at least a piece of it, according to the application for an
NCLB waiver filled in 2012 (OEA, 2012).
Oregon’s current educational reform project is a bold and challenging approach to closing
the achievement gap and guaranteeing a solid educated population that can ensure economic
stability well into the future (OEIB, 2012). According to the Oregon State Report Card (2011-
2012), the education landscape has transformed significantly in the past year and will continue to
change even more in the years to come. The bold, aggressive approach to educational reform is
reflected in the passage of Senate Bills, 253, 909, and 1581 has set the state on a course to
improve student outcomes for all children in Oregon. The new mandates that Oregon is
undertaking can be a national model if it is successful in improving student achievement overall,
and especially if the practices adopted are successful in closing the achievement gap between
White and disadvantaged students. Oregon has a strategic plan that embraces accountability,
best practices, and research-based interventions. The state is attempting to prepare “head on” for
the challenges of disadvantaged students. To accomplish this, teachers, administrators, and the
community must understand what type of environmental, societal, and economic barriers exist
for disadvantaged students that prevent them from competing and succeeding in the educational
environment. Students who drop out do not do so impulsively; it is usually a result of
disenchantment and lack of success over many years of schooling. The next section will review
dropout rates and risk factors as they relate to disadvantaged students in Oregon.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 31

Dropout Prevention and Disadvantaged Students
Preventing disadvantaged students from dropping out will be a major focus of the
achievement compacts in schools with a high population of students living in poverty, second
language learners, and historically underserved minority students as well as students with
families that cannot provide them with the support and economic benefits that enhance and
stimulate learning. The national dropout rate is estimated to be between 22% and 25%
nationally, but the rate is higher among African American and Hispanic students. This fact has
not changed much in recent decades (Taylor & Lofstrom, 2009). Disadvantaged students need
more than just school interventions. Risk attributes for this population include family and
community factors. The achievement compacts will address the risk factors faced by
disadvantaged students as well as factors that can increase and ensure student achievement
through the use of the new reform measures.
Oregon faces the same challenges as the rest of the nation in educating disadvantaged
students. Each year, approximately 45,000 children are born in Oregon. The state estimates that
40% of these children are exposed to recognized factors that will label them as at-risk or
disadvantaged students (OEIB, 2011). Socio-economic, physical, or relational risk factors can
adversely affect children’s ability to develop the foundations for school success. Poverty,
unstable family backgrounds, substance abuse, criminal records, and negative peer relationships
also contribute to a child’s inability to focus and achieve in school, leading to an achievement
gap. Statistics cited in the OEIB Report to the Legislature (December 2011) almost one in four
Oregonians under six years old live in poverty. The rate for African American children is 46%
living in poverty. More than 37% of the youngest Oregonians are students of color. More than
one in four students live in households were no English is spoken. Racial and ethnic minorities,
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 32

English language learners, and poor children are the groups who are not well served by Oregon’s
current public education system (Oregon Learns, 2011).
Oregon’s current educational reform efforts recognize the challenges disadvantaged
students face. These challenges include poverty, poor nutrition, lack of medical care, and
parental neglect or absence in addition to substance abuse, gang affiliation, and lack of structure
and enrichment opportunities. Subsequently, through the use of new strategies, initiatives,
achievement compacts, and collaboration between educational entities, the educational system in
Oregon strives to close the achievement gap and provide the necessary supports and services for
all students to succeed and be contributing members of the state (OEIB, 2011). Oregon Learns,
Report to the Legislature from the Oregon Education Investment Board (December 2011),
outlined three key strategies provide the foundation for Oregon’s reform efforts. These are;
create a coordinated public education system, from preschool through college and career
readiness, to enable all Oregon students to learn at their best pace and achieve their full potential.
The second key strategy is to focus state investment on achieving student outcomes and define
the core educational outcomes that matter for students, their families, and the state and the final
strategy is to build statewide support systems. The state will set standards, provide guidance,
and conduct assessments coordinated along the education pathway. The report also outlined key
legislation presented in February 2012 designed to support the strategies included the following:
organizing high functioning and well-coordinated System of Early Childhood programs as well
as organize a system of accountability and support to ensure student success from Pre-K to
college and career readiness.
Therefore, to reach all the goals outlined in the reform plan, it is going to take significant
efforts on several fronts. The CEO outlined a list of recommendations to the governor and OEIB
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 33

in March 2012 that outlined six main projects. The first project (Project #1) is to design,
organize, and implement a state-level P-20 system. The key functions of the state’s P-20 system
are: investment, with an outcomes focus: direction and coordination, e.g. alignment of policies,
standards, and assessments: support, e.g. educator training and professional development, school
redesign and improvement, and policy development and dissemination of best practice in
addition to outreach, helping inform, motivate, and learn from the public. The second project
(Project #2) is to develop an outcomes-based budget for education within the framework of the
governor’s statewide 10-year budget project. This work is integrally connected with the design,
organization, and implementation of the state’s P-20 system outlined in project #1. The third
project (Project #3) is to oversee the implementation and advance the use of achievement
compacts for all public education entities in Oregon. Project #4 is to ensure the timely
development of a longitudinal database. Project #5 is to oversee the implementation of the
reorganization plan for early childhood services. Project #6 is to reach agreement on the terms
and implementation plan for university boards within the Oregon University System.
Currently 800,000 students are now enrolled in Oregon’s public schools, community
colleges, and universities. Increasing the educational success of these students must be a priority
(Oregon Learns, 2011). Poverty, race, and ethnicity will intentionally and specifically be
addressed through the reform measures. Poor students and students of color do not earn
diplomas or degrees at the rate needed to reach the 40/40/20 goals. Educational entities will
need to reach out to the youth and young adults who have given up on education through the
traditional educational institutions. School systems will need to find more flexible ways to meet
the needs of these alternative students. The achievement compacts will provide a strategic way
to provide interventions and measureable outcomes.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 34

Currently estimates of graduation rates from school districts throughout Oregon indicate
about 21% of students entering the 9
th
grade do not graduate within five years with a regular
diploma, GED or modified diploma (OEIB, 2011). Nationally, the statistics for high school
dropouts range from 22% to 25%, but the statistics are higher for Black and Hispanic students
(Tyler & Lofstrom, 2009). Graduation rates can be difficult to measure. Some states include the
number of students earning a GED into completion rates, some count students who completed
either their GED or diploma through adult schools and count them in if they earn the degree by
the time they are 25 years of age. However, it is generally accepted throughout the county that
today’s graduation rates are in the 75%-78% range, with white rates at 84%, Hispanic rates at
72% and African American rates at about 65% (Heckman & LaFontaine, 2007) for those who
earn a high school diploma or its equivalent. No matter what numbers used to count dropouts or
how graduation rates are defined, a gap exists that needs to be addressed if the achievement
levels and success rates of disadvantaged students are to increase.
Reasons for dropping out of school are many. In a study by Bridgland, Dilulio, and
Morison (2006), 467 sixteen to twenty-four-year-old dropouts were surveyed across the nation.
The students reported a variety of reasons for leaving school early that included a complex set of
relationships between family, school, and community factors linked to the student’s decision to
drop out. Significantly, the study suggested the decision to drop out was not an impulsive, spur
of the moment decision, but rather a part of a longer process of disengagement over time, from
school (Bridgeland, Dilulio, & Morison, 2006). Economic, equity, and, societal considerations
all point to the need for interventions that could influence the roughly one million students who
leave school each year to make a different decision. It is commonly believed early intervention
is the best form of dropout prevention and improving the foundational skills of young children is
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 35

the most common practice for improving academic achievement in later years (Executive
Summary, OEIB, 2011). Close mentoring and monitoring of students appears to be another
critical component of successful programs for disadvantaged students. Other approaches include
family outreach and attention to students’ out-of-school problems as well as reforms to
curriculum also have been found effective in dropout prevention (Tyler & Lofstrom, 2009).
A student’s decision to dropout has a cost to both society and the student. Students face
unintended consequences such as lower earnings and a higher likelihood of unemployment and
health problems. Costs to society include loss of tax revenue higher costs of public assistance
and higher crime rates (Tyler &Lofstrom, 2009). According to the Oregon Leads (2011) study,
Oregonians with associates’ degrees earn at least $5,000 per year more than do those with high
school diplomas, and those with bachelor’s degrees earn $17,000 more than do those with high
school diplomas. Students who dropout may also participate disproportionately less effectively
and less often in the nation’s democratic process and be less effective at parenting (Tyler &
Lofstrom, 2009). The state of Oregon is committed to having all students’ graduate high school
ready to enter college or be ready to participate in the workforce with a skill level that will allow
them to support their families and contribute to society.
Oregon has outlined a strategy to address dropout prevention as well as provide early
intervention to serve historically underserved populations in the state. Strategic planning,
specific targets, and measures of progress provide a systematic approach (achievement
compacts) to closing the achievement gap and ensuring each student in Oregon participate in the
40/40/20 goal set forth by the governor and legislature of Oregon. The cost of dropping out of
school is more expensive in the long run than investing in intervention and remediation of skills.
Students who are academically successful do not generally end up incarcerated, living in
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 36

poverty, or in low paying jobs. They continue to strive to improve knowledge that will lead to a
better lifestyle and more personal satisfaction. Preventing students from dropping out of school
starts very early in a student’s career. The community, the state, and the nation are taking steps
to address the issue of school dropouts. Oregon has established an ambitious reform project with
a focus on dropout prevention and increasing student success during school and after graduation.
The next section will review the achievement gap as it relates to disadvantaged students.
The Achievement Gap and Disadvantaged Students
The achievement gap has been a focus of educational reformers for decades. This section
will review the current statistics nationally, internationally, and on the state level as they relate to
disadvantaged students. The historic disparity between Black, Hispanic, and White students in
the area of achievement and access to quality schools and teachers will also be reviewed.
Americans were shocked in 2010 when the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) announced the latest scores of the Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA) tests. China was in first place in math, reading, and science. The U.S.
continued to score in the average range, failing to score as has as the top ten ranked countries in
any subject (Poverty Stricken Schools, 2012). Many US students perform well on international
tests such as the PISA, but students who attend disadvantaged schools generally score poorly.
Consequently, national scores are lower and the US often lags behind the countries performing
highest on the international testing such as Finland and South Korea (Barnes, 2007).
Few topics go to the heart of American concerns about equity in K-12 education more
than the racial achievement gap (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2009). In 2004, the Secretary of
Education Rod Paige stated, “the academic achievement gap is the major driver of racial equity
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 37

in this country.” The racial gap has been a major impetus for federal education policy as
reflected in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and has been the foundation of countless state
and local debates regarding school finance and equalization, and academic tracking as well as
school testing and accountability. McGee (2004) states that the gap in achievement is not about
students who are failing, but about a system that is not providing the educational opportunities to
which low-income students are entitled.
The Coleman Report in 1966 brought to light the fact that Black students lag well behind
White students regarding achievement. Efforts to describe and explain the achievement gap have
been studied by Lee (2002), Perie (2005), Fryer and Levitt (2004, 2006) Murnane (2006) as well
as Hanushek and Rivkin (2006). These studies have shown persistent gaps in achievement test
scores between White and Black students, but they differ regarding the size of the gap from the
beginning of school, and whether that gap widens as students move through school grades.
There is also an achievement gap between Hispanic and American Indian students as compared
to White students, but it is less dramatic than the gap between Black and White students. Asian
students score higher than Whites do, especially in the later grades (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor,
2009).
Several studies have examined data from the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) in an effort to explain the achievement gap. In 2004, research by Phillips and
Chin (2004, pp. 468-470) showed the Black-White gap at the fourth grade narrowed during the
1970’s and into the 1980’s after which it stagnated or grew again slightly. While it was slightly
less than a full standard deviation 2000 (.90 SD in math and .83 SD in reading) by eighth grade,
it had grown to more than a standard deviation in math (1.06) and in reading it grew to 0.85 SD
(Clotfelter et al., 2009). Fryer and Livitt (2004, 2006) found a gap of 0.66 in math and 0.40 in
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 38

reading at the beginning of kindergarten, but over time, the gap increased. By third grade, the
gap was 0.88 in math and 0.77 in reading. Numerous studies have been conducted across the
United States and some researchers find smaller gaps than others, but the most important aspect
of these studies are a persistent achievement gap between White and minority students. Fryer
and Levitt (2006) found that eliminating socioeconomic factors reduces the gap slightly, but they
still found an achievement gap between Black and White students. Murnane et al. (2006)
reached a different conclusion after correcting for socioeconomic status and using a different sort
of achievement test, they found the achievement gap remained consistent.
Hispanic students nationwide now comprise a larger minority group than African
Americans (Clotfelter et al., 2009). While the historical circumstances and policy issues differs
between Black and Hispanic students, the issues related to measuring the achievement gap with
White students are very similar, even when socioeconomic factors are adjusted. In general, the
size of the Hispanic-White gap tends to be smaller than the Black-White one. Phillips and Chen
(2004) when analyzing scores from the NAEP found gaps in the order of 0.70 SD in math and
reading at the fourth grade level (as compared with the 0.09 and 0.83 Black-White gaps in math
and reading). In the eighth grade, the Hispanic-White differences were nearly 0.90 and 0.80,
smaller in the Black-White gap in math but about the same as the Black White gap in reading.
Bali and Alverez (2004) found Hispanic-White gap about half the size of the Black-White gap.
The gap between Hispanic and White students has been consistent over the last decade
(Clotfelter et al., 2009). Tienda and Mitchell (2006) in their National Research Council study
reported that this gap remains constant through elementary school. Hispanic students cope with
disadvantaged home environments, teacher biases, and low motivation. A similar study by
Wilson, Burgess, and Briggs (2005) of students in publicly supported English schools examined
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 39

the achievement gaps of students between 7 and 16 years of age. The study looked at White
students and several ethnic minority groups. They found that raw achievement scores for Whites
exceed those for most minority groups, but there was a little gap with respect to Indians and
Chinese. These students were consistently ahead of Whites.
Compounding the issue of the achievement gap and race is the issue of low-performing
schools. Low performing schools go hand in hand with the achievement gap (Lashway, 2003).
Many struggling schools serve largely minority populations whose test scores persistently fall
below scores of White students. Turning around low performing schools is a complex and
difficult process in which clear cause-effect relationships are difficult to isolate (Lashway, 2003).
The definition of a low-performing school is generally considered a school with perceived
deficiencies in academic expectations and achievement, high dropout rates, and lack of discipline
as well as inadequate facilities and demoralized or unqualified staff. Since the enactment of the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, low performance has been defined by failure to achieve state-
mandated accountability targets. Three primary explanations for low performance that have
received the most recent attention are demographics, insufficient resources, and ineffective
school practices (Lashway, 2003).
Demographically, some schools serve low-income children living under conditions that
can inhibit learning. The issue is not just low income but an environment that destabilizes home
life, undermines support, and creates chaos and dysfunction. Low-income children are also
members of racial minorities that face additional barriers to high achievement (Shannon &
Bylsma, 2002).
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 40

