Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools
(USC Thesis Other)
Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EXAMINING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DISTRICT REFORMS THROUGH GAP
ANALYSIS: ADDRESSING THE PERFORMANCE GAP AT TWO HIGH SCHOOLS
by
Cuauhtémoc Rafael Avila
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2011
Copyright 2011 Cuauhtémoc Rafael Avila
ii
DEDICATION
I have been blessed with being part of a family of origin that has always been
there for me. The encouragement, support, and patience of my family of procreation
have given me the inner strength to pursue and realize my dream, with curiosity, passion,
and unrelenting commitment.
This dissertation is dedicated to all my family members, for their interest in
guiding my life through the labyrinths of this often malicious and mundane world. I
thank them for their company, laughter, and spirit, which over the years have been the
essence of my exuberant and worthwhile existence. Their collective resilience has
empowered me to persevere, and to learn from every life experience—good, bad, or
indifferent. I thank each of them for teaching me the following lessons:
• To Maria and Rafael, my parents, for providing me with the ingredients to value
family, culture, and work ethic!
• To my brothers, Gumaro, Jose Luis, Cresencio, Juan Antonio, José de Jesús, and
Enrique, for showing me the true spirit of brotherhood, during both scarcity and
abundance!
• To my sisters, Rafaela and Ana, for nurturing my moral virtues by being my
bookmarks of decency, discipline, and kindness!
• To Pina, my wife, for motivating me to pursue my dreams. In the face of
adversity, your love and craziness were the stimulants behind my often stoic and
unwavering determination!
iii
• To Xitlali (my Star), Ixtaccihuatl (my Sleeping Woman), and Tonantzin (my
Goddess), the joys of my life and auroras of my darkness. Thank you for
accentuating the beauty of life and for being the best daughters a father could ever
have!
Know that my life during the past three years could have been challenging
and painful, but your support, directly and indirectly, nurtured my desire to march
forward in an inquisitive and gratifying manner. You should feel proud of
yourselves, as you have wisely invested in the creation and nurturing of a noble
and humble servant, who has so much to give: me!
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The idea of a doctoral degree was conceived during my years with the Compton
Unified School District. It remained Platonic until three elements coalesced and
generated the needed momentum to transform the idea into a plan and, subsequently, into
an action: my wife’s encouragement, my daughters’ inspiration, and Dr. Michael F.
Escalante’s expectations. You, most of all, deserve the credit for my ambition to pursue
and complete this dissertation.
Many others played key roles during this three-year journey, and I wish to thank
and acknowledge you for it. I want to acknowledge my family, the centerpiece of my
life. Thank you for love and kindness, and everything else that you have given me! Dr.
Escalante, thank you for all your support, encouragement, and wisdom. (Jesus Christ! is
there something or someone you do not know? You are a wealth of knowledge, and a
truly humble and caring person). Thanks for looking out for me. Dr. Marsh and Dr.
Rueda, thank you for your patience, guidance, and ingenuity throughout this trailblazing
project. It seemed difficult at times but your providential knowledge and composure
always yielded the right solutions. Dr. Rueda, thank you especially for your accessibility
and timely feedback. Dr. Castruita, your knowledge, experience, and realism were
phenomenal! You helped me keep things in perspective, and inspired me to pursue
excellence in seeking the essence of true leadership.
Angela, I thank you for being there with me during the first part of this program.
Your conversations and feedback were instrumental to a positive and exciting beginning.
Brent, you are a crazy dude! You have been a great coworker and colleague, but more
v
importantly, an awesome friend (Go Dodgers!). Mary, what can I say; you kept things
moving. Thanks for all your understanding, support, and hard work. Your insight and
persistence was the guiding light through this sometimes nebulous experience.
I want to thank my extended family in Glendale: Kathy, Michele, Dick, John,
Maria, Hank, Frank (ETIS Rocks!), and the many others who in multiple ways
encouraged and supported my professional and educational endeavors during the past
four years. Kathy, I especially thank you for your unbelievable support and
understanding. You are the dream boss! Also, I want to thank the staff at Daily High
School for their patience and support. Sid, Pat, Jenny, Judy, Robert, and Jorge, thank you
in particular for making my job so much easier. You are an extraordinary group of
coworkers.
Finally, I want to extend a warm thanks to the USC Rossier School of Education
for the opportunity to join the Trojan family, and its professors and advisors, who made
this journey such an eye-opening educational experience.
Thank you everyone!
Mexicatiahui!
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND AND REVIEW 1
Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 2
Importance of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Project 5
Gap Analysis 7
A Framework for Institutional Problem-Solving 11
Creating an Advantages Partnership 11
CHAPTER TWO: ANALYZING THE ROOTS OF THE PROBLEMS 15
Review of Literature 15
Introduction 15
Policies 17
Effective School Correlates 21
Sources of Performance 25
Methodology 45
Description of the Project 45
Purpose of the Project 46
Gap Analysis Process Model 46
Creating an Advantages Partnership with the RUSD 48
Context for Current Performance Gaps 49
Data Collection 51
Interview Protocol 51
Preparing for the Interviews 52
Purposeful Sampling 53
Scanning Interviews 54
Stages of Concerns Interviews 54
One-month Interviews 55
Data Analysis 56
Confirmation of Data 57
Challenges and Limitations 58
Human Subjects Considerations 59
Findings 60
Summary of Positive Activities 62
Summary of Possible Performance Gaps and Their Root Causes 66
vii
CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS 80
Introduction 80
Literature Review 81
Goals 81
Implementation and Accountability 86
Cultural Settings 93
Summary of Recommendations 101
Goals 101
Implementation and Accountability 103
Cultural Settings 108
Implications for Professional Practice 110
REFERENCES 112
APPENDICES 122
APPENDIX A: INQUIRY PROJECT TIMELINE 122
APPENDIX B: INFORMATION SHEET 123
APPENDIX C: TABLE 1: GAP ANALYSIS PROCESS MODEL 124
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL 125
APPENDIX E: SCANNING INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 126
APPENDIX F: SECOND ROUND INTERVIEWS 128
APPENDIX G: TABLE 2: INNOVATION CONFIGURATION 130
APPENDIX H: TABLE 3: ROOT CAUSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 131
APPENDIX I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 133
APPENDIX J: POWER POINT PRESENTATION 147
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Gap Analysis Process Model 124
Table 2: Innovation Configuration 130
Table 3: Root Causes and Recommendations 133
ix
ABSTRACT
In spite of state and federal initiatives enacted to stimulate academic parity and
achievement between all student groups, such as California’s Public Schools
Accountability Act of 1999 and the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the
pernicious achievement gap is a veritable reminder of the magnitude of work to be done
in America’s public schools. This Capstone Project examined the implementation of
three reforms intended to addresses the academic needs of students in the Rowland
Unified School District: The Ball Foundation, English Learner Instructional Support
Leads, and Three Essential Priorities. The findings revealed that although the district, in
general, has demonstrated its capacity to produce quality educational programs,
performance gaps among English learners continued to thrive. With respect to the
implementation of the three reforms, the findings indicated that reform implementation
was fragmented, and suggested the presence of performance gaps occasioned by
deficiencies in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational processes and
resources among district and school personnel. The project team generated a set of
specific recommendations supported by current research to abate the root causes of
performance gaps found in the implementation of the three district reforms. The
recommendations focused on developing and communicating specific goals, tailoring
professional development, and adopting implementation guidelines and systems for
accountability germane to district reforms.
1
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
Introduction
The landmark 1954 court decision, Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education,
declared racial segregation in Southern school systems unconstitutional and sought to
remedy the practice of providing unequal educational opportunities to targeted groups of
students—a practice that in many cases was tolerated by state and local policymakers
(Kirst, 2004). This court decision was controversial and was neither welcomed nor
implemented by everyone. One decade later, under the leadership of President Johnson,
the federal government took drastic legislative steps to address the educational needs of
segregated and economically disadvantaged students, with the enactment of the
Elementary and Secondary Educational Act of 1965 (ESEA). Since its inception, ESEA
has included several amendments, such as Title VI (Aid to Handicapped Children) and
Title VII (Bilingual Education Programs), and a series of reauthorizations, including the
Education Consolidation Improvement Act of 1981 and the Improving America’s
Schools Act of 1994.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, is the most comprehensive of all
educational policies that have followed Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, and the
most comprehensive and controversial reauthorization of the ESEA. NCLB addresses
educational access, performance, and attainment with provisions driven by standards and
accountability to hold schools and districts accountable for teacher quality, instructional
practices, and student performance (Stecher, Hamilton, & Gonzalez, 2003). Specifically,
NCLB intends to improve student outcomes by establishing and measuring against
academic performance standards, with the expectation that 100% of all students perform
2
at the proficient or advanced level in reading and math on state adopted standardized tests
by the end of the 2014 school year. The ultimate goal of this federal mandate is to afford
all students attending public schools a quality education and access to post-secondary
careers.
In response to the standards-based accountability context set by NCLB, school
districts across the country have introduced aggressive efforts to successfully implement
comprehensive school reforms to meet this mandate’s noble but daunting standards,
especially those standards that pertain to student performance. Popular reform strategies
aimed at engendering academic parity among all student groups include large scale
reforms such as Class Size Reduction (CSR), Small Learning Communities (SLM),
Professional Learning Communities (PLC), and variety of local, small scale intervention
programs.
Statement of the Problem
In spite of the accountability mechanisms of NCLB, and the many accountability
provisions found in state and district policies (which include relentless oversight and in
some instances salacious financial incentives), establishing parity in educational access,
academic performance, and educational attainment among all student groups remains
elusive. At the national level, results from the National Assessment for Educational
Statistics (NCES) show that minority and economically disadvantaged students continue
to trail their White and Asian counterparts on various achievement tests. For example, in
2007 44% of White and 46% of Asian students in Grade 8 were proficient or above in
reading, compared to only 13% of Blacks and 16% of Latino students. In math, 51% of
3
White and 67% of Asian students in Grade 8 were proficient or above, while only 12% of
Blacks and 17% of Latino students scored at this performance level. This disparity in
academic performance between ethnic groups corresponds to a veritable disparity in
educational attainment. In 2007, for instance, Whites registered a dropout rate of 5.8%,
Blacks 10.7%, and Latinos—although a decrease from previous years—a rate of 22.1%
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007).
In California, trends in student performance and educational attainment in recent
years have striking similarities to those observed at the national level. Data from the
2007 California Standards Test (CST) revealed that 62% of White and 64% of Asian
students were proficient in English-language arts, compared to only 36% of Blacks and
26% of Latino students. In math, 36% of Whites and 45% of Asian students performed at
the proficient or above level, compared to only 23% of Blacks and 16% of Latino
students. As for educational attainment, in 2007 White students posted a dropout rate of
8%, Asians 5.5%, Blacks 23.9%, and Latino students18.3% (California Department of
Education, 2010). This pernicious achievement gap has thrived in light of existing
federal and state policies that have been legislated to eliminate it, or at the very least
decrease it.