Insufficient resources are also an issue that plagues low-income areas. Orlofsky (2002)
found that high-poverty, high-minority schools received significantly less state and local money
than did other schools. In addition, students in low performing schools were almost twice as
likely to be taught by teachers who were inexperienced or teaching outside their specialties
(Jerald, 2001).
Ineffective school practices also contribute to the achievement gap. In spite of high
poverty and limited resources, some schools succeed despite the odds (Jerald, 2001). However,
uncoordinated curriculum, superficial instructional strategies, scattershot professional
development, and timid leadership are some of the factors that may hold schools back (Lashway,
2003).
A shortage of qualified teachers is one of the biggest problems that schools in poor
districts face. Experienced teachers often leave these schools and many good teachers avoid
them. Most teachers who teach in poor school districts are likely to hold less educational
credentials, teach subjects in which they do not specialize, and graduate from less prestigious
universities when compared to teachers who instruct in areas with a higher socioeconomic base
(Robinson, 2007). Teachers with little experience or credentials take positions in poor districts
and then leave once they have gotten the experiences that make them marketable for more
affluent districts (Poverty Stricken Schools, 2012).
No Child Left Behind prescribed a variety of interventions for schools that fail to meet
achievement or improvement goals. The range of interventions can go from mild such as
technical assistance to moderate interventions like requiring the development of school
improvement plan (SIP), to very aggressive interventions like changes in school governance
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 41

including state takeovers. Most policy makers prefer positive state or district actions to state
takeovers (Lashway, 2003). Research done in Texas (Just for the Kids, Inc., 2000) identified six
promising practices used by high-performing schools with low-income students, they include:
• high energy, hands on principal leadership that articulates the vision and keeps the school
focused on instruction,
• broad-based planning that sets clear instructional priorities and meaningful benchmarks
for improvement
• focused, research based professional development that is driven by identified
instructional needs,
• continual monitoring and assessment,
• flexible grouping for instruction based on identified student needs,
• Immediate intervention for struggling students.
Additionally, the issue of removing ineffective teachers affects students and schools in
low-performing areas. Thomas, Wingert, Conant, and Register (2010) explain that teachers in
most states receive tenure after two or three years and are very difficult to fire because of
belonging to powerful unions. Frequently administrators are reluctant to take action against
teachers whose performance is unsatisfactory, even when complaints of inadequate performance
or inappropriate conduct are received (Poverty Stricken Schools, 2012).
Disproportionate rates of suspension and expulsion as well as exclusion can also
contribute to the achievement gap with minority students (Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010).
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 42

Schools that tend to rely heavily on exclusion from the classroom as the primary discipline
strategy (Arcia, 2006) consequently find this practice often has a disproportionate impact on
Black, Latino, and American Indian students. The use of school exclusion as a discipline
practice may contribute to the well-documented racial gaps in academic achievement (Gregory et
al., 2010). In many schools, large proportions of a group (e.g., Black males) receive at least one
suspension, which typically results in missed instructional time and for some could exacerbate a
cycle of academic failure, disengagement, and escalating rule breaking (Arcia, 2006).
Suspended students may miss anywhere from one class period to ten or more school days,
depending on the violation and school policies (Gregory et al., 2010). Discipline sanctions
resulting in exclusion from school may damage the learning process in other ways as well.
Suspended students may become less bonded to school; less invested in school rules, course
work, and subsequently, less motivated to achieve academic success (Hawkins, Smith, &
Catalano, 2004).
Low literacy achievement in the elementary grades is linked to later aggression in third
and fifth grades (Miles & Stipek, 2006). Similar patterns have been found indicating that low
grades achievement in middle and high school is linked to more serious forms of aggression in
later life. (Choi, 2007). Ladson-Billings (2006) stated that what is widely viewed as an
achievement gap between White and Black students could more properly be termed an
“education debt,” in that educational opportunities the United States have historically never been
equalized for different groups (Ladson-Billings, 2006).
This section has looked at numerous factors that contribute to the achievement gap
including poverty, lack of resources, poor teacher preparation and basic educational inequity in
regards to funding, facilities, teacher quality and failed reform attempts. Oregon’s new reform
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 43

measures are designed to address and remove all barriers to student success and achievement.
With an increase of academic achievement, the hope is the cycle of poverty and the racial
achievement gap can be closed or at least substantially narrowed. Oregon’s educational goals
are designed to address all areas of school reform, including school finance and alignment of the
P-20 school experience. The next section will examine programming for disadvantaged students
as it relates to increased achievement.
Successful Programming for Disadvantaged Students
Successful implementation of Oregon’s achievement compacts will require collaboration
and cooperation within school district and within regions if the educational 40/40/20 goal is to be
realized by 2025. This section will review elements of successful programming for
disadvantaged students. Working with the whole child, motivation, class size, qualified teachers,
as well as the use of research based intervention programs will be reviewed.
In Oregon, the graduation rate was 68% in 2011. The Chief Education Officer proposed
to stop measuring student progress by credit hours and start focusing on how kids can
demonstrate mastery of key concepts, whether they have sat through a full year of classes
(Simon, 2013). The CEO said of the state’s graduation rate and the poor performance of
minority students, “is untenable, unsustainable, and frankly highly dangerous, “weakening the
economy by leaving so many students unprepared for college or career.” If the reform measures
are successful, the result will be higher achievement and graduation rates for all students in the
state from preschool through college. The Oregon Education Association (2012) has been a
strong advocate for equity in access for all students. Regardless of where they live, attend
school, have special needs or their socio-economic conditions, all Oregon students will receive
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 44

the level of investment in their public education that they need and deserve. The OEA also
supports programs that address the needs of the whole child and family. The leading predictor of
student success is family income. Poverty directly affects a student’s ability to learn. The
achievement compacts will recognize the level to which students are experiencing food and
housing insecurity, lack of access to health care, and other conditions of poverty that impact
learning (OEA, 2012).
The Oregon Education Investment Board on April 5, 2012 published a document for
guidance for the completion of the achievement compacts. In the document, the OEIB states that
the data collected over the past decade for disadvantaged students and other groups have
revealed a marked achievement gap for many of these students. It goes on to state that setting
targets in both the completion and progression categories of the achievement compacts will
require attention to each student group and he use of data and strategies specific to both (OEIB,
2012).
Writing goals and measures of progress into the achievement compacts will require the
staff to have knowledge regarding research-based programs that demonstrate success with
disadvantaged students. Oregon has several programs throughout their school districts that they
currently use. Review of the data associated with those programs will need to be analyzed to
determine how successful they have been in closing the achievement gap with disadvantaged
students. One such program is GEAR UP. The Academic Affairs Office of the Oregon
University System received a five-year grant from the federal government to institute this
program. GEAR UP is a program that focuses on increasing the number of low-income students
who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. Half the funding goes to low
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 45

income students for scholarships and another portion goes to the schools (Venezia & Kirst,
2006).
Numerous studies exist that critically review what types of programming is successful for
disadvantaged students. One study looks at motivation (Parker, 2012) and reviews Daniel Pink’s
book, Drive: The Surprising Truth about what motivates us (2009). Pink’s book outlines an
alternative set of three elements or conditions that do a much better job of motivating us
intrinsically to try hard, do our best, be successful at whatever we undertake. These elements are
autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Parker states that he has seen the most success with low-
performing schools when these three conditions have been effectively cultivated. The approach
provides high levels of encouragement, inspiration, and hope as well as hard work, positive
relationships, and new solutions to old problems.
Another theory about improving achievement looks at class size and the effects of
smaller class sizes on the achievement levels of disadvantaged youth. Reducing class size to
boost student achievement is a policy option that has gained considerable attention nationwide.
Many states and school districts have enacted class size reduction with the objective of
improving academic achievement (Konstantopoulos, 2008). Studies that used high-quality
experimental data have consistently demonstrated the positive effects of small classes on average
student achievement for all students. The average student achievement in small classes (15
students on average) was significantly higher than in regular classes (22 students on average).
These findings suggest that reducing class size is a promising intervention that increases
academic achievement on average for all students (Konstantopoulos, 2008). The important
question of whether class size reduction can narrow the achievement gap and affect the academic
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 46

achievement of low and high-achieving students differently has not been fully answered by
researchers.
Researchers have noted promising practices in the area of effective interventions.
Freibery and Lapointe (2006) reviewed 40 school-based programs and identified some
commonalities among effective programs. They found the programs that moved beyond
discipline and emphasized student learning and self-regulation and encouraged school
connectedness and caring and trusting relationships between teachers and students showed gains
in test scores. Programs that try to increase students’ positive experience of schooling and move
away for a reliance on punitive reactions,” saw achievement scores increase (Freiberg &
Lapointe, 2006). Gregory and Weinstein (2008) found that teachers who elicited trust and
cooperation with their Black students tended to use and authoritative style of teaching. The
teachers showed both caring and high expectations. These “warm demanders” (Irvine, 2002)
may provide a cultural or sub cultural connection between authority in the home and in the
school.
The Dropout Prevention Center/Network lists hundreds of dropout-prevention programs
in its database of model programs. The problem is relatively few of the programs have been
evaluated for effectiveness, even fewer have proven effective in achieving the goal of improving
achievement (Tyler & Lofstrom, 2009). Dropout-prevention interventions can be categorized
into two groups according to Tyler and Lofstrom (2006). The first is intervention sets dropout
prevention as the primary goals and targets specific students or groups of students. Examples
would take place in regular schools or in the community, alternative schools for at-risk students,
and smaller learning communities that fit the school-within-a-school model. The second is
interventions that have the broader goal than just dropout prevention and target at-risk students.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 47

This second broader category includes school restructuring or school reform models. Programs
in both categories aim to lower dropout rates through one or more of four ways: increasing
school attendance, increasing student school engagement and learning, building student self-
esteem, and helping students cope with the challenges and problems that contribute to the
likelihood of them becoming a “drop out.”
The U.S. Department of Education School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program
(SDDAP) funded a rigorous evaluation program in the late 1990s and did a study of twenty-one
different interventions. The Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) is
another resource, which reviews and synthesizes studies of a wide variety of education
interventions. The information available through these programs does not support or add to the
knowledgebase about how to lower dropout rates consistently or efficiently. The key findings
from the SDDAP evaluations are that most programs made almost no difference in preventing
dropping out in general. Some of the programs did make a difference on some outcomes (Tyler
& Lofstrom, 2006). What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) has identified 10 programs that had
undergone evaluations that were rigorous enough to make it possible to reach firm conclusions
about program effectiveness. The programs included interventions such as counseling and
monitoring, school restructuring and curriculum redesign, finical incentives for students and
families, and community services designed to mitigate factors that can negatively affect school
achievement and success. Of the ten programs, five-showed promise in reducing dropout rates,
two of the five, Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success (ALAS) and High School
Redirection, no longer exist. The three remaining positive programs represent three distinct
approaches to dropout prevention. Check & Connect is an intensive program for high school
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 48

students. Career Academies fits the school-within-a-school model, and Talent Development
High School is described as a whole school reform (Tyler & Lofstrom, 2006).
School districts that have been successful in raising graduation rates for disadvantaged
students credit a range of tactics for their success. These include: launching new schools
designed to train kids for booming career fields so they can see a direct connection between math
class and future earnings, offering flexible academic schedules and well-supervised online
courses so students with jobs or babies can earn credits as their time permits, and hiring
counselors to review every student’s transcript as well as identifying missing credits and get as
many as possible back on tract, and improving reading instruction and requiring kids who
struggle with comprehension to give up some electives for intensive tutoring (Simon, 2013).
Chenoweth (2009) found that successful schools in low-income areas assess students by
accurately evaluating what they know and finding weak vocabulary skills. By strengthening
specific target areas, achievement improves overall. Chenoweth (2009) also discusses that many
of the successful schools serving students from low-income families allow teachers to meet
together, this leads them to accurately assess the students. Chenoweth contends that when
teachers interact with each other, students benefit from the broader knowledge of the school’s
faculty. McGee (2004) found that high-performing, high-poverty schools tend to have certain
common characteristics including student-centered instruction, more interaction between
teachers, and parental involvement in addition to small class size, project-based instruction, and
staff initiated professional development, and proactive administrative leadership. Paine and
Schleicher (2011) focused on quality and qualified teachers and smaller teacher-to-student ratios.
They found in countries around the world that participate in international tests like the PISA,
such as South Korea and Singapore, perform better on tests because the students get qualified
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 49

teachers regardless of their socioeconomic background. Many countries do the opposite of the
US with regard to the way the poor are educated. In contrast to the overcrowded schools in
many low income districts in the US, approximately half the OECD (Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development) schools tend to provide a lower teacher/student ratio for
students from low socioeconomic backgrounds based on the logic that these students need better,
and more teachers. For example, in Singapore the best teachers teach the students who have the
most difficulty, which is the opposite of what usually occurs in poverty- stricken school districts
in the United States. Improving teacher education and preparation appears to be a factor in
student engagement and academic success (Darling-Hammond, 2008).
While there are many promising practices being implemented across the county,
researchers have not found the magic program that will ensure success and close the achievement
gap. Oregon has undertaken promising steps with the use of achievement compacts. Oregon’s
goals include working with the whole child socially, emotionally, and behaviorally as well as
academically. These compacts will provide a plan or roadmap to improve student achievement
and ensure all students from all socioeconomic levels get the best education possible. The next
chapter will review the methods used to conduct this study.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 50

CHAPTER 3 METHODS
The purpose of this study is to collect and analyze data related to developing goals for
achievement compacts in low-performing schools that serve disadvantaged students. The public
education system in Oregon has undertaken a major reform initiative. Achievement compacts
were developed for each school that includes goals in addition to target and outcome measures
for improving student achievement. The schools chosen for this project are all within one urban
region of Oregon and serve as feeder schools from the elementary level up through the
community college or to the Oregon university system.
As a requirement of the NCLB waiver application process, the ODE through the Office of
Assessment and Information Services had to develop a system of differentiated recognition,
accountability, and support for all local education agencies (LEAs) in the State and for all Title I
schools within these LEAs. Title I schools had to be identified as Priority, Focus or Model
Schools (ODE, 2012 p.5). Schools were rated in the following three areas: Academic
Achievement, Academic Growth, and Subtest Growth (ODE, 2012). Priority Schools are served
by Federal School Improvement Grants and are classified as Level 1. Focus Schools are Title I
schools that have an achievement gap and are classified as Level 2. Model Schools are Title I
schools rated as Level 5 and represent the top 10% of all schools in the state (ODE, 2012).
This study examines five public K-12 Focus schools that feed into a specific community
college/state university system. The study investigated how the school entities determined goals
and target measures for closing the achievement gap with disadvantaged students. The study
also looked at how the schools implemented intervention techniques, strategies, and programs
that serve this historically underserved student population. The three research questions for this
study are:
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 51

1. What goals are established for disadvantaged students in the achievement
compacts?
2. We know the goals for disadvantaged students differ from typical students, but
how is the implementation of the goals or programs different for disadvantaged
students?
3. How do districts plan to implement the goals focused on disadvantaged children
and how will achievement of the goals be measured?
The methodology used for the study is qualitative and based on interviews with staff that
participated in developing and writing the goals aimed at improving the achievement of
disadvantaged students. A qualitative research design was chosen because it focuses on
understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct meaning in their world,
and what meaning they attribute to their experiences (Merriam, 2009, p. 5). A qualitative case
study approach allows the researcher to obtain information focused on a complex social unity
with multiple variables (Merriam, 2009). The data for this study will be derived from interviews
with educational leaders who had direct input constructing the achievement compacts for their
specific district and region.
Purposeful Sample and Population
The study focused on K-12 schools that have been designated as Focus schools in
Oregon, as well as the community college and state university that the K-12 public school system
feeds to. In the public K-12 school system, Focus schools are in the bottom 15% (approx.) of
Title I schools that need additional support in closing the achievement gap and addressing
achievement for historically underserved subgroups (ODE, 2013). As part of the new
accountability measures established by Oregon’s ESEA waiver, each school is assigned a rating
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 52

based on three performance indicators; the percent of students meeting or exceeding standards in
reading and mathematics, individual student gains in reading and math, and individual student
gains for historically underserved subgroups. These three indicators are weighted and combined
to give each school an overall achievement level. Table 3.1 shows the scoring guide for
establishing each school’s rating. Levels are calculated using the percentage of points earned out
of the total points eligible. Academic Achievement had 25 possible points, Academic Growth
had 50 possible points, and Subgroup Growth had 25 possible points.
Table 3.1 Overall Level Assignments: Oregon’s Next Generation Accountability Policy
Level Assignments Weighted Percent
1

Level 5 87.0 or higher
Level 4 70.0 to 86.9
Level 3 47.0 to 69.9
Level 2 26.5 to46.9
Level 1 Less than 26.5
Note: Taken from 2-11-12 Next Generation Accountability Policy and Technical Manual by
Office of Assessment and Information Services (2012), p. 30. Copyright 2012 by Oregon
Department of Education.