Importance of the Problem
It is imperative that policymakers and educational leaders find solutions to the
achievement gap to ensure parity in educational access, academic performance, and
educational attainment among all student groups, to keep America vibrant and
competitive in global economic markets. Addressing and meeting the educational
4
shortcomings of ethnic minorities must be the national priority, given that current labor
patterns show a growing demand for well-educated, technology savvy workers with
strong cognitive skills, such as abstract reasoning, problem-solving, and effective
communication (Karoly & Panis, 2004). This demand for a better-prepared workforce
intensifies at a time when the percentage of ethnic minorities in the U.S. population
exceeds 33%. With Latinos being the fastest growing of all ethnic groups, the PEW
Institute projects that by the year 2050, Latinos alone will represent 30% of the U.S.
population (Pew Institute, 2008). In other words, approximately 30% of America’s
population will soon be comprised of an ethnic group with a history of low-academic
performance and a high dropout rate—two statistical realities that America cannot afford
to overlook for pedagogical, economic, and moral reasons.
These market and demographic trends are especially critical to school districts
that serve ethnic minorities—especially the districts that oversee one or more of the
nearly 2,000 high schools nationwide that are deemed “dropout factories” for having
dropout rates that exceed 40% (Tucci, 2009). These school districts have a moral
obligation to successfully address current educational practices to improve the academic
performance and educational attainment of ethnic minorities, particularly among Latino
students. If ignored, these trends will likely produce an educational and economic
breakdown of catastrophic proportions. For as the number of students who fail to meet
proficiency standards or who dropout from school altogether is likely to skyrocket, so
will a workforce that is cognitively anemic and incapable of sustaining America’s
economic vitality on a burgeoning international market (World Bank, 2007).
5
Purpose of the Project
The Rowland Unified School District (RUSD), which serves a predominantly
ethnic minority student population, responded to these external pressures with a
comprehensive school reform effort to support good instruction, enhance learning at the
elementary and middle school levels for Latino students, and make its two high schools
highly effective in both perception and reality. To help measure its progress, the RUSD
partnered with a dissertation team from the University of Southern California and
requested that the team analyze the implementation of three district reforms (Ball
Foundation, English Learner Instructional Support Leads, and Three Essential Priorities)
at the district’s two high schools, Nogales (NHS) and Rowland (RHS), within the context
of current performance outcomes among minority students, particularly among Latino
students.
The Ball Foundation is a partnership that includes three key initiatives: increase
student achievement in literacy, assist in the development of a strategic plan, and to
develop communities of practice. The creation of the strategic plan includes two
strategies and measurable results. The English Learner Instructional Support Leads
(ELIS Leads) are lead positions that were implemented at various schools and charged
with building a common core of knowledge and practice and enhancing the capacity
among staff members to serve English learners. The goals of the ELIS Leads were the
following: disseminate content and information while serving as liaisons for the district
and school sites; share expertise and establish individual classroom as a model room;
facilitate the application of strategies in other classrooms on campus.
6
The Three Essential Priorities was conceived to increase common understanding
of the overarching district goals, and included the following: (1) strengthen first, best
instruction, English Learner (EL) instruction, and response to instruction and
intervention; (2) implement district-wide agreements about efficacious instruction and
support for teaching and learning; (3) build cultural proficiency across the system to
improve teaching and learning.
Accordingly, this project was undertaken by a three-person project team that
followed a consulting model. The following were the two primary goals of this project:
(1) determine if there exist performance gaps in the implementation of the three district
reforms; (2) if performance gaps exist, provide the RUSD with a set of recommendations,
based on scholarly research that addresses the root causes of the performance gaps linked
to the implementation of district reforms.
Analyzing the implementation of district reforms was twofold. First, the team
reviewed a variety of sources of data to establish the educational policy context that at the
time of the projected prevented the RUSD, in general, and NHS and RHS, in particular,
from being considered highly-effective as measured by federal and state academic
performance standards, including the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) benchmarks
established under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the Academic
Performance Index (API) benchmarks established under the California Public School
Accountability Act of 1999 (PSAA), respectively (California Department of Education,
2010).
7
Secondly, the team conducted a series of interviews with a representative group of
district employees, composed exclusively of district office administrators and classified,
certificated, and administrative personnel from the two high schools. Using the Clark
and Estes (2009) Gap Analysis Process Model, the project team analyzed the content of
these interviews to determine the degree to which the three district reforms were being
implementation and identified the root causes of performance gaps in the implementation
of these reforms. The team analyzed the findings and interpreted their implications on
the schools and district’s overall academic performance. The team then generated a set
of viable recommendations on how the RUSD could maximize the impact of its reform
efforts to achieve district goals. The project team was guided by the following four
questions:
• What were the school district’s goals?
• What did key role groups in the school district perceive to be the root causes/gaps
and possible solutions?
• What root causes/gaps were identified?
• What solutions were proposed?
Gap Analysis
Rationale
For this project, the Clark and Estes (2009) Gap Analysis Process Model was the
most practical among several available process models designed to assist organizations,
such as school districts, improve their performance. This particular model is instrumental
in separating ineffective interventions or reforms (i.e. snake oil and fads) from
8
interventions that are supported by reliable research. The unified elements and principles
of the Gap Analysis Process Model make it an effective tool for explicitly
communicating an organization’s problem statement, goals, performance standards,
performance gaps, and possible solutions to address the root causes of performance gaps.
These principles are highly applicable to school reforms. The Gap Analysis Process
Model was thus selected for its potential to support school districts, such as the RUSD, in
identifying solutions or interventions to help them meet performance benchmarks as
stipulated in federal and state mandates. Table 1 below depicts a flowchart with the
seven steps of the Clark and Estes (2009) Gap Analysis Process Model.
Table 1: Gap Analysis Process Model
9
Goals
The model emphasizes alignment of goals at the global, intermediate, and
performance levels. A global or organizational goal provides a vision for the
organization, is broad in scope, and may take years to accomplish (e.g., a school district’s
mission statement). An intermediate goal is moderate in scope and may take weeks or
months to accomplish (e.g., a unit lesson plan for a reading program). A performance
goal is narrow in scope and may take hours or days to accomplish (e.g., a classroom
reading lesson). Effective performance goals ultimately support intermediate and global
goals, and are clearly defined to enhance focus to the task.
Gaps and Root Causes
To determine a performance gap between a desired goal and actual performance,
the present level of performance is subtracted from the benchmark, standard, or desired
goal. For instance, to learn if a district-wide reading program is being implemented at its
intended level, one would examine the current level of implementation and subtract it
from the ideal level of implementation. From this precise problem statement, a thorough
analysis would follow to determine what factors or barriers are responsible for the
identified performance gaps in the implementation of the reading program.
The instrumental component of the Gap Analysis Process Model is step four,
Causes. This step entails the keen examination of root causes using three separate but
often interrelated lenses: knowledge and skills, motivation, organization processes and
resources. Because of its systematic approach, this step is fundamental in identifying and
targeting performance gaps that stem from a lack of knowledge and skills, motivation,
10
and organizational resources and processes. For example, an analysis of performance
gaps found in the implementation of a reading program could reveal that some personnel
responsible for the program’s implementation lack the skills, motivation, or resources to
implement the program at the intended level.
Solutions
It follows that the identification of performance gaps and their root causes can
lead to possible solutions or interventions, depending on the circumstances surrounding
the performance gaps. In the above example, a school not implementing the district-wide
reading program at the desired level may discover, through the Gap Analysis Process
Model, a link between the limited implementation of the reading program and a lack of
motivation to implement it among staff members. A possible solution or intervention to
address this motivational deficiency among staff members is to organize a series of
school-wide activities structured to increase their motivational level as it relates to
implementing the reading program. However, the school may discover that there also
exists a gap in motivation among district-level personnel, a gap which must first be
addressed and closed before addressing and closing the gap in motivation among school
personnel.
In either case, knowing the root causes of a performance gaps is fundamental in
targeting effective solutions. For school districts serving under-performing minority and
economically disadvantaged students, such as the RUSD, it is imperative that they
identify the root causes behind their performance gaps in order for them to meet their
organizational goals.
11
A Framework for Institutional Problem-Solving
This alternative capstone dissertation project was a collaborative effort with the
RUSD, and the Gap Analysis Process Model served as a model for authentic institutional
problem-solving. An initial brainstorm using the principles of the Gap Analysis Process
Model brought to light three distinct problems areas in the RUSD, as measured by student
performance data on standardized tests. The first problem area was the discrepancy in
performance between the RUSD and state and federal performance benchmarks (API and
AYP, respectively), which at the time of the project precluded the district from being
considered a high-performing school district. The second problem area was the
discrepancy in performance between the district’s two high schools and state and federal
benchmarks (API and AYP, respectively), which at the time of the project precluded the
two schools from being considered high-performing schools. The third, and somewhat
intriguing problem area, was the discrepancy in performance between NHS and RHS, as
measured by these same federal and state performance benchmarks. That is, at the time
of the project RHS was much closure to meeting both federal and state performance
benchmarks than was NHS.
Creating an Advantageous Partnership
From the inception of the project, the team focused on two principles of
relationship-building that were critical to the project’s success, developing mutual trust
and establishing open communication with the RUSD. The first step in developing trust
with the RUSD was to explain the Gap Analysis Process Model to district and school
personnel so that the team was transparent in its methods. The team affirmed the
12
RUSD’s areas of strength to build on this trust, by genuinely recognizing its institutional
reform efforts at the time of the project. Then the team discussed general performance
gaps at the district level and at the two high schools, and conveyed the rationale for using
the Gap Analysis Process Model. The team particularly emphasized that in times of
economic hardships and budget constraints, the goal of the Gap analysis Process Model
is to target solutions to close the performance gaps with available, not ideal, resources.
The second step to build trust was twofold: first, the project team communicated a
visual display of a graphic organizer of the Gap Analysis Process Model; secondly, the
team highlighted possible opportunities for staff members to participate at each level of
the Gap Analysis Process Model, to stimulate ownership of the process among all staff
members. It was vital for district and school personnel to be involved in the cause
analysis and solution process so that the use of the Gap Analysis Process Model could be
executed with as much fidelity as possible. For instance, the team judiciously included
school personnel in directing the problem statements in terms of goals,
measures/performance indicators, standards, and gaps to ensure alignment with the
district’s mission and organizational goals. Accordingly, personnel needed to view the
performance goals as concrete, challenging, and current (C
3
) because goals that are easily
measurable, reasonably ambitious, and short-range are more appealing to work toward
(Clark & Estes, 2009). This was a key insight because stakeholders must be able to see
the progress that they are making in order to commit to long-term reform.
The third step taken to build trust included in-depth explanations communicated
throughout the project that no matter how theoretically sound the gap analysis model is,
13
in practice, it may require several cycles in order to completely close or eliminate
performance gaps. Thus the desired end of this third step was to illustrate that the use of
the Gap Analysis Process Model is to be thought of as a change or a process and not as a
quick fix, considering the confluence of factors that may impact reform implementation
(Hall & Hord, 2001).
One potential dilemma associated with the use of the Gap Analysis Process Model
as part of this alternative capstone project was the expectation among district and school
personnel that doctoral candidates use more traditional research methods. That is, district
and school personnel may have simply expected to be interviewed and not necessarily
expected to be exposed to, and engaged in, the problem-solving process. However, by
building trust and clearly communicating the purpose and stages or steps of the Gap
Analysis Process Model to district and school personnel, the project team hoped to dispel
any misperceptions concerning use of the Gap Analysis Process Model in this project.