This study investigated how seven schools in a specific urban region of Oregon addressed
the challenges of increasing student achievement using the achievement compacts. A university,
a community college, and five public school programs were chosen to participate in this project.
The K-12 schools consisted of two schools at the elementary level-serving students in grades K-

1
Levels are calculated using the percentage of points earned out of the total points eligible. Three indicators are
weighted and combined to give each school and overall achievement level. The levels are Academic Achievement,
Academic Growth, and Subgroup Growth.

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 53

5, two school serving K-8 populations, and one secondary high school serving students in grades
ninth to twelfth. The five public schools have overall similar achievement profiles and
demographics. The public schools in this area are feeder schools for the community college and
state university system of this region.
Identifying Schools
The Assessment division of the Oregon Department of Education maintains a website,
Education Data Explorer (http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reports/toc.aspx) that is used by the
public school districts in Oregon, as well as parents and other members of the public to review
all achievement data. The 2011-2012 databases were used to identify schools that met the study’s
requirements. Prior to finalizing the selection of public schools to be included in this study, their
characteristics and demographics were reviewed to ensure similar student populations. Table 3.2
includes a summary of the performance indicators and percentage of points earned for the
schools selected for this study. Levels are calculated using the percentage of points earned out of
the total points eligible. Table3.2 includes Subgroup Academic Achievement.
Table 3.2: Performance Indicators for selected schools:
School Name Academic
Achievement
Academic
Growth
Subgroup
Growth
Graduation Subgroup
Graduation
Weighted
Percent
Pin Oak Elementary
(PK-8)
Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 NA NA 45.6%
Red Oak Elementary
(K-8)
Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 NA NA 44.4%
Laurel Oak Elementary
(K-5)
Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 NA NA .3%
Sawtooth Elementary
(K-5)
Level 1 Level 3 Level 2 NA NA 45.6%
Costal Oak High School
(9-12)
Level 2 Level 2 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 29.1%
Note: Taken from 2-11-12 Next Generation Accountability Policy and Technical Manual by
Office of Assessment and Information Services (2012), p. 30. Copyright 2012 by Oregon
Department of Education.

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 54

The five public schools selected have the following characteristics in common. The
schools are all Focus schools, identified as Level 2, Academic Achievement was ranked at Level
2, Academic Growth was ranked at Level 3, and Subgroup Growth was ranked at Level 2. A
weighted percent was given to each school based on percentage of points earned in the above
areas. All the schools were ranked as Level 2 for subgroup growth indicating a need of
additional supports and assistance to improve achievement with disadvantaged students.
Demographics for each school were reviewed to determine if the schools served similar
populations. Table 3.3 provides an overview of total student enrollment, percent of students
eligible for the free or reduced lunch program, and the percentage of minority students attending
the school.
Table 3.3 School Demographics
School Enrollment % Free & Reduced
Lunch
% Minority
Enrollment
Pin Oak
Elementary
(PK-8)
440 students 64.6% 68.2%
Red Oak
Elementary
(K-8)
504 students 86.9% 82.3%
Laurel Oak
Elementary
(K-5)
383 students 84.3% 61.1%
Sawtooth
Elementary
(K-5)
356 students 86.2% 69.9%
Costal Oak
High School
(9-12)
441 students 81.6% 83%
Note: Taken from 2-11-12 Next Generation Accountability Policy and Technical Manual by
Office of Assessment and Information Services (2012), P.30. Copyright 2012 by Oregon
Department of Education

Table 3.4 reflects the subgroup indicators, which measure the growth of historically
underserved student subgroups. The chart reflects the disaggregate growth indicator and reflects
the medial and target growth for the socioeconomically disadvantaged (SDE), limited English
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 55

proficient (LEP), and historically underserved races/ethnicities. The high school has an
additional measure of graduation rates, and graduation rates of disadvantaged students.
Table 3.4 Student Improvement - Met or exceed state standards or met growth target in reading
& mathematics. The entries in each subgroup heading represent the percentage of students
meeting or exceeding on the state math and reading tests.

School Subgroup Reading
2010-2011
Math 2010-2011 Reading 2011-2012 Math 2011-2012
Pin Oak
Elementary
School (PK-8)
All 46% 36.5% 49% 32%
White 71% 42% 50% 58%
Black 38.5 31 40 31.5
Hispanic 49 37 55.5 16
LEP 46.5 37 48 15
SED 45.5 33 49.5 31
Red Oak
Elementary
School (K-8)
All 49 42.5 53 31
White 62 38 44 32.5
Black 45 41 53.5 25
Hispanic 44 36 53 31
LEP 45 42.5 55 28
SED 47 43 53 30
Laurel Oak
Elementary
School (K-5)
All 39 30.5 40.5 40
White 48 31.5 36 35
Black 55 19 48 45
Hispanic 21 22 26 23
LEP 29.9 20 47 64
SED 35 30 40 42
Sawtooth
Elementary

All 43 39 50 57
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 56

White 56 46.5 52 50
Black 14 20 50 35.5
Hispanic 52.5 55 48.5 64
LEP 44.6 48.5 36 58.5
SED 35 44 46 49

Reading
2011-12
Math
2011-
2012
Graduation Subgroup
Graduation
Costal Oak
High School
(9-12)
All 38 53 30.5 50 56.9 ----
White 33 53 26 46

41.7
Black 41 29 35 53.3

65.1
Hispanic 36 59 28 40

38.7
LEP 41 46.5 41 52

52
SED 39 52 28 50

60.6
Note: Taken from 2-11-12 Next Generation Accountability Policy and Technical Manual by
Office of Assessment and Information Services (2012), p. 30. Copyright 2012 by Oregon
Department of Education

Table 3.5 reviews the demographics of the community college and university used in the
study. The table reflects lower percentages of minority enrollment than is reflected in the public
schools that are considered feeder schools to the community college and state university.
Table 3.5 Demographics of post-secondary schools in the region
Local Community
College
White Hispanic Pacific
Islander/Asian
Black Native American Multi-Racial
2010-2011 70% 11% 10% 6% 1% 2%
2011-2012 68% 11% 8% 6% 1% 3%
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 57

OUS Local University White Hispanic Pacific
Islander/Asian
Black Native American Total Students
2011 67% 8% .008% .34% .017% 20,124
2012 65% .089% .007% .35% .016% 20,155
Note: Information gathered from Oregon University System database (2012).
Qualitative data gathered from the interviews, and a review of intervention programs
available in the schools focused on how goals for the achievement compacts were chosen, as
well as what data were used to determine measures of progress. The interviews consisted of 15
open-ended questions. The questions were used to discover how each school determined goals
for improving as well as measuring student achievement with disadvantaged students. Questions
also explored which interventions or programs were being implemented to improve student
achievement.
Instrumentation
The researcher utilized an open-ended interview protocol that focused on the methods
and data used to develop the achievement compacts. In preparation for the interview with the
administrator, the interview protocol was piloted with several willing peers and adjustments were
made to the interview protocol as needed. The interview protocol consists of fifteen open- ended
questions (Fink, 2013). These questions (Appendix A) were designed to explore the process
used to determine what information went into the achievement compacts. The achievement
compacts were to include subgroup identification with base line data as well as interventions,
risk factors, and measureable outcomes (Achievement Compacts, 2011).
Data Collection
An application was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to determine if the
study was subject to the Human Subjects Review. The IRB was completed in August 2013. For
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 58

the public school system, The District Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of
Instruction were contacted to introduce the project and get consent to contact the appropriate
personnel who were responsible for completing the achievement compacts. The provost of the
community college and university were contacted to get consent to conduct the interviews and
identify the appropriate personnel to interview. Initial contact was done via e-mail, and a written
letter with an introduction and a summary of the study. After securing commitments to
participate in the study, appointments were made to conduct interviews with each administrator.
Interviews were done in September and October 2013. All interviews were recorded to ensure
the researcher accurately reflected the information gathered during the interview.
All information regarding the selected school and school administrators were given
fictitious names for the purposes of anonymity. All data were entered into a password- protected
document on the Internet. All data has been safeguarded per IRB requirements and will be kept
for one year following the completion of the study.

Data Analysis
The data from each interview was immediately transcribed and coded using a computer
program, Hyper RESEARCH (Research Ware)
(wwwresearchware.com/products/hyperresearh.html). The program was used to code and
analyze data provided from the interviews. After each interview, an analysis of how the
achievement compact goals and measures were determined for disadvantaged students was done.
Summary
This chapter described the data collection methodology and procedure used to conduct
the data collection and analysis. Detailed information has been provided on the purposeful
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 59

sample and population, identification of schools, instrumentation data collection, and data
analysis. The following chapter will include results from the analysis in response to the research
questions used in this study.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 60

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS
Introduction
In this chapter, the findings of the study are presented with an overview of the
characteristics and performance data from the K-12 public school system, as well as the data
from the community college and state university system. The research questions have been used
as a framework to review the findings and answer the following: 1) determine how the goals
that were established for disadvantaged students in the achievement compacts; 2) identify how
the goals were implemented; and 3) determine how the goals will be monitored.
The public schools in the K-12 system are Focus schools. The community college is
located in the same urban metropolitan area as the public K-12 system and receives their student
populations from the same community. The state university located in the same area and serves
students that come from the local public school and local community college systems. These
three educational institutions did not participate in the regional compact pilot, but did collaborate
with other similar institutions while developing the achievement compacts.
Demographics and Characteristics
The Oak Tree public school district is located in an urban area of northeast Oregon and
serves 43,408 students from preschool through 12
th
grade in 78 schools. Of these 78 schools, 28
are elementary schools, 29 are K-8 schools, 10 are middle schools, and 10 are high schools. The
school district also has one K-12 school. Students in the district also attend the Head Start Early
Childhood Education program, as well as seventeen community-based programs, seventeen
special services programs and seven charter schools (www.pps.k12.or.us). The school district
experienced a slight increase in enrollment overall (approximately 400 students) last year, but
many of the schools have and are experiencing declining enrollment. The school district employs
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 61

2,828 teachers. Table 4.1 summarizes 2012-2013 enrollment data for the five schools chosen for
the study.
Table 4.1 Enrollment Data
Pin Oak School Red Oak
School
Laurel Oak
Elementary
Sawtooth Oak
Elementary
Costal Oak
High School
School Enrollment 432 493 387 362 421
Enrollment change from previous
year
-7.5% + 0.2% -1.5% +10.0% -19.5%
District Enrollment 43,408 43,408 43,408 43,408 43,408
Grades PK-8 K-8 K-5 K-5 9-12
Taken from Oregon Report Card 2012-2013
The schools chosen for this study represent 2,124 students in five schools. Pin Oak
School serves students from pre-kindergarten through 8
th
grade. They have experienced a
decline in enrollment of 7.5% over the previous school year. Their attendance rate: 84% of
students attending 90% or more of enrolled days. Eleven different languages are spoken at Pin
Oak School, and the average class size is 23. This represents a decline of 1.3 students per
classroom over the previous year. Red Oak School serves students from kindergarten through
eighth grade. This school had a slight decrease of .2%, not as dramatic a decline as Pin Oak.
Attendance rates at Red Oak are 78% of students attending 90% or more of enrolled days. The
average class size at the school is 20.0, which is a 1.7% decrease in class size from the previous
year. Children at Red Oak School speak twelve different languages. Laurel Oak Elementary
serves students from kindergarten through 5th grade, also experienced a slight decline in
enrollment of 1.5%. The attendance rate at Laurel Oak is 84% of students attending 90% or
more enrolled days. The average class size at Laurel Oak is 23 students per classroom. This is a
2.2 per student decline over class size last year. There are fifteen different languages spoken at
Laurel Oak. Sawtooth Oak Elementary had a significant increase in enrollment of 10%. The
average class size of 23.9 students per class was an increase of +1.3 students per class over the
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 62

previous year. Students at Sawtooth Oak School speak ten different languages. The high school
had the most dramatic drop in enrollment at 19.5% of its student population. Students attended
90% or more of enrolled days for the high school were measured at 65%. There are fifteen
different languages spoken at the high school.
Figure 4.1 represents a breakdown of minority students served by the district and break down by
schools involved in the study.

The school district overall cites its minority student population at 44.4% and its White
student population is 55.6%. The schools involved in this study had minority student enrollment
ranging from 61.6% to 83%. Specifically, Pin Oak had a minority enrollment of 68.2%, Red
Oak’s minority enrollment was 82.3%, Laurel Oak had a minority enrollment of 61.6%,
Sawtooth Oak’s minority enrollment was 69.9, and the high school had a minority enrollment of
83%.

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 63

Table 4.2 breaks down the socioeconomic and minority population of each school.
School
Name
Minority
Enrollment
Percent
Eligible for
free &
reduced
meals
Total School
Enrollment
Total Eligible
for free &
reduced meals
Pin Oak
Elementary
(PK-8)
68.2% 64.6% 440 284
Red Oak
Elementary
(K-8)
82.3% 86.9% 504 438
Laurel Oak
Elementary
(K-5)
61.6% 84.3% 383 323
Sawtooth
Elementary
(K-5)
69.9% 86.2% 356 307
Costal Oak
HighSchool
(9-12)
83% 76.2% 441 336
Oregon Department of Education 20102-2013 Assessment & Accountability Report
Overall, the school district has a rate of 46% for students who are eligible for free or
reduced priced meals. The schools chosen for this study have a significantly higher rate of
students who are eligible for free or reduced price meals. The study schools range from 64.6%
to 86.9% of their students being eligible for free or reduced meals. Focus School will retain their
ranting through the end of the 2015-2016 school year (Oregon Department of Education 2012).
Popular Community College Enrollment Demographics
Popular Community College (PCC) is the largest institution of higher learning in the
state, serving more than 1,445,200 college-age residents in a five-county 1,500-square mile area
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 64

in northwest Oregon. This community college enrolls more than 94,634 full- and part-time
students annually (Popular Community College).
Table 4.3 PCC Demographics

2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
Caucasian 72% 70% 68%
Hispanic 10% 11% 11%
Asian, Pacific Islander 10% 10% 8%
African American 6% 6% 6%
Native American 1% 1% 1%
Multi-Racial NA 2% 3%
Total Enrollment 93,799 92,537 94,634
Male 44% 45% 45%
Female 56% 55% 55%
Employed full or part time credit students 56% 62% 62%
Average age/most frequent age 33/20 33/20 34/20
Full or part time credit students receiving financial aid 30% 35% 38%

Caucasian/White students represent the majority of enrollments at Popular Community
College. Minority enrollment is 32%. This is below the local public school minority enrollment
of 44.4%. Over the three years of data reported in the chart above, the enrollment rates have not
changed significantly for minority students. Looking at the positive aspects of the data, the
minority population is holding steady and not declining significantly. At the current rate,
historically underserved students are not enrolling at rates high enough to achieve the
aspirational state goal of 40/40/20 educational levels.

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 65

Local State University
The total student enrollment in November 2012 for Local State University was
25,086. Undergraduate students accounted for 20,155 and graduate students accounted for
4,931 students. The undergraduate mean age for the senior class was 26.7 years old. There were
1,140 students enrolled at Local State University from Popular Community College in 2012.
There were 55 freshmen admitted to Local State University from Popular Community College
that same year (Oregon State University 2012).
Table 4.4 Local State University Undergraduate Demographics (November 2012)
Numbers represent numbers of students enrolled.

State Resident Non-Resident Total Enrollment
Race/Ethnicity
Unknown
674 96 770
Hispanic 1585 214 1799
Native
American/Alaskan
288 31 319
Asian 1422 132 1554
African American 572 125 697
Pacific Islander/Native
Hawaiian
106 35 141
White 11,548 1552 13,100(65%)
Multi-racial 699 144 843
Undergraduate 16,894 3,261 20,155

At Local State University, the Caucasian/White enrollment is clearly the majority at
65%. Minority enrollment by ethnicity is considerably less (35%) than in the community college
or the local public school. Hispanic and African American students represent only 12.4%. The
local public school district, which acts as a feeder to the state university system, has a combined
Hispanic and African American enrollment of 27.5%. It is clear that historically underserved
students are significantly under-represented in the local state university.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 66

Interview Data
The study included interviews with key personnel that were responsible for the
development of the achievement compacts for each institution. In the public school system, the
Executive Director for Teaching and Learning was interviewed. She was an integral member of
the district level team that developed and wrote the Achievement Compacts for Oak Tree school
district. This executive director was also part of the team that collaborated with other school
districts in the area to develop common measures, targets, and goals to use when writing the
achievement compacts for the local metro area K-12 public schools.
The Oregon Community College system has 17 schools with additional satellite
campuses. The community college chosen for this study is located in an urban area. The
Director of Instructional Effectiveness was interviewed for this study. This director was
involved in statewide committees that had input into the development of the achievement
compacts for higher education.
At the university level, the Director of Performance Measurement and Surveys was
interviewed as part of the study. This director is responsible for the achievement compacts for
the entire University of Oregon system. The university system is comprised of seven
universities: Eastern Oregon University, Oregon Institute of Technology, Oregon State
University, Local State University, Southern Oregon University, University of Oregon, and
Western Oregon University.
The interview consisted of approximately fifteen open-ended questions that were
developed to answer the three research questions (Appendix A). The interviews were done by
phone and lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. All interviews were recorded and transcribed
immediately following the interview.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 67

Research Question #1: What goals were established for disadvantaged students in the
Achievement Compacts? The sub questions sought to define the population of disadvantaged
students in the district, establish what/where the baseline data came from and determine what
goals were established in the achievement compacts as they related to disadvantaged students.
The three institutions approach writing the compacts in a similar way, by developing committees
and seeking stakeholder input.
The Oak Tree K-12 public school system approached the achievement compacts a little
differently than other public school districts throughout the state. For several years, the district
had been working with what was called the Milestone Framework. The indicators used in the
Milestone Framework later were adopted as indicator points for the Achievement Compacts.
These indicators included an early literacy indicator for kindergarten, a 3
rd
grade reading on track
indicator, an on track indicator for middle school and 10
th
grade as well as a high school
completion indicator. Since those indicators were adopted for use in the achievement compacts,
Oak Tree school district was already familiar with the performance indicators, which made the
transition to the achievement compact easier. All Hands Raised, a non-profit community
organization that supports all the schools throughout the county and the surrounding school
districts, adopted the Milestone Framework, which helped define the indicators used in the
achievement compacts. In addition, the metro area school districts adopted all the same
indicators as a way to close the racial achievement gap, which is at the heart of the achievement
compacts. When the achievement compacts were mandated, they were very similar to the
Milestone Frameworks, and indicators already being used to measure student progress and
achievement measuring. Some indicators in the achievement compacts were set by the state, like
7
th
grade attendance, which did not have as much of a bang for the school district, but never the
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 68

less was mandated and included. There was also a real commitment to shifting the state
conversation around who were historically referred to as disadvantaged/underserved. The state
through the achievement compacts termed students of color, particular racial groups, special
education students, and emerging bilingual students as “disadvantaged students.” School
districts overall look at special education and English Language Learners students differently,
and did not feel the term “disadvantaged” was correct or appropriate. Many educators in the
field felt the term disadvantaged needed to be changed. A group of educators from across the
state, wrote a white paper around the achievement compact targets, and part of that white paper
included a formal request that the state change it language to “historically underserved.” As the
school district looked at the disaggregated data and noted from the time the students arrive
within the school system as early as kindergarten their achievement gap widens the longer they
are in the school system, which not only indicates that they are disadvantaged but that the school
district does not serve those students well. The state has done a good job using that language
differently although you still see the term disadvantaged used on some of their documents, which
many find troublesome.
Each of the metro area school districts had their own type of achievement compact
advisory committees. The Oak Tree district’s advisory committee, unlike many in the state
included not only school district staff and a board member but it also included two student
representatives and two community members. All achievement compact advisory committee
meetings across the state were open to the public and the Oak Tree school district had some very
active public participants who had a seat at the table on a regular basis. One of the groups
literally came together to sponsor the achievement compacts and they called themselves the 80
Percenters. They represented the 80% of the population that did not have kids in the Oak Tree
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 69

public schools, but who are part of the voting public. They wanted to find a way to connect with
the other 80 Percenters within the community. This has grown into quiet a partnership, and they
are highly engaged in the 3rd grade reading initiative work, which has sprung out of the ongoing
work with the 3
rd
grade Milestone. Communities of color were also very vocal in helping inform
and develop culturally relevant strategies for use in the district. Up until that point, the school
district had not been using culturally relevant strategies systemically to engage all kids.
Community College
Higher education faced some unique challenges when it came to the achievement
compacts. Popular Community College (PCC) serves students that range in age from 18 to 90
years old. They also do not use the term “disadvantaged” in the same way the K-12 system uses
the term. The term economically disadvantaged maybe used to identify a group of students.
Community college compacts are different from the K-12, which are different from the
university compacts. Categories are broken down differently, so they report in the aggregate,
then for a collected group called "under represented." According to the Director of Instructional
effectiveness:
One of the categories in this under represented (in the achievement compacts) is
economically disadvantaged. But we would never consider somebody disadvantaged
because of their race or ethnicity and those are other categories, so this is broken down
into Native American, Latino, Pacific Islander, Multi-ethnic/racial and economically
disadvantaged. The two groups that are not included are Asian and White. So in that
under-represented group it is everybody except our Asian students and our White
students. However, one more disclaimer, if a white student is receiving a Pell Grant they
are in this group because they are economically disadvantaged (personal communication
September 26, 2013).
The state gave the community colleges a very specific template to fill out, which included
eighty-eight projections and an additional eighty-eight targets. PPC had to report information in
the aggregate of the projection of how the previous year was going to end, and then project
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 70

targets for the following year. All of those projections then have to be broken down by race,
ethnicity, multi-racial, and economically disadvantaged. At a minimum level they had to project
how many African American students they believed would complete 15 credits for the current
year, then they had to forecast how many would complete the credits for the next year. This was
all done with raw numbers, there were no percentages. Coming up with projections in this way
provided multiple challenges for the department tasked with writing the achievement compacts.
When asked how PPC went about projecting these numbers the director responded:
It is a nightmare, especially when you are talking about a number that is directly
influenced by how many students enroll in the first place which is directly influenced by
the economy, so as you can imagine. . . . I’m a statistician so as a researcher it is
challenging at best to come up with almost 200 projections and targets at that level when
the variables that influence it are mostly out of your control, so again, that is just some of
the background on this, so in reading your document here this is the way community
colleges and universities are different from K-12. K-12, a student by law must attend
school. I had to let go of everything I know professionally from a statistical or modeling
perspective. You can’t use historical data to project because this recession changed every
kind of correlation or modeling previously used. And this is even different from the prior
recession 02-03 that time period our funding was cut so drastically we had to cut a lot of
classes, that was a time, recession where we actually served fewer students. So in
preparing this you have to basically start over and say well, here is what the numbers
look like last year and here are some changes that we are making ourselves to our
processes and projections that we think these will ideally improve the outcomes then
literally on a cell by cell basis try to figure out, well we think this is going to help, well I
don’t know, 15%. Well we think because of a declining number of students enrolling,
that we are not going to have more of these, so let’s set as our goal, we at least stay where
we are. So literally, it was a cell-by-cell approach. I originally came up with some
general assumptions: here is what we know; here is what is happening in our environment
that could influence a variable in one way or another. That was approved by various
groups at the college, leadership groups as well as our board. Then based on their
approval and saying well this could happen or this could happen, here is my suggestion
on how we pursue what our targets should be, that is how I came up with the numbers
(personal communication, Director Institutional Effectiveness, September 26, 2013).
Some of the challenges faced by the community college system in regard to the
achievement compacts were a result of the downturn in the economy. For example, people who
already held a bachelors or masters degrees who could not find work came back to get (for
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 71

example) a two year degree in respiratory therapy. The non-traditional population, students
twenty-five and older, (the majority of community college students) began to increase. There
were a record number of degrees awarded during that time, but now that population is
decreasing. Students were able to enroll back in school supported by the federal stimulus dollars
or their unemployment, and got their new work force related credential, and return to the
workforce. This presented a significant challenge when trying to project future enrollment
trends. The state has required the measures, a few of them are ratios, but most are raw numbers
so when you are looking at a declining population, using a system where you have to meet an
increasing number of things is virtually impossible. There is a disconnect between the target or
goal that the community college is trying to meet and the reality of declining enrollment. The
question becomes how you can meet the aspirational goal or an increased target, when you are
enrolling 20% fewer students, and facing budget cuts.
One of the original intents of the achievement compacts was to tie them to funding. In theory,
the educational institution would develop a plan that would increase graduation rates and
improve outcomes for underserved populations and the state would fund the institution to the
level needed. The funding aspect of the achievement compacts has not been put into place yet.
As the economy improves the state of school funding improves, but not to the levels necessary to
meet the aspirational 40/40/20 goal by 2025. The director of Popular Community College closed
the interview with the following statement:
There have been some changing players at the state level, and the achievement compacts
were done early on, and they continued to morph. The current measures they are looking
at as potential influence for future funding are not the achievement compacts in their
entirety. There are some subsets of those measures but are not the achievement compacts
as we see them today. I was on a small committee that was working with the presidents
association to provide guidance initially on this. We had a very different look (view) at
the achievement compacts. They then it went through the state sausage machine and
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 72

because the group that was working with this was predominately K-12, they blended a lot
of NCLB into it. That is how the disaggregation started as well as a lot of these other
measures. At the K-12 level, we’ve withdrawn from NCLB reporting and for them the
achievement compacts substituted for that. The community colleges are just caught in
the middle because those (K-12) categories were pushed up to our level and we also have
another whole set of measures as well as our Key Legislative Measures- that are not even
related to the achievement compacts (Personal Communication, Director Institutional
Effectiveness, September 26, 2013).
The state university system faced challenges similar to the community colleges when it
came to developing the achievement compacts. Each of the university institutions has a different
mission. For example the technical institution that might have different issues for engineering
and health majors that what smaller institution might have. The director of Performance
Measurement and Surveys struggled to answer the interview questions as they were written. Her
office is a systems office and work with all institutions to collect vast quantities of accountability
data for state reports, federal reports, and grants. Some of the measurement information
required for the achievement compacts is similar, like enrollment numbers, but most of the raw
numbers required in the achievement compacts are not reported in the same format. The
Achievement Compacts are all outcome based so what is reported will be awarded degrees.
There are no process measures in the achievement compacts. The Achievement Compacts were
developed in a very different process from other university measures like the diversity
report/process. During the interview, the director outlined the process for developing the
Achievement Compacts:
I take all the data that each campus provides, and for the purpose of this last achievement
compact I looked at for example degrees for 2011-2012 I fill in all those boxes and the
projected and goals, but the provosts take the achievement compacts back to their
institutions and determine the final targets/goals, they look at based on their school is the
projection or goal realistic, is it meat able, is it not meet able, this is why. So there are a
few meetings back and forth to decide goals/targets before we take it to our board and
before it gets approved (personnel communication, Director Instructional Effectiveness,
September 26, 2013).
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 73

Each institution could have somewhat different measures depending on their focus and
mission, but in general, the state wants the same measures for each institution using the
achievement compacts. The university system provides achievement compacts and board
performance reports that have different sets of metrics, as well as statewide reports. The director
reiterated what had also been stated by the K-12 and community college system, the achievement
compacts are new and will change in the future.
The achievement compacts at the university level identify disadvantaged students as
those that are eligible for Pell grants. Pell grants are provided by the federal government for
students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. The compacts also track
underserved populations in terms of number of bachelor’s degrees awarded. Along with tracking
underserved minority populations, rural Oregonians are also tracked. This is a sector identified
as underserved. The university also differs from the K-12 and community college students
because K-12 students must be in school by law, community colleges take anyone that wants to
enroll, but in the university system, enrollment is based on choice and ability. The university
system has found academic preparation is a much better indicator for graduation than anything
else. The director concluded this section of the interview with the following statement:
This whole process is definitely evolving. The devil is always in the details. There are
really a lot of good theories and ideas it is just the implementation that is evolving. The
bottom line is K-12 may have a whole set of issues that are very different from the
university perspective. When these were developed, they were developed with mostly K-
12 folks in mind. So, we are trying to fit our framework into that mold, and work our
programs around theirs to the best of our ability. But, it doesn’t always fit (Personal
communication, Director of Performance Measurement and Surveys, September 26,
2013).
Research question two asked: We know the goals for disadvantaged students differ from
typical student, but how is the implementation of the goals or programs different for
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 74

disadvantaged students? This question sought to determine if instructional practices, class size,
curriculum choices had changed, as well as what types of intervention program were used, were
the interventions significantly different than what typical students received, and at what grade
levels were intervention targeted.
In the public school system, each school has some choices as far as types of intervention
programs, depending on the characteristics of the school. There are specific interventions that
are mandated by the district. For example, core reading in grades K-3, every student spends 90
minutes a day engaged in literacy. Students who fall behind the benchmark targets get an
additional dose of at least 30 additional minutes per day of reading. Every student at the
elementary level is getting at least 75 minutes of math per day. The district prescribes the
curriculum materials that can be used. Therefore, within the school day there is consistency
expected including the consistency of the data that is collected. Dibbles and Curriculum Based
Measures (CBM) are used in elementary school and up through middle school for progress
monitoring in reading. The district does not have Math benchmark assessments that are
consistently used, and this is an identified problem. There are also a number of duel immersion
programs, a number of which are in Spanish. There is also a Russian benchmark assessment that
is used. The district is expanding the duel immersion programs to see if that can help accelerate
language acquisition using bilingualism. There are currently programs in Spanish, Mandarin,
Russian and Japanese. One of the strategies is to teach in the student’s native language while
developing their English language skills for the achievement compacts. This is one of the big
strategic ways to move gain those skills and increase scores. Instructional practices were not
significantly changed with the achievement compacts because of the Milestone Framework. The
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 75

school board wanted to know if the achievement compacts would change the way instruction
occurred in the classrooms. The response to the board by the Executive Director was:
If we are on track to change the racial achievement gap we have to change the way we
have been doing things so the achievement compacts bring focus to that. So we need to
look at how we do our work differently. The achievement compacts are a way to hold
ourselves accountable, collectively across the state (personal communication, Director of
Performance Measurement and Surveys, October 8, 2013).