By establishing a trusting partnership with the RUD, the project was expected to lead to
accurate data analysis, sound recommendations, effective reform implementation, and
accomplishment of the district’s ultimate organizational goal: student achievement.
The following chapter offers an analysis of the roots of the problem. Specifically,
a comprehensive review of literature highlights the standards that schools and districts are
measured against to be considered high-performing (including polices and correlates
found at effective schools) and explores recent trends in the three sources believed to be
responsible for individual and group performance: knowledge and skills, motivation,
organizational processes and resources. The review of literature is followed by a
14
description of the project’s methodology and a detailed summary of the findings. Finally,
chapter 3 discusses a proposed set of recommendations based on recent literature linked
to the project’s findings, followed by a summary of implications for leaders in the RUSD.
15
CHAPTER 2: ANALYSING THE ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM
Literature Review
Introduction
The project team explored and referenced three domains of literature to inform the
project. First, the team summarized two policies currently used to measure school and
district performance in California, the federal Public Law 107-110 or the No Child Left
Behind of 2001 (NCLB) and the California Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999
(PSAA). These policies specify the performance benchmarks or standards which school
districts, such as RUSD, and schools, such as NHS and RHS, must meet to be considered
highly effective or high-performing. Secondly, the team reviewed the Effective Schools
Correlates. These Correlates represent the characteristics or best practices found at
schools considered high-performing for meeting the academic needs of all students,
including students who are minority or socioeconomically disadvantaged, as measured by
student performance. These first two domains highlight the external performance
standards that the RUSD needed to meet if it were to accomplish its organizational goal
of making its two high schools highly effective in both perception and reality.
Thirdly, the team conducted an extensive review of literature that focused on
three sources of performance: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
processes and resources. These sources of performance are an integral component of the
Gap Analysis Process Model, and comprise a domain that is instrumental in offering
insight to identify and address performance gaps. Accordingly, the team referenced
literature specific to these sources of performance to intensify the analysis of root causes
of gaps in performance. This step was indispensable in substantiating the
16
recommendations that were presented to the RUSD to address performance gaps related
to the implementation of district reforms.
The first source of performance, knowledge, is categorized into four dimensions:
factual, conceptual, procedural, and meta-cognitive (Anderson et al., 2001). By
understanding these knowledge dimensions, the team was better informed and equipped
to diagnose the gaps in performance attributed to a lack of knowledge and skills.
Consequently, the team was able to address knowledge gaps by targeting the appropriate
interventions, which can include basic communication, job aids, training, and education
(Clark & Estes, 2009).
The second source of performance gaps, motivation, can be described on three
indicators: active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece,
2008). Awareness of motivational indicators is conducive to a more precise diagnosis of
gaps in motivation and, thus, more appropriate solutions or interventions. To address
performance gaps attributed to a lack of motivation, Pintrich (2003) outlines four
motivational perspectives that influence performance: interest, self-efficacy, attributions,
and goal orientations. Having a sound understanding of these perspectives was
conducive to identifying possible solutions to performance gaps attributed to a lack of
motivation among district and school personnel.
Finally, the third source of performance, organizational processes and resources,
requires effective leadership to coordinate processes and resources with organizational
goals. The analysis of organizational process and resources was grounded on
management theory, including Collins’ (2001) Build-up-Breakthrough-Flywheel
17
Framework and Bolman and Deal’s (2008) Four-Frame Leadership Model. The latter is
a collection of four distinct management approaches—structural, human resource,
political, symbolic—that serve as lenses to bring organizational culture into focus,
allowing managers to reflect on experience in determining the appropriate approach as
they coordinate organizational processes and material resources in their efforts to
accomplish organizational goals. Management theory was instrumental to the teams as it
developed recommendations for the RUSD to address organizational deficiencies.
Policies
Policies governing public education have been at the forefront of educational
reform since the landmark 1954 court decision, Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education.
At the federal level, reports such as the Coleman Report and A Nation at Risk, and
policies, such as the Elementary and Secondary Educational Act of 1965 (ESEA) and its
subsequent reauthorizations, have radically transformed the culture of American
education during the past five decades by pressuring public schools to aggressively seek
academic excellence for all students, through academic standards, funding equity, and
systemic accountability (Kirst, 2004). In California, these federal initiatives have been
complemented by state policies largely consisting of financial incentives in exchange for
greater accountability, such as the Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools
(IIUSP) and the High Priorities Schools Grant (HPSG). However, during the past decade
two policies, California’s PSAA and Washington’s NCLB, have remained the standards
for measuring school performance. In essence, these policies measure school
18
effectiveness by a school’s ability to meet the academic needs of all students based on
student performance on standardized tests.
PSAA
In 1999 the California legislature approved the Public Schools Accountability
Act (PSAA) to improve school effectiveness by holding districts and schools accountable
for student achievement, using a comprehensive accountability system as its centerpiece:
the Academic Performance Index (API) (California Education Code, Section 52050-
52050.1, 2010). The API is a numeric index or scale that ranges from a low of 200 to a
high of 1000. Each school or district generates an API score based on the combined
performance of its students on the annual California Standards Test (CST) in grades 2-11.
The California Standards Test is part of the California Department of Education’s
comprehensive Standards Testing and Reporting (STAR) program, which includes all
tests required by the state of California for students attending public schools. For high
schools and districts, the API score includes student performance on the CST in grades 9-
11 and performance on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) for students in
grade 10. The CAHSEE is part of the STAR program, and a passing score on the
CAHSEE is required in order to receive a high school diploma. The CAHSEE measures
student performance in math, English language arts, and writing.
The API is an indicator of a school or district's performance level. The API
performance target goal for all schools and districts is 800. Growth is measured by how
well a school or district moves toward or past the target goal. A school or district with an
API score below 800 must improve its score by a minimum 5% each year. A series of
19
sanctions is in place for schools and districts that fail to meet this standard in two
consecutive years—the implication being that such schools and districts are not effective.
A school or district is considered highly effective if it registers an API score of 800 or
higher. For example, results from California’s 2009 state exams show that 21% of all
high schools in the state had an API score of 800 or higher (Ed-Data, 2010). In other
words, only 21% of all high schools in California can be considered highly effective as
measured by the API criteria. NHS and RHS did not meet the API standard or target goal
of 800 during the 2008-2009 school year.
NCLB
In December of 2001 the 107 Congress approved Public Law 107-110 or the No
Child Left Behind of 2001 (NCLB), a comprehensive reform effort with provisions
driven by standards and accountability to hold schools and districts accountable for
teacher quality, instructional practices, and student performance as a means to ensure
equal educational access, performance, and attainment for all student groups. NCLB is a
federal law that applies to all states that receive federal funding, including California.
The central piece of NCLB is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), a numeric formula that
uses state standardized test (e.g., the CSTs in California) to measure school and district
performance. AYP has four standard criteria: participation rate, percent proficient, and
for high schools, graduation rate. Other criteria may be included on a state-by-state
basis. In California, for example, a school or district API score is the fourth factor or
criterion in the school-wide AYP formula.
20
The participation rate criterion is that a minimum of 95% of the students enrolled
at each school take part in the state’s standardized test. The percent proficient criterion is
the Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs), a set of numeric benchmarks that indicate
the percentage of students at the school or district that are proficient in math or English-
language arts (ELA) as measured by their performance on the state’s standardized test
(e.g., the CSTs). The AMO benchmark increases every two years until the year 2014,
when 100% of the students at a given school are expected to be proficient or above. The
graduation rate criterion is the percentage of students at the high school level who enter
grade 9 and graduate at the end of their fourth year in high school. The graduation rate
required to meet AYP is either 83% or an increase of .01 from the previous school year’s
graduation rate. The API criterion under AYP is a minimum score of 620. In summary,
a school must have a minimum API score of 620 in order to meet the fourth criterion of
AYP. To meet the school-wide AYP criteria, then, a high school must have 95% of its
students participate in the state’s standardized test, meet the current AMO benchmark,
meet the graduation rate, and have an API score of 620 or higher.
In addition to the school-wide AYP criteria above, is a provision that, while
noble, has proven to be the most daunting in order to meet AYP: all student subgroups at
the school must meet the same participate rate and percent proficient (AMO benchmark)
criteria as the school in general. There are four student sub-groups: ethnic/racial,
socioeconomically disadvantaged, English learners, and students with disabilities. A
subgroup is defined as numerically significant for participation purposes if it has 100 or
more students enrolled or 50 or more students enrolled who make up at least 15% of the
21
total enrollment. A subgroup is defined as numerically significant for percent proficient
purposes if it has 100 or more students with valid scores or 50 or more students with
valid scores who make up at least 15% of the total valid scores. Thus, all student
subgroups (e.g., English learners) must meet the participation rate and percent proficient
(AMO benchmark) in order for the school in general to meet its AYP.
In summary, a high school is considered highly effective or high-performing if the
school in general, and each of its subgroups, meet the respective AYP criteria. Results
from the 2008 exams show that 48% of high schools in California met the AYP (Ed-Data,
2010). That is, 48% of high schools in California can be considered highly effective or
high-performing by the APY criteria. NHS and RHS did not meet the overall AYP
criteria during the 2007-2008 school year.
Effective School Correlates
The climate surrounding the findings of the Coleman Report (Coleman, et al.
1966) stimulated a vigorous interest among educational researchers determined to refute
the report’s controversial conclusions, particularly the conclusion that schools have no
impact on academic performance or educational attainment. This community of scholars
created a body of research that coalesced into the Effective Schools Movement, whose
mission during the early 1970s was to produce plausible evidence supporting the premise
that schools do make a difference in student achievement and educational attainment
(Lezotte, 2003). This mission gained form as researchers began to identify the
characteristics common among those schools considered to be “effective schools” for
successfully educating all students regardless of family economic background. The most
22
prominent figure of the Effective Schools Movement was Ronald Edmonds, who
produced an original list of seven commonly found characteristics in effective schools
(Edmonds, 1981). These common characteristics would later become the Effective
Schools Correlates:
• Clear and Focused School Mission: there is a clearly articulated mission for the
school through which the staff shares an understanding of and a commitment to
the instructional goals, priorities, assessment procedures, and accountability.
• Safe and Orderly Environment: there is an orderly, purposeful atmosphere that is
free from the threat of physical harm for both students and staff. However, the
atmosphere is not oppressive and is conducive to teaching and learning.
• High Expectations: the school displays a climate of expectations in which the
staff believes and demonstrates that students can attain mastery of basic skills,
and that they (the staff) have the capability to help students achieve such mastery.
• Opportunity to Learn and Time on Task: teachers allocate a significant amount of
classroom time to instruction in basic skills areas. For a high percentage of that
allocated time, students are engaged in planned learning activities directly related
to identified objectives.
• Instructional Leadership: the principal acts as the instructional leader who
effectively communicates the mission of the school to the staff, parents, and
students, and who understands and applies the characteristics of instructional
effectiveness in the management of the instructional program at the school.
23
• Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress: feedback on student academic progress
is frequently obtained. Multiple assessment methods such as teacher-made tests,
samples of students’ work, mastery skills checklists, criterion-referenced tests,
and norm-referenced tests are used. The results of testing are used to improve
individual student performance and also to improve the instructional program.
• Positive Home-School Relations: parents understand and support the school’s
basic mission and are given opportunities to play an important role in helping the
school achieve its mission.
An infinite number of case studies that emerged from the Effective Schools
Movement validated the findings uncovered by Edmonds, including notable works
commandeered by Brookover, et al. (1978), Brookover and Lezotte (1979), and Purkey
and Smith (1983). Purkey and Smith, for example, examined extensive literature on
effective schools and concluded that “…school systems are “nested layers” in which the
outer (school) layer sets the context for the adjacent (classroom) layer,” (p. 444). Purkey
and Smith consider the outer layer to be the organizational or bureaucratic factors that
affect student achievement: school-site management, instructional leadership, curriculum
articulation, staff development, parental involvement, and maximum learning time. The
authors conclude that the adjacent layer is the school culture or climate, and consider it to
be the determining factor in a school’s success or failure as a place of learning. They
identified four main components of a school culture: collaborative planning and collegial
relationships, sense of community, clear goals and high expectations, order and
24
discipline. Purkey and Smith argue that these school-level factors may differ in
appearance from place to place, but are always present at effective schools.
More recently Marzano (2003) and Sheerens and Bosker (2007), in their
respective meta-analysis of the salient studies on the school-level factors that most impact
student achievement, find evidence (both qualitative and quantitative) to substantiate the
core tenets of the Effective Schools Correlates. These researchers conclude that schools
that are effective are those schools that manage to foster and sustain the best educational
practices first identified by Edmonds and other scholars of the Effective Schools
Movement, practices that lead to higher levels of student performance. The majority of
these studies examined the best practices at urban elementary schools serving low-
income minority students but imply the universality of such school-level factors to all
schools.
The Effective Schools Correlates constitute a reliable standard for schools to
measure their effectiveness against or can be a means to arrive at the level of
performance that schools desire. Thus, in their ambition to improve student achievement
and become effective schools in both perception and reality, NHS and RHS should
consider self-evaluations to assess how they measure against the Effective Schools
Correlates. The self-evaluations can be an instrumental component of a comprehensive
plan to transform the instructional culture of the schools by identifying gaps in effective
school practices. Subsequently, the schools can develop and implement action plans to
address the identified gaps in performance as they relate to effective school practices.
25
Sources of Performance
Knowledge
Knowledge is everything that we know about the world we live in (Anderson, et
al., 2001). A lack of knowledge may limit our abilities to carry out the most simplest of
tasks. In organizations, for example, one root cause of performance gaps is a lack of
knowledge or skills related to a particular task (Clark & Estes, 2009). That is, how much
individuals know or not know about an area of assignment can determine how well they
perform their duties and responsibilities on that task. Knowledge is therefore essential in
answering the what, why, when, where, and more importantly, the how questions related
to tasks that individuals or teams are expected to perform. Anderson et al. (2001) offer a
taxonomy for teaching, learning, and assessing that is composed of two dimensions,
knowledge and cognitive. The knowledge dimension is divided into four types of
knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and meta-cognitive. Only the knowledge
dimension of this taxonomy was explored in detail for the purpose of this project.
Organizational leaders, such as leaders in the RUSD, may find that understanding
each of these dimensions is critical if they are to detect and address gaps or deficiencies
in knowledge that undermine efforts to successfully implement district reforms. By
being knowledgeable about a particular reform, leaders will find it easier to monitor its
implementation, and better prepared to answer questions related to the reform. For
example, if leaders discover that a number of school personnel are asking similar
questions about a reform, they will be in a position to coordinate a training to build
knowledge capacity among staff members. With a sound knowledge base, district leaders
26
can make informed decisions to better guide the reform implementation process. What
follows is a summary of the salient points found in the literature relevant to each of the
four knowledge dimensions, and the implications for leaders in the RUSD to consider.
Factual and conceptual knowledge. Factual knowledge is represented by “bits of
information,” or specific content elements such as terms or facts, that are discrete and
isolated, that exists at a relatively low level of abstraction—e.g., Los Angeles is a city in
Southern California. Meanwhile, conceptual knowledge is usually viewed as general and
abstract knowledge on three levels: classifications and categories; principles and
generalizations; and theories, models and structures—e.g., Los Angeles is a type of large
unban city with many functions and responsibilities (Anderson, et al., 2001). Factual and
conceptual knowledge are distinguished by their degree of specificity, but both fall within
the construct of declarative knowledge and best answer the “what” questions (Schneider
& Stern, 2010). Individuals that are successful in performing tasks are distinguished by
their ability to recognize meaningful relationships between discrete units of information
and activate the relevant knowledge of these relationships or patterns with little cognitive
effort.
Romance and Vitale (1999), for instance, found higher performance rates among
college students when professors used concept-mapping activities for students as a way to
organize and represent knowledge. Moreover, Dochy, Segers, and Buehl (1999)
conducted a meta-analysis and found a strong relationship between the background or
declarative knowledge of students and achievement on cognitively demanding tasks.
Furthermore, Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999) synthesize the importance of factual
27
and conceptual knowledge on performance, articulating that to develop competence in an
area of inquiry, students must: (a) have a deep foundation of factual knowledge, (b)
understand facts and ideas in the context of a conceptual framework, and (c) organize
knowledge in ways that facilitate retrieval and application.
In organizations, Anderson, Reder, and Simon (1997), attribute the success of
adult job-a-like trainings to a presenters’ ability to break down knowledge into discrete
units and to subsequently map out their relationships. These researchers argue that
employees who participate in these types of trainings walk away with higher levels of
knowledge and are more equipped to perform tasks.
One implication from these findings is for leaders to be knowledgeable of the
facts. For example, it is indispensible for leaders in the RUSD to ensure that everyone in
the organization is knowledgeable about the concrete facts related to the reforms being
implemented. Equally important is for leaders to make sure that personnel are capable of
making connections between their specific roles related to a given reform, other job
responsibilities, and other district activities. In other words, personnel need to understand
their individual performance tasks and how the tasks interrelate with school and district
goals. The mission of one local school district captures the essence of these implications:
It should be clear that the mission and focus of the XUSD is student achievement. Each of
us should clearly understand how we support that process.
Procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge is seen as knowledge of operators
and the conditions under which it can be applied to reach certain goals (Schneider &
Stern, 2010). Procedural knowledge specifically utilizes the skills needed for solving
28
problems that range from simple routine exercises to complex novelties. It includes
knowledge of skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods and often takes the form of a
series or sequence of steps to be followed (Anderson et al., 2001). For example, the
director of human resources in a school district is expected to have the procedural
knowledge associated with the hiring of new employees (e.g., teachers). The director
needs to know the steps an applicant must go through as he or she navigates through the
application process. Also, the director must be knowledgeable of the steps his or her staff
in the human resource department must take during the paper-screening, interviewing,
and notification process.
To be effective, procedural knowledge must be learned to a level of automaticity,
with little or no conscious thought (Johnson, 2003; Marzano, 2003). Sweller (1994),
supports this contention by positing that schema acquisition and automation are the
primary mechanisms of learning. Furthermore, based on the idea that the complexity of a
procedure depends on the number of steps which constitute it, Rittle-Johnson and
Koedinger (2005) conclude that the use of a procedural scaffold (which consists in
providing support during a procedural step or action) facilitates the solution to the
problem. That is, when a procedure requires multiple steps, support (scaffolding) along
the way should be provided to optimize the likelihood of success. This form of
scaffolding, Rittle-Johnson and Koedinger (2005) argue, can prevent the working
memory of participants from overloading (Sweller, 1994), and frees up cognitive
resources to identify relevant information to successfully complete other steps in the task.
Saenz (2008), for example, found a substantial drop in correct final answers among
29
students who failed to calculate a step near the end of assigned math operations. Saenz
attributes the students’ failure to calculate this step to the number of steps required to
solve the problem, since students did not receive intervention along the way and had been
successful in solving the same step in problems with fewer steps.
Procedural knowledge, for all intents and purposes, requires mastery of factual
and conceptual knowledge in order to be effectively applied during a task. Accordingly,
this compels leaders in the RUSD to ensure that everyone in the district knows the
concrete facts related to the reform being implemented, are able to make connections
between various elements of the reform, and are clear about the steps or procedures they
must perform as part of their individual or team responsibilities associated with
implementing the reform. Additionally, district leaders must be ready to provide support
at various stages of the implementation process. Training, for example, can guide and
reinforce the steps that need to take place in order to accomplish the desired performance
goals (Clark & Estes, 2009).
Meta-cognitive knowledge. Meta-cognitive knowledge is one of the four domains
of meta-cognition: meta-cognitive knowledge, meta-cognitive experiences, goals, and the
activation of strategies (Flavell, 1971). Meta-cognitive knowledge is knowledge about
knowledge in general and awareness about one’s own knowledge and cognition in
particular (Anderson et al., 2001). It includes knowledge of strategies for learning and
knowledge of one’s individual strengths and weaknesses. Having sound meta-cognitive
knowledge, especially in areas where one is expected to perform or carry out assigned
tasks, is critical to one’s success on such tasks.
30
To illustrate the importance of meta-cognitive knowledge on performance,
Kramarski (2008) investigated the algebraic reasoning and self-regulation skills among
teachers who participated in a three-year professional development program. One group
of teachers received meta-cognitive training (group A) while the second group of teachers
(group B) did not. The findings revealed that teachers in the group A outperformed those
in the group B on various algebraic procedures, real-life tasks regarding conceptual
mathematical explanations, and on using self-monitoring and evaluation strategies in
algebraic problem-solving.
Meanwhile, Schulz and Robnagel (2010) studied the impact of meta-cognition in
work place learning (e.g., training and development). These researchers found a high
learning success among workers with the capabilities to set goals, plan, monitor, and
evaluate learning, and who had an interest and readiness to expand their knowledge,
skills, and abilities. An intriguing finding in their work was that learning was not
enhanced among workers who possessed occupational self-efficacy, were exposed to
learning opportunities, or had managerial or job support. In other words, it was the
workers who were clearly aware of their strengths and weaknesses that were more
inclined to benefit from work place training and development than workers who lacked
such awareness.
These findings are consistent with the responsibilities of educational or
instructional leaders. That is, leaders at the RUSD have the dual obligation to assess their
personal knowledge and the knowledge of district personnel as it relates to the reforms
being implemented. It is indispensable that district leaders render decisions in a manner
31
congruent with the factual, procedural, and meta-cognitive knowledge levels of school
administrators, teachers, and others responsible for the implementation of reforms.
Failure to accurately gauge the various knowledge levels of personnel may lead to
episodes of unnecessary frustration, which are likely to contribute to lower levels of
performance, inappropriate interventions, and ultimately, to failed organizational goals
(Clark & Estes, 2009).