Intervention at the community college level comes in the form of developmental math or
developmental writing classes. When the recession started, and people became unemployed or
needed retraining, the Popular Community College increased the amount of instruction they
were delivering by 45% in five years, according to the Director of Instructional Effectiveness.
PPC hired a tremendous number of adjunct teachers to the point where only 35% 36% of the
sections were taught by full time faculty. Now they are in the opposite situation. Last year was
the first year they saw enrollment decrease, although most of the other community colleges in
the system have seen decreases for a couple of years. This is PPC’s first year of a double-digit
decrease some of the other community colleges have seen decreasing enrollment since 2005.
This year they are not scheduling as many classes, and have budget cuts because of the state
retirement system affecting overhead costs. The positive side of this is that it corresponds with
not as many people needing to go back to school. The students that do need to go back into
school are returning adults that are more likely to place into developmental math than a student
who has just graduated from high school. The largest growing instructional areas at PPC were
both our lower division transfer courses and developmental education. This has been especially
true in career technical areas where there are certain math proficiencies that someone would
need to have in order to go into a medical profession, automotive or anything technical.
Students who have been away from math for any length of time no matter what they have been
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 76

doing professionally, even finance, typically do not have the math skills anymore. This is also
true for students who just graduate from high school and wait a year or more before enrolling
according to the director. She also added that most of the high school graduates are in
developmental math anyway. This is attributed to a curriculum misalignment according to the
PPC director. The states of Oregon will not require Algebra for graduation from high school
until next spring. Until a couple of years ago, Oregon had some of the lowest graduation
requirements in the country and that certainly see that at the community college level.
From the state university perspective, they do not have different goals for underserved
populations or disadvantaged students. The university system admits the most qualified students
that apply. They do offer some non-credit classes for incoming freshman, but overall there are
no specific intervention classes, and the expectations for all students are the same.
Research Question #3 asked, How will the goals for disadvantages students be monitored
in the Achievement compacts? This question sought to identify what “success” meant, how
students were tracked through the system, what happened to students who failed to make
progress and identify who is responsible for tracking all the data.
The Oak Tree school district has a research, evaluation and assessment department,
which most districts do not have. One of the directors became the point person for the metro
area school districts, and he became the go to person to figure out how to collect and monitor the
data. The Oregon Department of Education maintains a state longitudinal data system, and most
of the data can be pulled directly out of that system. There are pieces of the story that are not
necessarily told. According to the Executive Director:
Part of our consternation when you look at an achievement compact and it is a bunch of
boxes you have to fill in that does not tell the student story or the individual gets lost in
those boxes and that was part of our conversation- to our advisory how do you tell the
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 77

story of the disenfranchised, underserved student that is represented by those? We have
not figured that out yet (personal communication, Director of Performance Measurement
and Surveys October 8, 2013)
Oak Tree school district measures success through two lenses, in regard to the
achievement compacts. One was is simply by those metrics outlined within the compacts. But
the way the districts look at student achievement is by using the following; for 3
rd
through 8
th

grade they look at reading and math data, benchmark data, and summative data. For middle and
high school students they look at GPA, failure rate, attendance for middle and HS students, and
on track to graduate data. They look at the students core classes and ask are they taking the core
classes that will allow them to graduate? Last year the district looked at their data and
determined where they were closing the gap and where they were not. Using grant money, staff
were trained in Professional Learning Communities (PLC’s) and began implementing that
strategy across the school district. They looked at what was making a difference and established
what they call “What Works.” The district is also very involved with racial equity work and that
has resulted in equity PLC’s at all district sites. They also have schools involved in Action
Research.
The goals for the community college achievement compact are reported to the state on an
annual basis, but along with the achievement compacts, there is additional accountability
reporting for state reporting, federal reporting, accreditation, and all the grants that are managed.
PPC is measuring things all the time many are the same things with a different definition
depending on the federal report or state report. Achievement Compact the data is only available
annually from the state and that is what they work with, but the intent of the achievement
compacts and what is behind them has been being done for a very long time. Here is the process
of how it works in community colleges in Oregon. All institutions do multiple reports to the
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 78

state throughout the year, actually throughout each term. At the end of the year, the state takes
that data and they put it back out to the community colleges in the form of an achievement
compact. For example, based on all the data reported to the state, they give you back the
number of Native American students that transferred to a university, here is the number of
disadvantaged students you have that did something else. They give that data back and the
process of making projections and targets for the following year begins. When asked about
measuring success, specifically if success means a range of things or a single concrete measure,
the director at PCC answered:
Here is the challenge we have had. Oregon has had what we call an aspirational goal that
by 2025 a hundred percent of students who have gone through the Oregon system will
have graduated from high school and that at least 40% will have a credential or certificate
and the other 40% will have a bachelor’s degree or higher. So in theory, one concept, it
comes from Crew days, and we, well we don’t know right now, was that we should be
setting these targets so that each institution has a steak into this 40-40-20. The reality is
there is no state, city, country in the world that has that level of educational attainment
(personal communication, September 26, 2013).
The director went on to elaborate on the some of the positive aspects of the achievement
compacts. She said,
Most of this data we look at, and we look at it all the time because of the spotlight on
this at the state level, among our boards and various other entities. It has given what we
already have but it is getting more people’s attention. Sadly we know certain groups are
not as successful as others that is nothing new- it has been true for hundreds of years but
finally with achievement compacts we can keep bringing things up. It has forced people
to pay attention to some things during this rapid growth that we have just experienced
with all of these students and how do we serve them. We are also mindful of the fact that
we have all these folks coming in the door but they are not all-leaving equally prepared
(personal communication, September 26, 2013).
Achievement compacts at the state university are also looked at annually, and the
University faces some of the same challenges identified by the community college. The director
of Performance Measurement and Surveys made this comment about the current achievement
compacts:
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 79

If I was to speak to some of the pitfalls from the data standpoint the baseline data is
2011-2012and then we project 2013-14, one issues for us is those students are already in
the pipeline, we really can’t do a lot about increasing our degree rates in 2013-13 when
the 2011-12 students are pretty much, already here. So the top priority for us, if I was to
redesign these to how I think our data would better fit, I would push the timeline out, and
the rate, if you look at our achievement compacts you will see a lot of double asterisks **
which just shows there are fewer than 6 students in a lot of those categories, so I would
either re-categorize those or use some different measures, because it is not going to help
people to look at such small measures (personal communication, September 26, 2013).
Overall, the format of the current achievement compacts does not fit well into the higher
education system. The data is redundant in many ways, and not collected in an efficient or
meaningful way. The positive aspects reported from all the institutions involved in the study is
that the achievement compacts are bringing much needed attention to the needs of historically
underserved students. The achievement compacts have forced the conversations to happen, and
pushed, at least the K-12 public school system to address the needs of this population and find
ways to increase participation and achievement resulting in higher levels of educational
attainment and accessibility.
Achievement Compact Outcomes for 2012-2013
Achievement compacts will continue to evolve and develop, but they are bringing
attention to the historically underserved students in Oregon. The achievement compacts have
brought focus and accountability to the school entities and brought the inequity of minority
populations to the forefront of Oregon’s political, economic, and educational reform movement.
The challenges are many, but with the investment and accountability required by the state and
federal government the educational institutions are trying to meet, resolve and make the
compacts more meaningful for instruction and higher levels of educational achievement.
Growth at the public school level is transparent using the performance indicators outlined
by the achievement compacts and Milestone Frameworks. All K-12 public schools participating
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 80

in this study were labeled as Focus schools. Focus schools are in the bottom 15% (approx.) of
Title I schools that need additional support in closing the achievement gap and addressing
achievement for historically underserved subgroups (ODE, 2013). As part of the new
accountability measures established by Oregon’s ESEA waiver, each school is assigned a rating
based on performance indicators. These indicators are weighted and combined to give each
school an overall achievement level. Table 4.1 shows the scoring guide for establishing each
school’s rating. Levels were calculated using the percentage of points earned out of the total
points eligible. Academic Achievement had 25 possible points, and is defined the percent of
students that meet or exceed standards o the state reading and math tests at all grade levels
offered by the school. Academic Growth had 50 possible points, and uses the Colorado Growth
Model to measure student progress over time in reading and mathematics. Subgroup Growth had
25 possible points. The Subgroup Growth indicator measures the growth of historically
underserved student subgroups. It disaggregates the Growth indicator and reflects the growth for
economically disadvantaged English learners, students with disabilities and historically
underserved races/ethnicities (Oregon Dept. of Education). Focus schools usually have
performance indicator of Level 1 or 2. Levels 4 and 5 are the desired levels for all schools.
Table 4.5 Overall Level Assignments: Oregon’s Next Generation Accountability Policy
Level Assignments Weighted Percent
Level 5 87.0 or higher
Level 4 70.0 to 86.9
Level 3 47.0 to 69.9
Level 2 26.5 to46.9
Level 1 Less than 26.5

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 81

Table 4.6 includes a summary of the performance indicators and percentage of points earned for
the schools selected for this study. Levels were calculated using the percentage of points earned
out of the total points eligible.
Table 4.6: Performance Indicators for selected schools:
School
Name
Performance Indicator
2011-2012
2011-2012 2012-2013 Weighted
Points
Pin Oak
Elementary
(PK-8)
Academic Achievement
Academic Growth
*Subgroup Growth

Level 2
Level 3
Level 2
Level 2
Level 3
Level 3
*Subgroup
Improvement
45.6 52.6
Red Oak
Elementary
(K-8)
Academic Achievement
Academic Growth
Subgroup Growth

Level2
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
Level 3
Level 2
Decline in
Academic
Achievement
44.4 42.9
Laurel Oak
Elementary
(K-5)
Academic Achievement
*Academic Growth
*Subgroup Growth

Level 2
Level 2
Level 2
Level 2
Level 4
Level 4
*Academic
Growth
Improvement
*Subgroup
Improvement

33.3 68.1
Sawtooth
Elementary
(K-5)
*Academic Achievement
Academic Growth
*Subgroup Growth

Level 1
Level 3
Level 2
Level 2
Level 3
Level 3
*Academic
Achievement
Improvement
*Subgroup
Growth
Improvement

45.6 50

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 82

School
Name
Performance Indicator
2011-2012
2011-2012 2012-2013 Weighted
Points
Costal Oak
High
School
(9-12)
Academic Achievement
Academic Growth
Subgroup Growth
*Graduation
*Subgroup graduation

Level 2
Level 2
Level 1
Level 1
Level 1
Level 2
Level 2
Level 1
Level 2
Level 2
*Graduation
Improvement
*Subgroup
Graduation
Improvement
29.1 35.5
Table 4.6: Performance Indicators for selected schools: continued
*Indicates improvement was made in the category.
Subgroup growth was seen in four of the five schools involved in the study. Three of the
five schools saw growth in two of the performance indicators. Pin Oak School with a minority
enrollment of 68% had subgroup growth and improved in weighted points by seven, increasing
from 45.6 to 52.6 weighted points. Pin Oak serves students from Pre-Kindergarten to eighth
grade. Laurel Oak showed exceptional growth in both Academic and Subgroup growth, moving
from Level 2 up to Level 4. Weighted points increased by 34.8 points going from 33.3 to 68.1
weighted points. Laurel Oaks School serves students from kindergarten to 5
th
grade. Minority
enrollment at the school is 61.6%. Sawtooth Oak Elementary School serves students from
kindergarten to fifth grade. Minority enrollment at Sawtooth Oak School is 69.9%. This school
saw growth in both Academic Achievement and Subgroup Growth. Academic Achievement
went from Level 1 to Level 2 and Subgroup Growth went from Level 2 to Level 3. Weighted
points increased by 4.4 points going from 45.6 to 50 weighted points. The high school saw
growth in both Graduation and Subgroup Graduation. Both performance indicators went from
Level 1 to Level 2 and they saw an increase in weighted points of 6.4, moving from 29.1 to 35.5
points.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 83

Red Oak School experienced a decline in Academic Achievement and held steady on the
other performance indicators. The school decreased in Academic Achievement from Level 2
down to Level 1. In the weighted points they declined by 2.5, going from 44.4 to 41.9 in
weighted points. Red Oak has a new principal this year. It is unclear if this leadership change is
a result or factor in the change in leadership for the school. The minority enrollment at Red Oak
is 82.3%.
The performance indicator, Subgroup Growth measures the growth of historically
underserved student subgroups. It disaggregates the Growth indicator and reflects the growth for
economically disadvantaged, English learners and historically underserved races/ethnicities as
well as students with disabilities (Oregon Department of Education-Report Card). Each school
in the study reported Subgroup Growth details by individual school report cards. The report card
breaks down growth in reading and math by looking at the median growth percentiles. For each
school the median growth percentile is calculated using the past two years to get a Combined
Median Growth Percentile. This is compared to the Combined Media Growth Target to
determine if the individual subgroup meets its On Track Growth indicator. The table below
breaks Subgroup Growth down by schools participating in the study.
Table 4.7 Subgroup Growth Criteria
Growth Level Cutoffs
Level On Track Growth
Yes No
Level 5 60 & above 70 & above
Level 4 45 to 59.5 55 to 69.5
Level 3 35 to 44.5 45 to 54.5
Level 2 30 to 34.5 40 to 44.5
Level 1 Less than 30 Less than 40

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 84

Table 4.8 Subgroup Growth Details/Pin Oak School
Reading/Pin Oak Combined Growth Percentile Combined Growth Target On Track Growth
Economically Disadvantaged 49.0 39.0 Yes/Level 4
English Learners 47.0 54.0 No/Level 3
Underserved
Races/Ethnicities
46.0 41.0 Yes/Level 4
Math/Pin Oak Combined Growth Percentile Combined Growth Target On Track Growth
Economically Disadvantaged 42.0 53.0 No/Level 2
English Learners 27.0 75.0 No/Level 1
Underserved
Races/Ethnicities
42.0 55.0 No/Level 2

Pin Oak School showed overall growth for their subgroups. In the area of reading the
school demonstrated a higher growth percentile than its target for students categorized as
economically disadvantaged and historically underserved minorities. The school did not show
any sub growth in the area of math. The target measure for English learners is significantly
higher than the actual growth percentile.
Table 4.9 Red Oak School
Reading Combined Growth Percentile Combined Growth Target On Track Growth
Economically Disadvantaged 48.5 40.0 Yes/Level 4
English Learners 52.0 49.0 Yes/Level 4
Underserved
Races/Ethnicities
48.0 42.0 Yes/Level 4
Math Combined Growth Percentile Combined Growth Target On Track Growth
Economically Disadvantaged 35.5 60.0 No/Level 1
English Learners 34.0 67.0 No/Level 1
Underserved
Races/Ethnicities
36.0 62.5 No/Level 1

Red Oak School overall had a decline in Academic Achievement by one level. They
remained the same (Level 3) for Academic Growth and Subgroup Growth (Level 2). For the
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 85

subgroups, the school was able to maintain on track growth in the area of Reading, but Math
targets are significantly higher than the actual growth percentile s for all underserved students.
Table 4.10 Laurel Oak School
Reading Combined Growth Percentile Combined Growth Target On Track Growth
Economically Disadvantaged 46.0 44.0 Yes/Level 4
English Learners 47.0 56.0 No/Level 3
Underserved
Races/Ethnicities
46.5 55.5 No/Level 3
Math Combined Growth Percentile Combined Growth Target On Track Growth
Economically Disadvantaged 50.5 47.5 Yes/Level 4
English Learners 70.0 49.0 Yes/Level 5
Underserved
Races/Ethnicities
63.0 60.0 Yes/Level 5

Laurel Oak School showed overall growth in Academic Growth (from Level 2 to Level
4) and Subgroup Growth (from Level 2 to Level 4). In the area of reading, economically
disadvantaged students were on track, but other subgroups did not meet reading targets. In the
area of Math all the subgroups exceeded the targets set for Math growth.
Table 4.11 Sawtooth Oak School
Reading Combined Growth Percentile Combined Growth Target On Track Growth
Economically Disadvantaged 44.0 60.0 No/Level 2
English Learners 34.5 68.0 No/Level 1
Underserved
Races/Ethnicities
46.0 60.0 No/Level 3
Math Combined Growth Percentile Combined Growth Target On Track Growth
Economically Disadvantaged 53.0 60.0 No/Level 3
English Learners 58.0 64.0 No/Level 4
Underserved
Races/Ethnicities
58.0 58.0 Yes/Level 4

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 86

Sawtooth Oak School demonstrated overall growth in Academic Achievement (from
Level 1 to Level 2) and in Subgroup Growth (Level 2 to Level 3). Reading growth targets were
not met for any of the subgroups. Math growth was seen for the three subgroups: economically
disadvantaged, English Learners and historically underserved minorities.
Table 4.12 Costal Oak High School: Subgroup Graduation
Four Year Cohort Economically
Disadvantaged
School %
English
Learners
School %
African
American
School %
Hispanic
School %
Multi Race
School %
On Track 79.2 85.7 76.7 88.2 87.5
Graduation 59.8 61.5 64.7 52.6 60.0
Completion 80.2 72.2 82.4 57.9 80.0
Dropout 1.0 1.9 1.2 1.5 0.0

Costal Oak High School maintained the same levels as the previous year for Academic
Achievement (Level 2), Academic Growth (Level 2), and Subgroup Growth (Level 1). They did
show growth in Graduation (from Level 1 to Level 2) and in Subgroup Graduation (from Level 1
to Level 2). Subgroup Growth in Reading and Math remain at Level 1, with the exception of
economically disadvantaged in Reading, was at Level 2. This indicates that the combined median
growth percentile was less than 35 (Level 1). The Level 2 score was right at thirty-five, which is
the cut for the bottom of Level 2.
In general, growth was seen in subgroup growth by most of the public schools included in
this study. Red Oak School had an overall decline in the Academic Achievement performance
indicator. When the data for Red Oak is disaggregated, the subgroup Economically
Disadvantaged demonstrated a decline, while the subgroups for English Learners and historically
underserved remained at the same level as the previous year. Higher education performance
indicators are different from what is measured for the K-12 system. Higher education looks at
outcomes. The main indicator is number of degrees conferred on all Oregonians then breaks it
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 87

down by underrepresented students and economically disadvantaged students identified as Pell
Grant eligible. Another difference is while the K-12 system measures progress in reading and
math by state testing, higher education measures reading and math levels by the number of
students enrolled in Developmental English and Math courses. The achievement compacts for
higher education identify progress indicators such as:
• Completions-number of students who attain a certificate, degree or transfer to a four year
institution,
• Progress- number or percent of students enrolled in developmental classes, and15 and or
30 credits in a year (that are not 100 level courses).
• The number of students that pass licensure exams.
• The number of students that are dual enrolled in Oregon high school, or dual enrollment
with Oregon State University (OUS) as well as transfer to OUS.
The Popular Community College data is looked at not only as outcome measures but
further broken down in three ways: targets, projected student outcomes, and actual student
outcomes. Complete data is available is for 2010-11, which established baseline data for the
compacts and 2011-2012, which was the first full cycle for the achievement compacts. The
following tables reflect the data for the target, projected students and actual student outcomes.
Table 4.13 Popular Community College- Achievement Compacts: Outcomes
Outcome
Measures
2010-11 Actual (baseline )
All / under-represented students
2011-12Projected/Actual
Underrepresented students
2012-13 Target/Projected
Underrepresented students
2013-14 Target
Underrepresented
students

Completions:#of
students
All Underrepresented Projected Actual Target Projected Target
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 88

Certificates & OR
Transfer Modules
815 372 380 444 540 675 750
Associate Degrees 2,774 1,234 1,300 1,471 1,400 1,500 1,575
Transfer to (any) 4
year Institution
9,709 2,377 2,400 3,251 2,400 3,275 3,300
Progress: # (or %)
of students

Enrolled in Dev.
Writing who
complete
67% 67% 67% 62.6% 64% 62% 63%
Enrolled in Dev.
Math who
complete
63% 61% 61% 58.6% 62% 58% 59%
Earn 15 and /or 30
college credits in
one year (exclude
100 level)
21,591/9,052 11,232/5,061 12,000/5,200 12,864/5,570 12,000/5,200 12,900/5,600 12,900/5,600
Connections: # of
students

Dual enrolled in
Oregon HS
3,977 959 960 1,011 960 1,200 1,300
Dual enrolled in
OUS
2,720 969 975 915 975 950 975
Transfer to OUS 6,834 1,753 1,760 2,414 1,760 2,420 2,450
The information in the table above represents three years of data. The data for 2010-2011
represents the baseline data and is broken down by all students and underrepresented students.
The data for 2011-2012 is broken down by projected number of underrepresented students and
then by the actual number of underrepresented students for each performance indicator. The data
for 2012-2013 represents the targets for number of underrepresented students and the projected
number of underrepresented students for each performance indicator. The actual outcome data
was unavailable at the time of this study. The 2013-2014 data represents only the targets for the
achievement compacts. The projections for number of students were not available at the time
this study was being conducted. The Oregon State University System has similar outcome
measures but only looks at Completion- number of degrees awarded and Connections- number
Oregon residents entering with high school duel credit or number of Oregon students who
transfer in from Community Colleges.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 89

The mission of Local State University according to the Oregon University State website
is to:
Enhance the intellectual, social, cultural and economic qualities of urban life by
providing access throughout the life span to a quality liberal education for undergraduates
and an appropriate array of professional graduate programs especially relevant to
metropolitan area. The University conducts research and community service that support
a high quality educational environment and reflect issues important to the region. It
actively promotes the development of a network of educational institutions to serve the
community (personnel communication September 26, 2013).
Local State University reports a minority enrollment of approximately (35%). Hispanic and
African American students represent only 12.4% of the total enrollment (Oregon University
System). Popular Community College reports a minority enrollment that is approximately the
same, 35%, with the Hispanic and African American enrollment being approximately 17%
(Popular Community College). The local public school district, which acts as a feeder to the
state university system, has a combined Hispanic and African American enrollment of 27.5%. It
is clear that historically underserved students are significantly under-represented in the local state
university.

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 90

Figure 4.2 Local State University Achievement Compact: Outcomes 2011-12 Overview

Figure 4.2 presents an overview of the outcome measures for the 2011-12 Achievement
Compacts for Local State University. The University awarded 3,644 bachelor’s degrees to
Oregonians. Underrepresented minority students were awarded 593 of those bachelor’s degrees.
Rural Oregonians received 153 bachelor’s degrees, with 28 of those being awarded to
underserved minority students. Table 4.14 represents a breakdown of the Achievement
Compacts for the 2011-2012 academic year by minority group. The first number is the
projection by the university; the second number is the actual outcome. These projections
represent the first full cycle of Target, Projection, and Outcome for the Achievement Compact
completed for Local State University. The state gave the University the baseline numbers from
which the targets are determined, from there the process for developing the projections begins.
According to the Director of Performance Measurement and Surveys, the process is:
I take all the data that each campus provides, and for the purpose of this last achievement
compact I looked at, for example degrees for 2011-2012. I fill in all those boxes with the
projections and goals, but the provosts take the achievement compacts back to their
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 91

institutions and determine the final targets/goals, they look at it based on their school, is
the projection or goal realistic? Is it able to be met? , If it cannot be met this is why. So
there are a few meetings back and forth to decide goals/targets before we take it to our
board and before it gets approved (personal communication, OUS Director of
Performance Measurement and Survey 9/26/13).
Table 4.14 Local State University - Achievement Compacts: Outcomes

The ** represent data that represent six or fewer students and are too small to measure
The table above represents projections and actual numbers of underserved or
disadvantaged students for the 2011-2012 academic year and their outcomes for the performance
indicators. All underserved student subgroups exceeded their projections for number of
bachelor’s degrees awarded. With the exception of Native American/Alaskan Native students,
all other subgroups exceed the projections or the number of advanced degrees awarded. Native
American/Alaskan Natives missed the projections by four students.

2011-12 Projections/
2011-12 Actual
Disadvantaged Students
African
American
Hispanic/Latino Native
American
Or Alaskan
Native
Pacific
Islander
Multi-Racial or
Multi-Ethnic
Pell Eligible
COMPLETION
# of bachelor’s degrees
award to Oregonians
116/126 209/258 65/95 15/24 19/90 2,047/2,200
# of bachelor’s degrees
awarded to rural
Oregonians
**/** **/16 **/** 0/** **/** 80/107
# of advanced degrees
awarded to Oregonians
30/30 59/77 19/15 **/0 **/27 NA/NA
CONNECTIONS
# and % of newly
admitted Oregon
freshmen entering with
HS dual credit or other
early college credit
9/9 45/45 **/6 **/** 32/32 155/163
30%/30% 35%/35% **/55% **/** 43%/43% 34%/32%
# of bachelor’s degrees
awarded to transfer
students from Oregon
Community Colleges
47/67 111/135 39/50 9/12 10/41 1,005/1,162
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 92

Table 4.15 Local State University - Achievement Compacts: Outcomes

Table 4.15 shows the targets (based on data provide by the state) and the projections from
the university. The minority student population is too small in many areas to be counted in the
targets and sometimes in the projections. The targets are the same for all the state Universities
and were determined by the state. The projections are the numbers determined by the specific
university.
Table 4.16 Local State University - Achievement Compacts: Outcomes
2012-13 Targets/
2012-13 Projections
Disadvantaged Students
African
American
Hispanic/Latino Native Amer
Or Alaskan
Native
Pacific
Islander
Multi-Racial or
Multi-Ethnic
Pell Eligible
COMPLETION
# of bachelor’s degrees
award to Oregonians
120/127 217/260 67/96 15/24 20/91 2,121/2,124
# of bachelor’s degrees
awarded to rural
Oregonians
**/** **/16 **/** 0/** **/** 83/108
# of advanced degrees
awarded to Oregonians
29/28 58/72 18/14 **/0 **/25 Na/Na
CONNECTIONS
# and % of newly
admitted Oregon
freshmen entering with
HS dual credit or other
early college credit
9/6 46/44 **/** **/** 32/19 157/141
30%/19% 35%/27% **/** **/** 43%/27% 34%/26
# of bachelor’s degrees
awarded to transfer
students from Oregon
Community Colleges
49/66 115/134 41/50 9/12 10/41 1,042/1,151
2013-14 Targets

Disadvantaged Students
African
American
Hispanic/Latino Native American
Or Alaskan
Native
Pacific
Islander
Multi-Racial or
Multi-Ethnic
Pell Eligible
COMPLETION
# of bachelor’s degrees
award to Oregonians
131 268 99 25 94 2,289
# of bachelor’s degrees
awarded to rural
Oregonians
** 17 ** ** ** 112
# of advanced degrees
awarded to Oregonians
28 72 14 0 25 NA
CONNECTIONS
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 93

Table 4.16 represents targets for the 2012-2013 school year.
In 2011-2012 the target for African American students was 116, then in 2012-2013 it
increased to 120 and in 2013-14 the target is 131. Similar patterns are seen for the other
members of the subgroup.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to review the development of Oregon’s Achievement
Compacts as they relate to improving the academic achievement of historically underserved
students. Three specific areas of the achievement compacts were reviewed: 1) determine how
the goals for disadvantaged students were established; 2) ascertain how the implementation of
the goals or programs differ for disadvantaged students; 3) understand how the goals will be
implemented and measured.
The sample schools chosen for this study came from an urban K-12 public school system,
state community college system and state university system. Five schools were chosen from the
K-12 public school system and represent high poverty, Title I schools categorized as Focus
schools. Focus schools represent the bottom 15% of Title I schools and are in need of additional
supports to close the achievement gap. The community college and state university are in the
same urban area as the K-12 public schools and act as feeder schools for the higher education
system. The five K-12 schools chosen for this study have underserved minority enrollment of
between 61% and 83%. The community college and state university reports an enrollment of
between 32% and 35% historically underserved students.
# and % of newly
admitted Oregon
freshmen entering with
HS dual credit or other
early college credit
6 45 ** ** 19 146
19% 27% ** ** 27% 26%
# of bachelor’s degrees
awarded to transfer
students from Oregon
Community Colleges
69 138 51 12 42 1,189
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 94

The achievement compacts are still new and evolving. They were primarily designed for
the K-12 public schools, but higher education is trying to adapt them to better fit what happens at
that level. Some of the challenges include enrollment. In the public K-12 school, attendance is
mandatory, this is not true at the community college and state university levels. Community
Colleges will enroll anyone who wants to take classes. That does not mean the students stay
long enough to graduate with a degree or certificate of some kind. The state university
enrollment is based on choice and ability. Achievement compacts do not result in meaningful
instructional change at this time in higher education. At the public K-12 level, they do keep the
focus on the achievement gap, and what can be done to reduce the gap. The schools in the study
were not engaged in the regional compact pilot. This would allow for the schools in one region
to engage in meaningful dialogue to meet the unique educational needs of all students in a
specific region. More of the benefits of regional compacts will be discussed in Chapter 5 where
recommendations are made.
Schools that participated in the study did have baseline data to start from as well as
determine targets and projections for achievement compact outcomes. The systems for
determining the targets and goals were different at different levels. In the K-12 system, baseline
data was provided by the state and targets and goals were determined on the district level in
collaboration with school, distinct, and community stakeholder involvement. All schools were
measuring the same indicators, which were not written to the specific or unique needs of
individual schools. The state university and community colleges started with data provided by
the state as well as targets/goals being determined by the state. The challenge for the higher
education system is "targets," which are based on student enrollment, and goals of increasing the
number of degrees awarded to underserved populations. When the system as a whole is
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 95

experiencing declining enrollment, it is difficult to increase the number of degrees awarded when
you do not have the same number of students enrolling.
Specific intervention programs, techniques, and materials are only seen in the K-12
system. The community colleges have developmental classes to get students ready to move to
higher-level classes, but do not have “interventions” like those seen on the K-12 level.
Admission to the state university is based on ability, and “interventions” are not part of that
system. Lastly, the achievement compacts were originally designed to be tied to funding levels.
The idea was that educational institutions would design programs to meet the needs of
underserved student populations and the state would fund them to meet the needs. This has not
occurred yet, and it is unclear if or how it will be implemented. Public school institutions in
Oregon are still underfunded and unable to meet the specific and unique needs of the historically
underserved populations. The achievement compacts have succeed in keeping the discussion
and data at the for front of discussions regarding educational reform in Oregon. Chapter 5 will
discuss this issue further and provide additional summary, conclusions, and recommendations for
further research.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 96