Motivation
Motivation is a psychological system that gets people going, keeps them moving,
and tells them how much effort to spend on what tasks (Pintrich, 2003). Research on
motivation is extensive and has coalesced around four discrete but often interacting
perspectives: interest, self-efficacy, goal orientation, and attribution. According to
interest theory, individuals perform best when they find some personal value in a task.
According to self-efficacy theory, individuals perform best when they are confident in
their capabilities. According to goal theory, individuals perform best when they want to
understand the task and when they want to perform well. According to attribution theory,
individuals perform best when they believe that performance depends on how much
control they believe they have over a task and how much effort they devote to the task
(Mayer, 2008).
Understanding the basic tenets of these motivational perspectives is essential to
leaders, who must be able to detect and meet the motivational needs of those whom they
lead. Leaders in the RUSD, for example, who plan to enhance student achievement
through the implementation of system-wide reforms, must be able to assess the degree to
32
which a reform is not being effectively implemented due to motivational deficiencies
among personnel. Being cognizant that an implementation gap is caused by motivational
factors can enable leaders to enact strategies designed to engender motivation among
workers. What follows is a summary of some of the more salient research findings in
each of the four motivational perspectives, and what implications, if any, such findings
have for leaders in the RUSD.
Interest. Interest theory is grounded on the premise that individuals perform
better on tasks they are interested in. Scholars currently acknowledge two types of
interests: individual interest and situational interest (Schiefele, 1996). Individual interest
is a characteristic of the individual, and is based on a person’s disposition or preferred
activities; situational interest is a characteristic of the environment and is influenced by
the task’s interestingness (Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). In both cases, an
individual’s performance on a task is enhanced when he or she has interest in it.
Schiefele (1992) conducted a study to measure the impact of interest on
performance, asking college students to read a passage on an unfamiliar topic. Before
reading the passage, students rated their potential level of interest in the topic. Based on
their ratings, half of the students were classified as "high-interest" and half were
classified as "low-interest." As predicted, the high-interest group performed much better
than the low-interest group on several measures. The exception in the findings was
performance related to surface questions, where both groups had similar performance
results. In another study, Reynolds and Symons (2001) studied the effects of interest on
two groups of students who were asked to complete book reports as part of class. The
33
students in one group were allowed to choose from a select list of books, while students
in the other group were assigned a book by the teacher. Researchers found that students
who were allowed to choose a book they found interesting performed better on the book
report than students who were not allowed to select their own books.
In contrast to individual interest, situational interest is emblematic of a task or
situation that is somehow made more interesting with, for example, seductive though
irrelevant details. Garner, Gillingham, and White (1989), studied the effects of seductive
details in a reading passage on two groups of college students. One group read the
passage with the seductive details while the second group read the passage without the
seductive details. The researchers found that students who read the passage without the
seductive details recalled more important information than students exposed to the
seductive details. In fact, Mayer (2001) suggests that adding seductive details can have a
detrimental effect on learning important information, as attention is drawn towards the
seductive but irrelevant details.
The implication of these findings for leaders in the RUSD is to be knowledgeable
and considerate of the various personal interests of staff members, relevant to the reforms
being implemented. Leaders, therefore, must be able to answer several questions: Is their
interest among staff to implement this reform? If so, to what degree? If not, how can we
as leaders generate interest? To stimulate interest among staff members, leaders may,
for example, consider allowing personnel to choose from a predetermined list of
professional learning opportunities if personnel are expected to enhance their capacity in
a given topic or skill area. Additionally, by knowing that seductive details can inhibit
34
one’s learning, and thus one’s performance, leaders can make reasonable efforts to ensure
that the reform being implemented, and all the trainings associated with it, be free of
irrelevant and distracting information. In other words, the content of the training needs to
be specifically linked to the facts associated with the information that participants must
learn, and free of all information intended to entertain or merely make the material more
interesting, without much value to the participants.
Self-efficacy. Schunk (1991) defines self-efficacy as an individual’s judgment of
his or her capabilities to perform certain actions, or when a person believes, or has the
confidence, that he or she can carry out a particular task. Self-efficacy consequently
affects the amount of effort and persistence that an individual devotes to a task, which
may determine one’s actual performance on the task (Schunk, 1991; Bandura, 1993).
Throughout a learning episode or performing of a task, a person seeks efficacy
cues that signal how well he or she is capable of performing, and assesses his or her skills
and capabilities to translate those skills into actions (Schunk & Meece (2005). Pintrich
(2003), argues that compared with learners who doubt their capabilities, those who feel
self-efficacious about learning or performing a task competently are apt to participate
more readily, work harder, persist longer when they encounter difficulties, and thus
achieve at higher levels. Bandura (1993) summarizes this conviction in the following
statement:
Most courses of actions are initially shaped in thought. People’s beliefs in their
efficacy influence the types of anticipatory scenarios they construct and rehearse.
Those who have a high sense of efficacy visualize success scenarios that provide
positive guides and supports for performance. Those who doubt their efficacy
visualize failure scenarios and dwell on the many things that can go wrong. It is
difficult to achieve much while fighting self-doubt (p. 118).
35
To illustrate the influence of self-efficacy on performance, Chemers, Hu, and
Garcia (2001) studied the self-efficacy of an entire freshman class of university students
using a questionnaire that measured the students’ academic self-efficacy. The researchers
measured the results of the questionnaire against each student’s high school grade point
average (GPA) and first-year college GPA. One finding was that high school grades
were significantly related to college grades, confirming the idea that past performance is
a good predictor of future performance. A second finding was that self-efficacy upon
entering college was also significantly related to grades at the end of the first year of
college, even among students with a low high school GPA. In essence, students who
believed they were capable of doing well in their college courses performed better than
students who did not believe they were capable of doing well.
The implications here are that RUSD leaders need to ensure that personnel
directly responsible for implementing reforms feel comfortable with their abilities to do
so. Those responsible for monitoring the implementation of reforms must offer cues or
feedback that reinforces successful efforts as they occur. District leaders must celebrate
accomplishments of performance goals, however small they might be (Bolman & Deal,
2008). In cases where staff members lack self-efficacy, leaders need to have the moral
imperative (Fullan, 2001) and ingenuity to ensure successful experiences among such
self-doubting workers by modeling and offering feedback as a way to nurture their
abilities and skills, and ultimately their self-efficacy.
Goal orientation. Goal orientation explains if a person engages in behaviors for
mastery or performance reasons (Pintrich, 2003). According to Clark and Estes (2009)
36
goals are tasks or objectives that individuals set to accomplish with specific deadlines and
criteria. Goals are classified as either mastery goals or performance goals (Elliot, 1997).
Individuals who express a mastery-approach goal orientation are focused on learning as
much as possible, overcoming a challenge, or increasing their level of competence.
Individuals with a performance-approach goal orientation want to demonstrate their
ability relative to others or want to publically prove their self-worth. According to
Wolters (2004) both approaches are accompanied by avoidance behaviors. For example,
mastery-avoidance goal orientation describes individuals who are motivated in order to
avoid a lack of mastery or failure to learn as much as possible. Performance-avoidance
goal orientation describes individuals who are motivated by wishing to avoid looking
incompetent, lacking in ability, or being perceived as less able than their peers.
Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, and Thrash (2002) evaluated the goal
orientation of college freshmen taking an introductory psychology course. Their findings
revealed that a mastery-approach goal orientation (or the students’ desire to master the
course’s content) was positively related to the students' levels of interest and enjoyment
in the class, but was not positively related to their performance in the course. In contrast,
the findings indicated that a performance-approach goal orientation was related to higher
performance, in the form of grades, in the course. Also, there was evidence that the
adoption of multiple goals—e.g., mastery and performance—were associated with higher
levels of performance in the course. A multiple-goals perspective has been advanced by
Barron and Harackiewicz (2000) and by Pintrich (2003).
37
In another study measuring goal orientation, Smith and Sinclair (2005) examined
the range of gender-based achievement motivation patterns in a group of high school
students by measuring their achievement goals, academic self-regulation, academic self-
efficacy and affective distress. Among the findings, the dual task/performance-approach
goal orientation was overall the most visible pattern of achievement motivation among
participants. This finding was superior to the single task-mastery goal cluster. The
performance-avoidance goal orientation produced a strong negative effect, regardless of
its combination with mastery or performance-approach goals. The traditionally held view
that the single, mastery-approach goal orientation is the most productive approach was
not supported.
Since the performance-approach goal orientation is the most productive
approach, as individuals want to demonstrate their ability relative to others or want to
publically prove their self-worth, what RUSD leaders can glean from these findings is the
importance of motivating staff members to pursue performance goals with activities that
promote “friendly competition.” One’s desire to out-perform colleagues in implementing
reforms may be more conducive to accomplishing both performance and organizational
goals, than one simply wanting to master performance in the implementation reforms.
On the other hand, the one clear implication from these findings is that leaders dissuade
personnel from adopting either type of avoidance–approach orientation, as these
orientations seem detrimental to any performance effort.
Attribution. Attribution theory suggests that individuals can attribute their
success or failure on a given task to a variety of causes, including ability, effort, task
38
difficulty, and luck (Graham & Weiner, 1996). Each of these causal ascriptions relates to
one of three dimensions, locus, stability, and controllability. Locus refers to whether the
cause is internal or external to the individual; stability refers to whether the cause is
constant or changing over time; and controllability refers to whether the cause is or is not
influenced by the individual (Graham, 1991).
A number of studies have documented that among these causal ascriptions, ability
and effort appear to be the most dominantly perceived causes of one’s success or failure
in performing tasks. That is, when explaining achievement outcomes, individuals tend to
attach the most significance to what their perceived competencies are and the effort they
exert. Additionally, evidence suggests that more individuals tend to experience success
on future tasks when they attribute their success or failure to their abilities.
Seegers, Van Putten, and Vermeer (2004) investigated the effects of former
learning experiences in math on what students would attribute their performance to on
future challenging mathematics tasks. The findings showed that when students attributed
their past successful experiences to their personal ability, it produced a positive effect on
their estimated competence on the subsequent challenging mathematics tasks. However,
when students attributed their past failures to lack of effort, it resulted in a negative
impact on their estimated competence on the challenging mathematics tasks. Meanwhile,
House (2006), investigated the relationship between the self-beliefs and mathematics
achievement of Japanese students participating in the Third International Mathematics
and Science Study 1999 (TIMSS 1999). The study revealed that students who attributed
their success in mathematics at school to their ability had higher geometry scores.
39
Students who attributed success in mathematics at school to good luck tended to have
lower geometry scores. Hence, when one attributes one’s success or failure to one’s
abilities, there is a tendency to experience greater levels of success on future tasks.
However, when one blames one’s performance on lack of effort or luck, it does not lead
to successful future experiences on similar tasks.
The implication of these findings is for leaders in the RUSD to assess the
instances where reforms are not being successfully implemented and identify the causes
that personnel attribute to such cases of underperformance. Leaders can then make
efforts to foster a culture of responsibility among staff members who believe their
inability to implement a reform is due to a lack of effort, task difficulty, or luck. This
may require training staff members to build their capacity or ability so that they, in future
implementation efforts, experience greater levels of success that they can then attribute to
their abilities or self-efficacy.
Organization
All organizations, including school districts, constitute a tool for making people
productive in working together. Organizations are governed by complex systems of
rules, structures, and processes that are intended to accomplish organizational goals
(Drucker, 1999). Successful organizations start with leaders capable of mastering and
applying principles of effective management, such as the four distinct but interdependent
approaches found in Bolman and Deals’ (2008) Four-Frame Leadership Framework:
structural, human resource, political, symbolic. These frames or approaches can be
instrumental in guiding leaders through efforts to coordinate organizational resources and
40
goals with strategies deemed essential to the success of the organization. In its efforts to
improve students achievement, for example, a school district may apply principles of
effective management to narrow the organizational focus (Au & Valencia, 2010; Collins,
2001, institute value-streams as a form of accountability (Womack, Jones, & Roos,
1990), and build a disciplined organizational culture (Collins, 2001). The leadership’s
failure to coordinate principles of effective management with adequate processes and
resources, for example, during the implementation of an innovation (Hall & Hord, 2005),
will likely fail in accomplishing such goal.
Processes. Processes specify how people, equipment, and material resources
must link and interact over time to produce a desired result (Clark & Estes, 2009).
Processes have been at heart of organizational management for more than century. They
were the cornerstone of Frederick Taylor’s Scientific Management Model (SMM) of the
early 1900s, which called for a clear identification of tasks, setting of work goals,
division of labor, and training of personnel (Taylor, 1911), features that remain at the
core of successful organizations (Drucker, 1999). When organizations fail to align
resources, processes, and goals, the result can be confusion, inefficiency, and
disappointment (Clark & Estes, 2009).
Processes are a form of coordination and control essential to ensuring that
individuals and units work together in the service of organizational goals. Literature on
effective management indicates that processes by and large have evolved into a function
dependent of effective leadership. Bolman and Deal (2008), for instance, accentuate this
point by stating that a core responsibility of leadership is to clarify the organizations’
41
mission and challenges, while outlining the mission into specific and measurable
performance goals. Covey (1989) supports this point in arguing that synergy is critical to
effective leadership, as cooperation and collaboration will produce more than can be
expected from isolated efforts from individuals.
With respect to schools, processes are an indispensible element in establishing
order and coherence within the instructional program, considering the number of daily
functions schools perform and the number people (students, personnel, parents,
community members, etc.) they involve. Processes have been found to be at the core of
effective schools, as evidenced by the Effective Schools Correlates (Edmonds, 1981)—
each correlate is inherently dependent on a system of well-coordinated processes to make
a school operate with order and precision. Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005),
attribute the success of effective schools to leaders who are able to establish school
cultures governed by standards, processes, and procedures. Hence, processes are
conducive to order, which is necessary to build successful schools as “… groups need
structures that provide them with the leadership, time, resources, and incentives to engage
in instructional work,” (Supovits, 2001, p. 1618). This is especially true in the context of
today’s high standards of accountability for student achievement, which means “…not
only finding the money and other resources, but reshaping routine policies and practices.
Staffing, scheduling, and other seemingly mundane issues can have a major impact on the
school’s capacity to meet new standards,” (Lashway, 2001, p. 1).
Evidence showing that processes play an important role in creating an orderly
and efficient organizational culture is compelling. Accordingly, processes can be
42
instrumental to leaders in the RUSD, who are currently pursuing district goals through
various reform initiatives in the context of budgetary constraints and an organizational
culture that values decentralization. District leaders can fulfill district goals by
connecting the district’s mission to the various divisions, departments, schools, and
individuals with clear policies, rules, and procedures to facilitate performance at the
group and individual levels.
Resources. “Resources are to a complex organization what food is to the body,”
(Marzano, et al. p. 59, 2005). Clark and Estes (2009) maintain that organizations require
tangible supplies and equipment to aid individual and teams as they perform tasks and
procedures related to business goals. In schools, resources extend well beyond books and
materials. For example, Fullan (2001) expands the concept of resources a bit further by
arguing that school capacity is reliant on instructional improvement, “…which requires
additional resources in the form of materials, equipment, space, time, and access to new
ideas and to expertise,” (p. 51).
Supporting the importance of instructional improvement as a resource, research
has shown that teachers are by and large the most influential factor that impacts student
achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Sanders & Rivers,
1996). Sanders and Rivers (1996), for instance, found that over a three year span
students taught by the most effective teachers outperformed students taught by the least
effective teachers, by 53 percentile point or the equivalent of a grade level. This presents
a formidable case for teachers constituting a school’s most vital resource. As such, one
effective method to improve and optimize teacher quality is via training or professional
43
development (Colbert, Brown, Choi, and Thomas, 2008). Elmore (2000) upholds this
view in arguing that training teachers is critical to the effectiveness and success of a
school. Training or professional development, however, is contingent on the availability
of other school or district resources, such as money, time, and space, and requires the
alignment of several levels of resources necessary to analyze, plan, and implement
professional development and other district activities designed to build teacher capacity.
These conclusions compel leaders in the RUSD to identify, secure, and coordinate
the needed resources to effectively implement the various reform initiatives it has
adopted as vehicles to organizational goals. Doing so is indispensible, for even
individuals with high levels of motivation and exceptional knowledge and skills are likely
to become frustrated without the adequate resources to perform assigned tasks (Clark &
Estes, 2009).
Value-streams. Value-streams are a form of analysis that describes how
departments and divisions within an organization interact and what processes they
implement. Value-streams are used as a powerful tool to identify wastes, identify the
most effective processes, and design production systems influential in achieving
performance and organizational goals. The primary goals behind value-streams are to
understand how the organization as a whole works, determine the cost-effectiveness of
different work processes (Clark & Estes, 2009), and maintain formative accountability
(Stecher & Kirby, 2004).
Value streams emerged out of the “lean system” approach to manufacturing that
revolutionized the Toyota Production System or TPS (Rother & Shook, 1998; Womack,
44
et al. 1990). Prior to TPS, the complexity of organizations often led to rash and ill-
advised decisions, such as slashing head counts and frills when goals were not being met.
Leaders were not always clear of what going on in the organization and, therefore, did
know what to do about it (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Value-streams, however, have allowed
leaders to see the system. Many successful organizations (e.g., Toyota Motors) have
managed to survive in competitive global markets thanks in part to their use of value-
streams (Womack & Jones, 1996). This point resonates with Collins (2001), who
deductively explored the differences between good companies and good companies that
became great companies, as measured by financial performance several multiples better
than the market average over a fifteen-year period. Among his findings, Collins found
that great organizations place the right people on the bus and in the right seats. This
means hiring disciplined people, firing the wrong people, and when in doubt, not hiring at
all. Collins attributes this finding to resource and process analysis, identification of
ineffective personnel, and planning; hence, value-streams.
Moreover, Stecher and Kirby (2004) and Finn (2002) contend that value-streams
can constitute of source of accountability within a school system, as a school or district
can create outcomes and process indicators to govern the collective activities of the entire
system. For instance, frequent assessments can help detect and correct implementations
problems during implementation rather than after a reform is poorly implemented. This
helps hold individuals and groups immediately accountable for their performance.
In light of the budgetary challenges that currently impact school systems, value-
streams are now more than ever critical to the survival and success of individual schools
45
and entire school districts. Leaders in the RUSD can thus make the most of value-
streams in executive cabinet (the district’s current value-streaming body) by engaging in
the practice of exhaustive resource analysis with greater conviction, to identify effective
district practices, remove wasteful practices, and hold individuals and groups accountable
for their performance in order fulfill district goals.
Methodology
This section was completed by a three-person team: Cuauhtémoc Avila, Dale Folkens,
and Mary Laihee. The team formed during the initial Summer Dissertation Conference in
August of 2009 after selecting the Capstone Project Thematic Dissertation as our area of
study. The team was formalized in October 2009, and began official team work in
November 2009. The project team worked together until the final step of the project, a
team presentation to the RUSD Board of Education on February 19, 2011.
Description of the Project
The RUSD, which serves a predominantly ethnic minority student population, has
responded to external pressures to improve student achievement with a comprehensive
school reform effort to support good instruction, enhance learning at the elementary and
middle school levels for Latino students, and make its two high schools highly effective
in both perception and reality. This alternative capstone project was undertaken by a
three-person team that followed a consultant model. The project team focused exclusively
on the implementation of district reforms at the district’s two high schools, NHS and
RHS. The project team utilized the Gap Analysis Process Model, which helps identify
goals and measure progress being made toward those goals, performance gaps and their
46
root causes, and possible solutions to address root causes (see Appendix C). The project
consisted of three stages: (1) collection of data through structured interviews and
referenced against extant data; (2) analysis and interpretation of data; (3) presentation of
findings and recommendations to the RUSD.
Purpose of the Project
The purpose of the project was to analyze the implementation of three district
reforms (the Ball Foundation, English Learner Instructional Support Leads (ELISL), and
Three Essential Priorities) and determine if performance gaps in the implementation of
these reforms were adversely impacting existing gaps in student performance. The
primary goal of the project was to provide the RUSD with a set of recommendations
based on scholarly research that addressed the root causes of the performance gaps in
implementation to maximize the impact of the district’s reforms.
The Gap Analysis Process Model
For this project, the Clark and Estes (2009) Gap Analysis Process Model was the
most viable among several available models designed to assist organizations, such as
school districts, improve their performance. The principles of the Gap Analysis Process
Model, which focus on goals, performance gaps, root causes, and solutions, are highly
applicable to the implementation of school reforms. A fundamental feature of this model
is Step 4, which helps analyze root causes of performance gaps using a tri-modal
analytical lens or perspective: knowledge, motivation, or organizational resources and
processes. This model was thus selected for its potential to support the RUSD in
identifying performance gaps in the implementation of district reforms and generating
47
possible solutions to help the district meet federal and state benchmarks related to student
performance. Accordingly, the RUSD’s goals and potential performance gaps within its
reform efforts were analyzed from these three perspectives.
Goals
The Gap Analysis Process Model is an effective tool for explicitly communicating
goals. The model emphasizes alignment of goals at the global, intermediate, and
performance levels. A global or organizational goal provides a vision for the
organization, is broad in scope, and may take years to accomplish (e.g., a school district’s
mission statement). Performance goals can be either intermediate or current. An
intermediate performance goal is moderate in scope, usually involves a group or team,
and may take weeks or months to accomplish, (e.g., a curriculum unit plan). A current
performance goal is narrow in scope, is usually performed at the individual level, and
may take hours or days to accomplish (e.g., a classroom lesson). Effective performance
goals ultimately support the global or organizational goal and are clearly defined to
enhance focus to the task. (For this project, one of the team’s objectives was to examine
the perception of performance goals and determine if they were appropriate.) Once an
effective performance goal is defined, measures and standards are identified for
benchmarking.
Performance Gaps and Roots Causes
The instrumental component of the gap analysis is the keen examination of root
causes. Because of its systematic approach, the Gap Analysis Process Model is useful in
identifying and targeting performance gaps that stem from a lack of knowledge and skills,
48
motivation, or organizational resources and processes. This process promotes efficiency
by repelling impetuous solutions that shortsightedly may attribute performance gaps to
incorrect sources.