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
Background
This final chapter presents a brief overview of the study, a summary of findings,
limitations for the study and recommendations for further research.
Overview of the Study
This study used a purposeful sample of urban schools within one region of Oregon. The
schools included in the study were all potential feeder schools to each other within the region. In
the public K-12 system, five Focus schools were chosen to participate in the study. Focus
schools are in the bottom 15% of Title I schools that need additional support to close the
achievement gap. The other two schools are public schools of higher education, a community
college and a local state university. Both have historically underserved populations between
32% and 35%. The public schools chosen for the study have historically underserved
populations between 61% and 83%. The study consisted of interviews with key educational staff
that were directly involved in designing the achievement compacts for their specific institution.
The interviews consisted of fifteen open-ended questions designed to support three research
questions. The interviews lasted from 40 to 60 minutes each, and were transcribed immediately
following the interview. Additionally achievement compact data from 2011 to 2013 were
reviewed to see if changes have occurred in baseline, target, projections and outcomes or the
educational institutions since the implementation of the achievement compacts.
Summary of Findings
The research questions for this study are:
• What goals are established for disadvantaged students in the achievement compacts?
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 97

• We know the goals for disadvantaged students differ from typical students, but how is the
implementation of the goals or programs different for disadvantaged students?
• How do districts plan to implement the goals focused on disadvantaged students and how
will achievement of goals be measured?
In reviewing the data and information collected regarding the achievement compacts it is
clear they are still evolving. The interpretation, implementation, and application still need to be
refined for all educational entities. Meaningful information that can impact instruction and
increase academic achievement for historically underserved students is the goal.
The state as well as stakeholder committees throughout the state decided the goals for the
achievement compacts. Many of the measurements required were decided by the state. From
there the school districts or other educational institutions took them and refined targets, goals and
projections, but the basic data required by the state was left intact. Some of the data requested by
the state does not give the school district much bang for the buck according to the district
administrator for Oak Tree School District. The example she gave was 7
th
grade attendance.
Attendance is not required for every grade level in the K-12 compacts, but is required for grade
7. It is unclear what the designers of this particular indicator were thinking but never the less it
is included in all the achievement compacts for the K-12 system. For institutions of higher
education, the achievement compacts measure outcomes, they are not process measures and not
necessarily very useful for guiding instruction that will close the achievement gap. Another
challenge facing higher education is enrollment. K-12 schools have captive audiences, since
education on that level is mandatory. Community college and the state university system have
enrollments based on choice. Community colleges will take all students interested in taking
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 98

classes, and state university enrollment is based on ability and choice. The state university
system does not take students who do not have the skills necessary to be successful on that level.
The goals for the public K-12 school district were decided on the district level, after the
templates were provided by the state. The schools took a one size fits all schools approach in the
targets and goal setting. In the original compact proposal (OEIB, 2011) the idea was for each
school to determine the targets and goals based on their unique needs and specific circumstances.
The Oak Tree school district has seventy-eight schools. Not all are in need of additional support
for their underserved populations. The Focus schools have the label, but it is not sure they
receive any benefit from the label. The achievement compacts have focused the attention of the
state and community on the plight of historically underserved students. The accountability
measures do keep the focus in the for-front of the reform movement, and the lack of progress can
mean changes in leadership at a school, as was the case with Red Oak School. Red Oak School
was the only school in the study to experience a decline in the performance indicator, Academic
Achievement and made no growth on the other performance indicators. The other study schools
saw increases in weighted points of between 4.4 and 34.8 points. Red Oak School reported a
decline in weighted points of 2.2, which resulted in moving from Level 2 down to Level 1 on the
performance indicator, Academic Achievement. Laurel Oak School had the highest point growth
increasing in Academic Growth as well as Subgroup Growth. They moved from a Level 2 to
Level 4 in both areas and saw a weighted point increase of 34.8 points. According to data
reported to the state and the achievement compacts, Laurel Oak School showed on track growth
for their economically disadvantaged students in the area of Reading. English Language Learners
and underserved students were not on track for Reading but all of the subgroups were on track
for Math (PPS Report Card, 2013). Red Oak School’s subgroups were all on track for Reading
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 99

growth, but none were on track for Math on track growth. Pin Oak School is economically
disadvantaged and underserved subgroups were on track for Reading growth, but none of the
subgroups was on track for Math growth. Sawtooth Oak School’s underserved subgroup was on
track for Math, but none of the other subgroups was on track for Reading. Costal Oak High
School had growth in both Graduation and Subgroup Graduation. Reading and Math levels for
all subgroups were either Level 1 or Level 2, indicating additional supports and interventions are
needed to bring the scores up to Level’s 4 and 5 that indicate on track growth. Graduation and
Subgroup graduation rates moved from a Level 1 to a Level 2. This still significantly below the
acceptable rate (level 4) but it does show they are doing something differently to increase
graduation rates overall as well as increasing graduation rates for their historically underserved
populations.
Popular Community College and Local State University for the most part met their
targets for historically underserved students. Popular Community College did have fewer
students enrolled in Developmental Math and Reading curses than they had projected, which
might indicate better preparation of incoming students in those areas. Dual enrollment in the
Oregon State University system was also slightly less than projected. Graduation rates at Local
State University for underrepresented/underserved minorities is still significantly less than for all
students, or economically disadvantaged students. According to the outcomes of the
Achievement compacts for 2011-2012, Local State University did meet or exceed their
projections for most subgroups. The University did not meet its projections for awarding
advanced degrees for underrepresented minority students. The biggest challenge faced in higher
education, is enrollment. The achievement compacts look at actual numbers of students in each
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 100

(minority) category. It is difficult to show growth in a specific subgroup, if you do not have any
new members of that subgroup enrolling in the school to begin with.
In summary, input for the achievement compact measures was developed after many state
and community meetings, advisory groups and educational institutions gave input. The difficulty
with the current version of the achievement compacts is they are geared toward K-12 public
school districts and do not fit institutions of higher learning. Another question that must be
asked is weather the data is useful in producing meaningful change? On the K-12 level the
achievement compacts do keep the focus on the success or lack of success of individual schools.
It can tell you which schools are making gains and which are not, but it does not tell the whole
story about the student, as was pointed out by the school district administrator. All the
administrators commented that the achievement compacts are a work in progress and predict
they will continue to morph and change in the years ahead.
The second research question was seeking to differentiate how the implementation of
goals for historically underserved students’ differs from typical students. Interventions are
offered primarily at the elementary school level. There are set amounts of time students must
spend engaged in Reading and Math. Failure to meet benchmark or targets results in additional
time for practice and instruction. On the secondary level, some classes are leveled. For
example, you may have 9
th
grade English and another section of Honors 9
th
grade English.
Higher-level classes required for admission to a four-year college may not be required for high
school graduation. The public schools do have as part of their school report cards, intervention
programs available at each school, for example at Sawtooth Oak School, Laurel Oak School and
Pin Oak School they have the SMART (Start Making a Reader Today) Program, at Red Oak
School they have GEAR UP-College Ahead Program and AVID (Advancement Via Individual
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 101

Determination). At the high school, they have Saturday School for credit recovery and individual
mentoring/tutoring for students through Self-Enhancement INC (SEI). The school district did
have several language immersion programs that were designed to educate students in their native
language while still gaining English skills. This appears to have resulted in some benefit to the
English Language Learner subgroups as far as increasing academic achievement. There was no
evidence that other implementation methods like smaller class size or specialized curriculum or
instructional methods are being implemented in the K-12 public school system. This is most
likely due to a lack of available funding. In the beginning, the achievement compacts were to be
tied to school funding. The schools would outline what they needed financially to implement
programs that would close the achievement compact and the state would fund that. The increase
in funding has not occurred yet, but there is hope that as the compacts evolve and the school
districts determine what works, the funding will eventually become available.
Higher education only offers developmental Math, Reading or non-credit courses to
students who come in under-prepared academically to face the challenges of post high school
education. Other interventions may include tutoring offered by groups within the university or
paid tutors. In higher education, historically underserved or economically disadvantaged students
are expected to perform in the same way as the typical or non-disadvantaged students.
The final research question asked how goals would be measured for disadvantaged or
underserved students. In the public schools, while the achievement compacts are done once per
year, progress monitoring is done more frequently. It may be measured using GPA’s, progress
reports, benchmark tests, or CBM (Curriculum Based Measurement). Attendance is also looked
at, and interventions are made when a student is frequently absent or tardy to school. Students
who fail to make progress are monitored and placed into intervention groups (at the elementary
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 102

level) and given additional time for practice and instruction. The high school offers mentoring
and tutoring programs as well as credit recovery opportunities. Data for the achievement
compacts is submitted to the state yearly, but interventions with students is ongoing throughout
the year and not based strictly on numbers in the achievement compacts. For this particular
school district, they have an office of testing, measurement and accountability. This enables
them to more closely monitor student achievement and identify specific programs or
interventions that may be working and creating a positive impact on student achievement.
Higher education only reports data for the achievement compacts once per year and is
outcome based. The goals are measured by how many students are awarded degrees and
certificates. Achievement compacts for higher education are redundant. They have to package
much of the same data in other ways to meet other state mandates. The achievement compacts
did not replace or enhance any of the reports that were already required. Achievement compacts
were primarily designed for K-12 school systems and do not fit well for higher education. The
way the targets and projections are done is also not very meaningful for higher education.
Enrollment in the higher education institution is based on choice, and ability level at the
university. Students who are not adequately prepared academically do not enroll or are not
admitted into higher education. Here is the disparity for historically underserved or
economically disadvantaged students. With lower achievement and graduation rates for
underserved or underrepresented students, they do not enroll in higher education, and higher
education cannot increase the number of degrees awarded to these students if they are not
enrolled. The focus for higher education should be increasing or providing more opportunities
for historically underserved students to develop the skills needed to enroll in the university
system.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 103

Limitations
The following limitations were present in the study:
• Due to the size of the sample, the findings may not be generalized to other schools and
student populations, especially those in different regions of Oregon.
• The data collection method was based on a semi structured interview process, with the
possibility that the results were subjective.
• Resistance to the interview process was experienced with the public school system, it is
not clear where the resistance originated, but it resulted in a smaller sample than was
originally planned. One school district that was contacted to participate declined to
participate. The school district that did agree, originally agreed to two interviews, but
only followed through on one of them.
• The information gathered from the interviews is based on the perceptions of the three
administrators interviewed who may not constitute a representative sample of all school
administrators.
• There is only one complete year of achievement data that has the baseline, targets,
projections then actual outcomes available at the time of this study, therefore it is unclear
how meaningful this data will be in the future.
• The achievement compacts are a relatively new requirement for the educational
institutions, and are still evolving and changing. The achievement compacts may look
different in the future, require different information and the data may not be able to be
compared.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 104

• Data for the achievement compacts are based on students already in the system and do
not reflect interventions, new programs or proven techniques being implemented to
improve academic performance for older students.
Recommendations for Further Research
This study focuses on the current educational reform movement in Oregon schools. The
goal was to look at how the achievement compacts were being designed, implemented and
monitored across educational institutions in one metropolitan area of Oregon. This study
included five public schools from a K-12 school district, one community college and one state
university. Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made
regarding future research in this area:
• It would be beneficial for the educational institutions in this region to participate in the
regional compact pilot. The community college and state university act as feeder schools
for the K-12 system to send students too. By engaging in the regional compact pilot they
could identify strategies and programs that would enhance the enrollment of historically
underserved students into higher education.
• In the public K-12 system, there are students already in the system at the secondary level
with Level 1 and Level 2 achievement levels in Reading and Math. Focused, intensive,
and immediate intervention programming is needed to ensure these students acquire basic
Reading and Math skills prior to graduating or dropping out. They cannot afford to wait
for future programs that have proven success records. Implementation of a fifth year
alternative education setting should be considered.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 105

• Achievement compacts for institutions of higher education should be redefined and
revamped. The current system with a focus on K-12 does not provide meaningful data
that enhances instruction or improves outcomes for historically underserved populations.
The redundancy in the data could be eliminated. The tools used to measure achievement
in higher education also should be revisited. Using raw numbers based on subgroup
enrollment loses its meaning when enrollment declines or is too small to measure.
• One of the goals of the achievement compacts and the waiver from NCLB was to allow
school district to develop innovative and creative intervention programs that would fit the
needs of their unique schools and student populations. The state has provided a template
for the achievement compacts, but it is unclear if the districts can deviate from this
template. Is this template the minimum required by the state, or are districts bound by
only the indicators the state is asking for? Some room for individualized plans should be
allowed and encouraged by individual schools.
Conclusion
In February 2012, Oregon filed a request for an NCLB waiver. Oregon was one of the
first states to seek and receive a waiver from the NCLB requirements, and has taken on a
statewide educational reform project and has proposed sweeping reform changes for its
educational system. Achievement compacts were introduced to all school entities in April 2012.
Guidelines and templates were sent to all school districts within Oregon to be completed and
approved by July 2, 2012 prior to the implementation in the fall, 2012 (OEIB, 2012). These
compacts required all public school entities to network in a coordinated and collaborative effort
to set goals and report results based on common measures of progress and outcomes in all stages
of learning and for all groups of learners. Additionally, in February 2013, a proposal for a
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 106

regional achievement compact was introduced in the form of a pilot program. The goal of the
regional achievement compact is bring together institutions in a region to share ideas, pool
resources, and ensure all institutions, regardless of the age of the students, contribute to the
development of a P-20 continuum that prepares all students to be successful in post-secondary
experiences (Regional Achievement Compact, 2013).
In order to achieve its goals, the Oregon Legislature passed Senate Bill 253 (SB 253) in
2011, which established the most aggressive high school and college completion goals of any
state in the country (Oregon Learns, 2011). SB 253 established what is commonly referenced as
the 40/40/20 goal. It states by 2025, the following goals will be achieved: 40% of adult
Oregonians will have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, 40% will have earned an associate’s
degree or post-secondary credential, and the remaining 20% or less will have earned a high
school diploma or its equivalent (Oregon Learns, 2011). One of Oregon’s goals includes
identifying the contributory sources that impact achievement gaps, and take measures through
the use of achievement compacts to address them. By addressing more than just the educational
issues, the State wants to document and implement best practices for closing or at least reducing
the achievement gap that currently exists.
Senate Bill 909 also established the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) and
charged it with ensuring the success of SB 253’s 40/40/20 goal. The OEIB reports directly on
progress regularly to the state legislature (Oregon Learns: Executive Summary, 2011). The OEIB
consists of the Governor, John Kitzhaber, and twelve additional members nominated by the
Governor and confirmed by the Oregon Senate in November 2011.
OEIB identified three key strategies to implement in the reform project. The first was to
create a coordinated, public education system from preschool through college as well as career
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 107

readiness. The second strategy was to focus state investment on achieving student outcomes. The
third strategy was to build statewide support systems such as setting standards, providing
guidance, and conducting assessments.
The study looked at schools in the public K-12 system, a public community college, and
a public state university. In the public K-12 system, five schools located in an urban school
district were included in the study. These schools were all designated as Focus schools, serving
large numbers of historically underserved and socioeconomically disadvantaged students and
require additional support to close the achievement gap. Two of the schools served PK or
kindergarten to fifth grade, two schools served kindergarten to eighth grade and one high school
serving students from ninth to twelfth grade. Four of the five schools reported growth on the
performance indicators identified in the achievement compacts. The fifth school had a decline in
one performance indicator, Academic Achievement and remained the same in the other
performance indicators, Academic Growth and Subgroup Growth. That school is under the
leadership of a new principal this school year. The administrator for the school district reported
in the interview one of the good outcomes of the achievement compacts was that it holds schools
accountable for the performance of all students and keeps the discussion about the achievement
gap the focus of the reform movement.
The community college faces challenges with enrollment, and attracting historically
underserved students, but does offer developmental Math and Reading courses to help students
gain the skills necessary to participate in for credit courses leading to a diploma, certificate, or
license. The administrator interviewed at the school felt the achievement compacts were good in
that they focused on improving outcomes for historically underserved student populations, but
felt the requirements for the achievement compacts were focused more on K-12 schools, and not
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 108

very meaningful for higher education. She also felt the means for developing the targets and
projections for the achievement compacts was neither the best nor most efficient method. Her
specific challenge we in the projections for outcome for the next year when the school is
experiencing declining enrollment.
The state university has a unique take on achievement compacts. They only enroll
students who have the ability to meet the entrance requirements for the university and make a
choice to go there. The public schools do not have to deal with enrollment in the same way since
education is compulsory in the K-12 system. The administrator who participated in the
interviews also felt the achievement compacts did not fit the higher education model, and were
redundant in nature to many of the other reports and data they are required to report to the state.
The director also stated she felt the focus the achievement compacts brought to the achievement
gap was a positive thing. Overall, while not perfect, the achievement compacts appear to
bringing about some changes. They may be slow and need to be refined, but they are seen as a
positive step forward.
Finally, the researcher would recommend the educational entities in this urban metro area
work together in a regional achievement compact. The all have something the other needs.
Higher education needs the student enrollment from the K-12 system high schools. The public
school system needs some of the resources the higher education institutions have and could share
in the form of mentoring, internships, support classes and most of all hope. Many young people
do not feel higher education is even an option due to their life circumstances. The intervention
of the community college or state university could provide them with the vision, motivation and
skills needed to be successful in college. The more students that strive and work to get into
higher education, the more the aspirational goal of 40/40/20 has a chance of becoming a reality.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 109

References
Achievement Compact Steering Committee Critical Questions. (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.oregoned.org/site/pp.asp.
Angeli, D. (2006). The Oregon legislature’s constitutional obligation to provide an adequate
system of public education: Moving from bold rhetoric to effective action. Willamette
Law Review, 4, 489-493(4).
Arcia, E. (2006). Achievement and enrollment status of suspended students: Outcomes in a large
multicultural school district. Education and Urban Society, 38, 359-369.
Armstrong, J. S. (1982). The value of formal planning for strategic decisions: Review of
empirical research. Strategic Management Journal, 3(2), 197-211.
Baines, L. (2007). Learning from the world: Achieving more by doing less. Phi Delta Kappan,
89(2), 98-100.
Barnes, L. (2007). Learning from the world: Achieving more by doing less. Phi Delta Kappan,
89(2), 98-100.
Baylis, E. A. (1997). The Oregon model: Education reform by public mandate. Journal of Law
and Education, 26(2), 47-99.
Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Morison, K. B. (2006).The silent epidemic: Perspectives of
high school dropouts. Civic Enterprises.
Bali,V.A. & Alverez, R.M. (2004).The race gap in student achievement scores: Longitudinal
Evidence from a racially diverse school district. The Policy Studies Journal, 32(3), 393-
415.
Chenoweth, K. (2009). It can be done, it is being done, and here is how. Phi Delta Kappan,
91(1), 38-43.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 110

Choi, Y. (2007). Academic achievement and problem behaviors among Asian Pacific Islander
American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 403-415.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2009). The academic achievement gap in grades 3
to 8.The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 398-419(2).
Crew, R. (2013). A proposal for a regional achievement compact pilot. Oregon Education
Investment Board. Retrieved from www.oregon.gov/gov/oeib/docs/
22chiefeducationofficerdeliverablessummary.pdf.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2008). Educating teachers: How they do it abroad. Time, p.
34. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0, 9171, 1713557,
00.html
Fernandez, K. E. (2009). Evaluating school improvement plans and their effect on academic
performance. Educational Policy, 25(2), 338-367. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904809351693.
Figlio, D. N. (1998). Short-term effects of a 1990s-era property tax limit: Panel evidence on
Oregon’s measure 5. National Tax Journal, 51(1), pp55-68.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys a step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Freiberg, H. J., and Lapointe, J. M. (2006). Research-based programs for preventing and solving
discipline problems. In C. M. Evertson, & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of
classroom management (pp. 735-786). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fryer, R. G., & Levitt, S. D. (2004).Understanding the Black-White test score gap in the first two
years of school. Review 86, 447-464(2).
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 111

Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap:
Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357621
Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2004). Connection and regulation at home and in school:
Predicting growth in achievement for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research,
19(2), 405-427.
Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2006).School quality and the Black-White Achievement Gap.
NBER working paper no. 12651.
Hawkins, J. D., Smith, B. H., & Catalano, R. F. (2004).Social development and social and
emotional learning. In M. C. Wang, & J. H. Walberg, Building academic success on
social and emotional learning: What does the research say? (pp. 135-150-150). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Heckman, J. J., & LaFontaine, P. A. (2007). The American high school graduation rate: Trends
and levels. IZA Discussion Paper #3216.
Hyper REASERACH (Research ware).www.researchware.com/products/hyperresearch.html.
Irvine, J. J. (2002). In search of wholeness: African American teachers and their culturally
competent classroom practices. Palgrave, New York.
Jerald, C. D. (2001). Dispelling the myth revisited: Preliminary findings from a nationwide
analysis of “high-flying” schools. The Education Trust. Retrieved from
http://www.edtrust.org/
Just for the Kids, Inc. (2000). Promising practices study of high performing schools. Retrieved
from http://www.just4kids.org.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 112

Kolter, P., & Murphy, P. E. (1981). Strategic planning for higher education. Journal of Higher
Education, 52, 470-489.
Konstantopoulos, S. (2008). Do small classes reduce the achievement gap between low and high
achievers? Evidence from Project STAR. The Elementary School Journal, 108(4), 275-
291.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher 35(7), 3-12.
Lashway, L. (2003, June 2003). The mandate to help low-performing schools. ERIC Digest169.
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity?
Educational Research,31(January-February), 3-12.
McGee, G. W. (2004). Choosing the achievement gap: Lessons from Illinois’ golden spike high-
poverty high performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9(2),
97-125.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, S. B., & Stipek, D. (2006).Contemporaneous and longitudinal associations between social
behavior and literacy achievement in a sample of low-income elementary school children.
Child Development, 77, 103-117.
Murnane, R. J., Willett, J. B., Bub, K. L., & McCartney, K. (2006).Explaining puzzling patterns
in Black-White achievement gaps. Harvard Graduate School of Education.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. (2005).
http://www.naacpldf.org/contnt/pdf/gap/Closing_the_Gap_-_Moving_from
_Rhetoric_to_Reality.pdf.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 113

Oregon Education Association. (2012). Oregon Education Investment Board and achievement
compacts. Retrieved from www.oregoned.org.
Oregon Department of Education (2012). Office of Assessment and Information Services.
Retrieved from http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=3749
Oregon Department of Education (2012). Education Data Explorer
(http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reports/toc.aspx).
Oregon Department of Education (2012). Statewide report card: An annual report to the
legislature on Oregon public schools 2011-2013. Retrieved from
http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=1821.
Oregon Learns: Executive Summary Report to the legislature from the OEIB. December 2011.
(2011). In Oregon Learns: Executive Summary. Oregon: Oregon State Legislature.
Oregon learns: Report to the legislature from the Oregon Education Investment Board [Report].
(December 15, 2011). Oregon Department of Education: Oregon Department of
Education.
Oregon Education Investment Board (2011). Oregon Learns: Executive Summary Report to the
legislature from the OEIB. December 2011.
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2012). Achievement compact review and
recommendations . Retrieved from http://oregoned.org
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2012). K-12 ESD Achievement Compact Definitions.
Retrieved from http://www.oregoned.org
Oregon Education Investment Board. (2012).Guidance for Completion of Achievement
Compacts for 2012-2013.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 114

Oregon Quality Education Commission. (2004). Final Report 20.Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
Oregon University System (2012): Retrieved from http; www.ous.edu.
Orlofsky, G. F. (2002). The funding gap: Low-income and minority students receive fewer
dollars. The Education Trust. Retrieved from http://edtrust.org/
Paine, S.L., & Schleicher, A. (2011). What the U.S. can learn from the world’s most successful
education reform efforts. Retrieved from http://mcgrawhillreseardchfoundation.org.
Phillips, M., & Chin, T. (2004). School inequality: What do we know? In Kathryn Neckeman
(Ed.) Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. pp 468-470.
Parker, D. (2012). A better way to motivate achievement. Leadership (March-April).
Perie, M., Moran, R., Lutkus, A., &Tirre, W. (2005). NAEP 2004 trends in academic progress.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsrportcard/pdf/main2005/2005464.pdf
Pink, D, 2009 Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead Books: New York,
NY.
Popular Community College. Retrieved from www.pcc.edu/about/quick-
facts/demographics.html.
Portland Public School District. Retrieved from http://www.pps.k12.or.us.
Poverty-stricken schools: What can we learn from the rest of the world and from successful
schools in economically disadvantaged areas in the US. (2012). Retrieved from
http://ic.galegroup.com.
Popular Community College (2013). Retrieved from http://www.pcc.edu/about/quick-
factd/demographics.html.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 115

Promising Practices Study of High Performing Schools (2000). Just for the Kids, Inc. Retrieved
from http://www.just4kids.org/
Robinson, J. (2007). Presence and persistence: Poverty ideology and inner-city teaching. The
Urban Review, 39(5), 541-565.
Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: Recommendations from
the Center on Education Policy. (2007). Retrieved from www.cep-de.cog
Shannon, S. G., & Bylsma, P. (2002).Addressing the Achievement Gap: A challenge for
Washington State Educators. ERIC Digest, 169.
Simon, S. (2013). High School graduation rate up sharply, but red flags abound. Reuters.
Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/25.
Thomas, E., Conant, P., & Register, S. (2010). Why we can’t get rid of failing teachers.
Newsweek, 115(11), 24-27.
Tienda (Eds.), M., & Mitchele (Eds.), F. (2006). Multiple Origins, Uncertain Destines
Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Tyler, J. H., & Lofstrom, M. (2009). Finishing high school: alternative pathways and dropout
recovery. The Future of Children 19(1), 77-103.
United States Department of Education.(2013). Public law print of PL 107-110, the No Child
Left Behind act of 2001. Retrieved
http://www.2ed.gov/policy.elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
Venezia, A., & Kirst, M. (2006). The governance divided: The case study for Oregon. The
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Wilson, D. S., & Briggs, A. (2005). The Dynamics of School Attainment of England’s Ethnic
Minorities. Unpublished manuscript, University of Bristol.
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 116

Wingert, T.E., Conant, P., & Register, S (2010). Why we can’t get rid of failing teachers.
Newsweek, 155(1), 24-27.

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 117

Endnotes
Levels are calculated using the percentage of points earned out of the total points eligible. Three
indicators are weighted and combined to give each school and overall achievement level. The
levels are: Academic Achievement, Academic Growth and Subgroup Growth.

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 118

APPENDIX A
Interview Survey Questions
1. Describe your school/district- demographics, characteristics, accomplishments
and challenges.
2. How is a student identified as at-risk in this district/school? Prompt: at what age,
based on what factors- academic, socioeconomic, minority status etc.
3. Is the same criterion for identifying at-risk students used consistently within the
schools in the district/region?
4. Describe the types of programs or services that are offered to at-risk students in
this district/school.
5. How do the intervention programs differ from the programs offered for the
general population? Prompt: class size, counseling, special class, modifications
etc.
6. Do services and programs differ for at-risk students at different levels? How do
they differ? Prompt: elementary, secondary, post-secondary.
7. At what grade levels are the most intensive interventions programs focused?
8. Do all schools within the district offer the same programs and services to their at-
risk populations?
9. How is progress monitored, how often is it reported out, and who is responsible
for tracking this data?
10. What are the challenges being faced with in the school/district/region when it
comes to determining what goes into the Achievement Compact?
AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 119

11. Who has the final say in what is included in the Achievement Compact and what
is not?
12. Who is responsible for determining what/how programs for at-risk students will
be incorporated into the compacts?
13. Describe the process the school/district used to write the achievement compact,
Prompt: was it done by a school/district committee, or by departments.
14. Have the achievement compacts made an impact on the instructional practices of
the teacher serving at-risk youth? If so, how?

AN EXAMINATION OF OREGON'S ACHIEVEMENT COMPACTS 120

APPENDIX B
Invitation to Participate in the Study
Date:
Dear:
My name is Lynn Garrett and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern
California. I also work for the Orange County Department of Education in Southern California
as a director in the Alternative Education Division (ACCESS). I am currently writing my
dissertation on school reform. In general I am looking at Oregon’s Achievement Compacts.
Specifically I am interested in how the targets and goals were developed and designed as they
pertain to at-risk or disadvantaged (excluding special education) student populations. My study
will also look at the public K-12 system as well as the state university level, and how they
support learning for at-risk or disadvantages students. I would like to conduct one or two
interviews with administrators that had input in deciding what data to use and achievement
targets to strive for in the Achievement Compacts. The structured interviews would take
approximately 30 to 45 minutes each with an optional follow up phone call to clarify questions
that may come up. The structured interview consists of approximately 14 to 15 questions. I
would like to ask for your support in conducting this study.
Identifying information in regards to the name of the school or names of personnel will
not be included in the study. Factitious names will be used on all levels. I would like to conduct
the interviews at the end of September (September 26 & 27) and the beginning of October (date
to be determined).
I appreciate your consideration of my request and look forward to hearing from you. If I
can provide any further information regarding my study, I would be happy to provide it.
Sincerely,

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study focuses on the implementation of achievement compacts in Oregon as they relate to historically underserved populations. The purpose of this study was to determine how the goals for disadvantaged students were established, ascertain how the implementation of the goals or programs differ for disadvantaged students, and understand how the goals will be implemented and measured. ❧ This study used a purposeful sample of urban schools within one region of Oregon. The schools included in the study were all potential feeder schools to each other within the region. In the public K-12 system, five Focus schools were chosen to participate in the study. Focus schools are in the bottom 15% of Title I schools that need additional support to close the achievement gap. The other two schools are public schools of higher education, a community college and a local state university. Both have historically underserved populations between 32% and 35%. The public schools chosen for the study have historically underserved populations between 61% and 83%. The study consisted of interviews with key educational staff that were directly involved in designing the achievement compacts for their specific institution. The interviews consisted of fifteen open‐ended questions designed to support three research questions. Additionally achievement compacts from 2011 to 2013 were reviewed to see if changes have occurred in baseline, target, projections and outcomes for the educational institutions since the implementation of the achievement compacts. ❧ Findings included acknowledgement that the achievement compacts are keeping the discussion regarding the achievement alive in the community and in the legislature. The achievement compacts are still evolving, but are seen as a positive step toward closing the achievement gap.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Analysis of STEM programs in Oregon public high schools

PDF

The formation and implementation of a regional achievement collaborative

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development

PDF

An exploratory study of professional development to improve student reading: a case study in Oahu Hawaii

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Allocation of resources and personnel to increase student achievement

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of non-title I schools

PDF

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

PDF

Motives and methods: motivation, learning approaches, and academic achievement of students during first year transition to medical school

Asset Metadata

Creator Garrett, Lynn (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 04/02/2014

Defense Date 12/16/2013

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

Tag accountability,achievement compacts,at‐risk students,OAI-PMH Harvest,Oregon school reform

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email lgarrett@ocde.us

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-371820

Unique identifier UC11297277

Identifier etd-GarrettLyn-2317.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-371820 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GarrettLyn-2317.pdf

Dmrecord 371820

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Garrett, Lynn

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