Solutions
It follows that the identification of performance gaps and their root causes can
lead to solutions—or at least to possible solutions—depending on the circumstances
surrounding the performance gaps. For example, a school experiencing low student
achievement may, through the application of the Gap Analysis Process Model,
discover that one of the root causes behind its low tests scores is the presence of gaps in
motivation among students. A possible solution to address this deficiency is to
implement a series of school-wide activities to motivate students. However, the school
may discover gaps in motivation among teachers, which must first be addressed and
closed with age-appropriate motivational strategies before attempting to address the
motivational gap among students. In either case, knowing the root causes of current gaps
in performance is fundamental in targeting effective solutions.
Creating an Advantageous Partnership with the RUSD
From the outset of the project, the team’s efforts focused on two principles that
were critical to the project’s success: developing mutual trust and open communication
with the RUSD. First, the team explained the Gap Analysis Process Model to district
personnel to establish transparency in its methods. The team affirmed institutional areas
of strength to build on this trust, genuinely recognizing the district’s current school
reform efforts. Then the team discussed general performance gaps with respect to student
49
performance at the school district and its two high schools, and conveyed the rationale for
using the Gap Analysis Process Model.
Secondly, the team displayed a graphic organizer of the Gap Analysis Process
Model to indicate possible opportunities for district and school personnel at each level to
take ownership of the district’s reform process. For instance, the team judiciously
included school personnel in directing the problem statements in terms of goals,
standards, performance indicators, and gaps to ensure alignment with the district’s
mission and organizational goals. Additionally, it was critical for district and school
personnel to view the performance goals as concrete, challenging, and current because
goals that are easily measurable, reasonably ambitious, and short-range are more
appealing to work toward and easier to measure their progress (Clark & Estes, 2009).
Thirdly, the team reminded staff members throughout the project that although the
Gap Analysis Process Model is theoretically sound, in practice it may require several
cycles in order to completely close or eliminate performance gaps. Thus the project team
re-emphasized that the use of the Gap Analysis Process Model was to be thought of as a
change process and not as a quick fix, considering the confluence of factors that may
impact reform implementation (Hall & Hord, 2001).
Context of Current Performance Gaps
The Rowland Unified School District is located in the San Gabriel Valley and
serves students in grades K-12 from several local communities, including the cities of
Rowland Heights, City of Industry, and parts of the cities of La Puente, Hacienda
Heights, and West Covina. Currently, the school district serves a linguistically and
50
ethnically diverse population of approximately 16,500 students. For example, Latino
students account for 60% of the student population, followed by Asians students at
20.8%, Filipino students at 8.3%, White students at 3.7%, and African American students
at 2.4%. Of the district’s total population, 34.1% of the students are classified as English
Language Learners or ELL (R-30 Report, RUSD, 2009).
The RUSD is currently recognized as a good school district as measured by its
numerous awards that include 4 National Blue Ribbon Schools, 1 Newsweek Magazine’s
America’s Top High Schools, and16 California Distinguished Schools. However, the
district's API score of 777 remains below the state’s benchmark or standard of 800—the
minimum score required to be considered a high-performing district. Additionally,
during the 2009-2010 school year, the district entered year one of Program Improvement
under the accountability provisions of NCLB, for not meeting district-wide AYP
benchmarks among its Hispanic/Latino, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English
language learner sub-groups for a second consecutive year.
The two high schools, NHS and RHS, serve relatively different populations of
students. For example, of the total student body at NHS, Latino students account for
77%, followed by Filipino students at 10.7%, Asian students at 3.46%, African American
students at 3.29%, and White students at 2.5%. Additionally, 67% of the student body is
represented by students considered to be socioeconomically disadvantaged, and 27% of
all students are classified as English language learners (School Accountability Report
Card, NHS, 2009). Meanwhile, of the total student body at RHS, Asian students account
for 44.5%, while Latino students account for 35.6%. The remainder of the population is
51
represented by Filipino students at 8.6%, Whites students at 7.3%, and African American
students at 3.0%. In addition, 37% of the student body is considered be
socioeconomically disadvantaged, and 18% of all students are classified as English
language learners (School Accountability Report Card, RHS, 2009).
RHS is currently a California Distinguish School, a National Blue-Ribbon School,
and a World Baccalaureate School. But based on data from 2009, the school remains
below the state’s API standard of 800, with an API score of 797. Also, the school failed
to meet the AYP benchmark in English language arts among its English language learner
sub-group. Meanwhile, NHS is a World Baccalaureate School. But based on data from
2009, the school remains below the state’s API standard of 800, with an API score of
695. Also, the school failed to meet the AYP benchmark in English language arts among
its Hispanic/Latino, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and English language learner sub-
groups. Additionally, the school failed to meet its AYP in math among its English
language learner sub-group.
Data Collection
Interview Protocol
It was important for the team to review the topic the RUSD wanted the team to
explore for this collaborative, alternative capstone project, as it was instrumental in
helping the project team maintain a procedural balance between the overall goals of the
project and the interview process. The team scheduled a planning meeting in early
February of 2010 to review the project’s overall goals and develop a plan with strategies
to collect the data needed to accomplish these goals. The team reached five agreements:
52
(1) the first round of interviews must target key informants to scan for themes related to
district reforms and student achievement; (2) the interview questions must be aligned to
district reforms; (3) the interviewees must be made aware of the project’s purpose; (4) the
project team must establish trust with all interviewees, especially during the scanning
interviews with key informants. The team thus created a letter that included a summary of
the project’s goals, process, team members contact information, and template of the Gap
Analysis Process Model; and (5) the interviews must be electronically recorded and the
data transcribed and analyzed into a common data table within three days of the
interviews (see Appendix D).
Preparing for the Interviews
The project team went through a four-step process to prepare for the interviews.
Step one was to review pertinent district documents, such as the RUSD’s Strategic Plan
and student performance data reports, to become reacquainted with the project’s
overarching goals and ensure that such goals were aligned with the initial scanning
interview questions. The second step was to reach mastery level understanding of the
fundamentals of research design and the mechanics of effective interviewing, per Patton
(2002), as well as mastery level understanding of the principles involved in the change
process, as outlined by Hall and Hord (2001). The third step was for each team member
to simulate the interview process by conducting mock interviews with each other, with a
significant amount of time dedicated to practicing probing questions. Adjustments to the
interview protocol were made after a careful and critical analysis of the mock interviews.
53
The fourth and final step was to coordinate the first round of interviews with the project
team’s liaison at the RUSD.
Purposeful Sampling
In order to effectively analyze the level of implementation of the three district
reforms, identify the root causes of performance gaps in the implementation of the
reforms, and generate a set of viable recommendations to address the performance gaps,
it was imperative to know the extent to which the reforms were being implemented at
various levels of the organization: the central office, school sites, and classrooms. Hence,
the sampling for this project was purposeful and criterion-based (Patton, 2002). This
sampling method ensured that data were collected from specific categories of staff
members responsible for, or who should be knowledgeable about, the reforms being
implemented. The targeted sample size was 25 (n = 25), and included 4 central office
administrators and 21 staff members from the two high schools: two principals, one
assistant principal/learning director, two counselors, two English Learner Instructional
Support Leads, two clerical staff members, nine core department chairs, and two
instructional assistants.
In addition to the data collected through the structured interviews, the project
team gathered and reviewed data and information from extant resources to expand its
understanding of the district’s reform efforts. These resources contained demographic
and summative performance data for the school district at large and data pertinent to each
of the two high schools. Such data resources included the RUSD’s Strategic Plan, School
Accountability Report Cards (SARCs), Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA),
54
and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) self studies and exit
reports. The qualitative data collected through the structured interviews was triangulated
or referenced against the quantitative data collected from extant resources to maximize
the validity of the findings, and to align the final recommendations to reliable research.
The data collection phase of the project was conducted between March and May of
2010.
Scanning Interviews
Scanning interviews are intended to provide a general overview of the topic being
explored. The project team conducted seven scanning interviews with key informants
from the district office and the two high schools, focusing on district goals and current
reforms that target student performance (see Appendix E). The superintendent, assistant
superintendent of human resources, assistant superintendent of schools, two high school
principals, and an assistant principal/learning director were interviewed during this stage
of the interview process. The interviews were scheduled between 12:00 – 3:00 p.m. on
March 31, 2010 and April 1, 2010 at the district office. Team member A interviewed
three staff members, team member B interviewed two staff members, and team members
B and C jointly interviewed one staff member. During the two days following the
interviews, the project team transcribed and analyzed the interview data to identify
possible emergent themes.
Stages of Concern Interviews
Stages of Concern interviews are intended to identify an interviewee’s level of
concern related to the implementation of an innovation, such as a plan or program. The
55
level or type of concerns are deciphered from an interviewee’s responses and categorized
as concerns as they relate to awareness, information, personal impact, management, or
consequences of the innovation being implemented (Hall & Hord, 2001). In this phase of
the interview process, the project team conducted eleven structured interviews designed
around the emergent themes identified during the initial scanning interviews, to measure
existing patterns of concerns related to the implementation of reforms (see Appendix F).
The team interviewed five teachers and three clerical support staff members from NHS,
and one teacher, one clerical staff member and one instructional support staff member
from RHS. The interviews were conducted between 7:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on April 29,
2010 in the main office and library at NHS, and in the library at RHS. The project team
transcribed and analyzed the interview data from these interviews to identify the levels of
concern regarding the implementation of district reforms.
One-month Interviews
One-month interviews provide information germane to an interviewee’s fidelity to
the implementation of an innovation, such as a plan or program, over the course of a
given month. The team structured the One-month interviews around emergent themes
identified during the scanning interviews with key informants, with the intention of
gauging the level of fidelity and intensity of implementation of the three district reforms
among school personnel (see Appendix F). The interviews were conducted on April 29,
20010 between 7:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. in the main office and library at NHS, and in the
library at RHS. The team interviewed one assistant principal, three teachers, and one
counselor at NHS, and one counselor, four teachers, and one clerical staff member at
56
RHS. The team transcribed and analyzed the interview data during the next several days
to measure the degree of planning, and therefore, the fidelity to the implementation of the
reforms among this representative sample of school personnel.
Data Analysis
The recorded responses from each phase of interviews were transcribed into two
comprehensive data tables: Stage of Concerns and One-month interviews. For the Stages
of Concern data, each response was coded as a knowledge (K), motivation (M), or
organization (O) issue with respect to the identified emergent themes. Next, the data
were scored against an implementation rubric in order to gauge the current level of
implementation of each reform. Furthermore, the Stages of Concern data were coded to
correspond to the interviewee’s feelings about the reform (0: Awareness; 1:
Informational; 2: Personal; 3: Management; or 4: Consequence). The overarching goal of
this process was to identify the possible root causes of the existing performance gaps in
the implementation of district reforms.
An Innovation Configuration is the act of adapting, modifying, and or mutating
aspects of an innovation, where there is variation along a continuum from being very
close to what the innovation is supposed to look like to what is nearly unrecognizable
(Hall & Hord, 2001). An Innovation Configuration Map (ICM) identifies the major
components of an innovation and then describes the observable variations of each
component as a way to measure the variance in implementing a given innovation (e.g., a
new reading program).
57
For the One-month interviews, the project team created an ICM with three
components (high, medium, and low) and four dimensions (challenges and concerns,
fully implemented, common culture, and sustainable use) to measure the degree of
implementation of each the three district reforms. The project team collected the
analyzed data from each of the levels of interviews, measured it against the ICM, and
charted the data on a summary reform implementation chart (see Appendix G).
Confirmation of Data
The project team needed to reassure that sufficient and accurate data were
collected to make reliable inferences from the findings, and thus, recommendations
consistent with current literature in the three domains responsible for performance
(knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization resources and processes). For a
second time, the team reviewed data from extant resources, scanning interviews, Stages
of Concern interview, One-month interviews, and the Innovation Configuration Map data
summary chart to certify the sufficiency and accuracy of the collected data. Based on the
purposeful sample, emergent themes, and triangulation of data, it was determined that the
data were sufficient and accurate to make reliable inferences and correlations between the
findings and the recommendations, and between the recommendations and the recent
literature in the three domains guiding this project. To reaffirm this determination, the
team informally re-interviewed three district level administrators with follow-up
questions to clarify several points related to the specificity of the three reforms being
examined.
58
In early September of 2010 the project team submitted an executive summary of
the root causes of underperformance associated with the implementation of district
reforms (see Appendix I). On September 21, 2010 the project team met with a team from
the RUSD that included the superintendent and several cabinet level administrators to
discuss the content of the executive summary. The district team offered feedback and
clarifying information that it perceived would enhance the accuracy of the findings. On
November 17, 2010 the project team formally presented a summary of the project’s
finding and a set of recommendations to a comprehensive team of district officials (see
Appendix J). The findings and recommendations were validated by the district team,
who then requested that the same presentation be made to other district personnel,
including members of the board of education. This second presentation was made on
February 19, 2011.
Challenges and Limitations
Several challenges limited the depth and scope of the project. First, the project
did not constitute a traditional research study and, therefore, interviewing students was
not permissible. Interviewing students could have afforded the project team insightful
information concerning the impact of the implementation of reforms on learning.
Secondly, the timeframe to collect the data was limited to only several months. This
abridged timeframe, coupled with employment constraints among project team members,
was insufficient to allow for multiple visits to the schools for general campus
observations or silent participation in various committee and stakeholder group meetings.
Such observations could perhaps have enhanced the team’s understanding of the
59
dynamics surrounding the emergent themes. Thirdly, the time of year in which the data
were collected (March-May) was within the district’s STAR testing window, which
limited the number staff members that could be interviewed, as well as the availability of
interviewees for follow-up interviews. Additionally, both NHS and RHS were scheduled
for WASC visitations during this same timeframe. Thus, scheduling the interviews and
interviewing staff members with minimal external barriers was relatively challenging.
Collecting data during a less intense time of year at the two schools would have been
more conducive to optimal conditions for data collection which, perhaps, could have
resulted in a richer quality of information.
Human Subjects Considerations
The purpose of this alternative capstone project was to provide assistance to a
specific school district on issues of practice identified by the district administration. The
intent of the project was not to produce generalizable knowledge, as in a traditional
dissertation, but rather to document activities carried out in the process of providing
consultation to the district on these issues. Therefore, this project is not considered as
research and therefore does not fall under the guidelines for research designed to produce
generalizable knowledge. The following sections from the University Institutional
Review Board (IRB) publication clarify the status of the present project:
Federal Regulations define research as “a systematic investigation, including
development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
genralzable knowledge
1
” (45CFR46.102(d)). As described in the Belmont
1
“Generalizable knowledge” is information where the intended use of the research findings can be applied
to populations or situations beyond that study.
60
Report
2
“…the term ‘research’ designates an activity designed to test a hypothesis
[and] permit conclusions to be drawn…Research is usually described in a formal
protocol that sets forth an objective and a set of procedures to reach that objective.
“Research” generally does not include operational activities such as defined
practice activities in public health, medicine, psychology, and social work (e.g.,
routine outbreak investigations and disease monitoring) and studies for internal
management purposes such as evaluation, quality assurance, quality
improvement, fiscal or program audits, marketing studies or contracted for
services. It generally does not include journalism or political polls. However,
some of these activities may include or constitute research in circumstances where
there is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge (Office for the
Protection of Research Subjects, p. 2).
Further clarification is provided in the following section:
“Quality improvement projects are generally not considered research unless there
is a clear intent to contribute to generalizable knowledge and use the data derived
from the project to improve or alter the quality of care or the efficiency of an
institutional practice,” (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, p. 4).
Findings
In its efforts to meet state and federal benchmarks for student performance, the
RUSD District has established several organizational goals, including two exclusively
relevant to this project: (1) make its two high schools highly effective in both perception
and reality; and (2) implement district-wide reforms (the Ball Foundation, ELIS Leads,
and the Three Essential Priorities). This alternative capstone project focused primarily on
the level of implementation of district reforms, with school improvement as measured by
student achievement serving as a background to the project’s overall analysis. The
project team reviewed extant data sources (Strategic Plan, WASC reports, SPSA, and
SARC) and conducted a series of structured interviews with purposefully sampled key
2
The Belmont Report is a statement of ethical principles (including beneficence, justice, and autonomy) for
human subjects research by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
61
informants from the district and its two high schools. The data were analyzed to measure
the level of implementation of the district reforms, identify root causes of performance
gaps, and generate a list of recommendation or solutions grounded in current research.
During the scanning interviews conducted in March and April of 2010 with
district and school level administrators, the project team identified four emergent themes
that helped frame its probe of reform implementation throughout the district, in general,
and the two high schools, in particular. The four emergent themes were the following:
(1) negative perceptions about each high school, (2) absence of clear and measurable
goals, (3) unmet needs of English language learners, and (4) a culture of decentralization.
The review of extant district documents and the complete interview process
revealed that while some performance goals were being met towards accomplishing
organizational goals, many performance goals were not being met, had not been made
clear, or had not been identified. The data suggested that these performance gaps had
resulted from deficiencies in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
processes and resources, and were responsible for the low to moderate level of
implementation of district reforms.
What follows is a summary of the findings collected during the interviews and
review of documents. First is a summary of the performance goals that were being met
toward meeting organizational goals, followed by a summary of the possible root causes
of the performance gaps that had hindered successful implementation of district
reforms. The data in these summaries are presented in each corresponding component or
62
lens of Step 4 of the Gap Analysis Process Model: knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational processes and resources.
Summary of Positive Activities
Knowledge and Skills
Factual knowledge. Some staff members from both high schools (e.g.,
administrators, teachers, and support staff) demonstrated a high level of factual
knowledge concerning their respective roles as individual employees in the district, one
or more of the reforms being implemented, and the district or school’s performance as
measured by student performance data.
Conceptual knowledge. Staff members in general were able to communicate an
understanding of their respective roles within the larger context of the school and school
district setting, with respect to reform implementation and other efforts of school
improvement. For example, staff members were familiar with how external policies such
as CSTs and CAHSEE, are used to monitor and “label” students, schools, and districts
based on performance towards meeting established benchmarks. While the staff
members did not necessarily agree with the accountability mechanism behind the ranking
and labeling of schools and districts, they did understand the relationship between student
performance and the consequential ranking and labeling of schools and districts.
Procedural knowledge. Some staff members at both high schools, particularly
principals, demonstrated a moderate level of knowledge in communicating the steps their
respective schools were taking to address various components of the district reforms, as
well as steps to meet their school’s external performance benchmarks—i.e. API and
63
AYP. According to one teacher, the principal had begun to use data to drive professional
development and to guide instruction.
Meta-cognitive knowledge. Both school and district personnel were cognizant of
the efforts they had undertaking towards improving student achievement, and reflected on
how the implementation of reforms might further such efforts. The administrators in
particular were aware of their individual limitations to lead change efforts and the
limitations in knowledge and motivation among their staffs as it related to implementing
district reforms. However, the staff at NHS spoke highly of their principal and the efforts
she has made during the past several years to change the instructional culture of the
school by fostering collaboration and implementing a PLC.
Motivation
Interest. The general feeling at NHS and RHS toward the RUSD was positive.
Staff members at both high schools reported feeling supported by the district, although
they could not give specific examples. NHS and RHS seemed to have a significant
amount of autonomy with regard to reform implementation. One teacher stated, “I do not
feel under the gun in terms of the district micromanaging us. It’s clear what their
expectations are, and everyone works really hard to meet them.” Staff members at both
schools appeared to value the school district and were, therefore, more inclined to support
tasks related to the implementation of district reforms.
Self-efficacy. Staff members at both NHS and RHS conveyed a sense of
confidence and pride related to their respective school sites. Some staff members spoke
of the great teachers and programs at the schools. “This is a good school. It is all about
64
the students,” mentioned one support staff member at RHS. One teacher summed up the
general sentiment by indicating that “the RUSD has all the right ingredients to do some
great things.” Showing such efficacy in the schools, the district, and personal abilities
may indeed be conducive to successful reform implementation.
Goal orientation. The RUSD had taken the initiative to enact several reform goals
to improve school capacity. One goal pertains to increasing teacher collaboration.
Because this goal is meaningful to teachers, many of them reported higher levels of
teacher collaboration within both schools. Additionally, a few designated staff members
at NHS and RHS appeared motivated to participate in collaborative activities through the
Ball Foundation’s Communities of Practice or other reform committees.
Attributions. Staff members at both schools dutifully expressed that the
responsibility of getting all students to learn belongs to every staff member. One teacher
at NHS remarked, “Even though I’m not an EL teacher, we all have EL students.”
Meanwhile, other teachers detailed the various strategies used in their classrooms to
reach all students, including cooperative pairings and groups, hands-on activities, Cornell
note-taking, extended time, popsicle sticks for classroom management, and assessment of
content knowledge versus language skills. These attributions indicated that there were
staff members who take responsibility for the success or failure of the school as measured
by student performance.
Organization
Resources. The RUSD has cultivated a culture of educational excellence, as
evidenced by its many successful schools and programs that include 4 National Blue
65
Ribbon Schools, 16 California Distinguish Schools, multiple Golden Bell awards, etc.
This culture of excellence was equally visible at RHS and, to a lesser extent, at NHS. It
was evident that over the years the district had marshaled the necessary resources to
ensure that staff members had the resources they needed in carryout their duties and
responsibilities.
Processes. RHS demonstrated evidence that is has a school culture of
professionalism and high expectations, an accomplishment that staff members believed
had contributed to the academic success of students. "They are like a family, with high
expectations and professionalism," said one respondent. Asked what has been the key to
much of the success at the school, several staff members replied that it was the level of
professionalism and the way things operated at the school.
In response to emerging achievement deficits at particular schools or among
certain student sub-groups, the RUSD had taken the initiative to implement reforms
deemed instrumental in building the needed teacher capacity to improve student
performance—e.g., the Ball Foundation. Furthermore, with respect to the ongoing
language needs of English language learners, the office of Curriculum and Bilingual
Education had created the ELIS Lead position at the school sites to facilitate the process
of improving the quality of the English language learner program at each school site.
Value -streams. In light of recent cuts to education, RUSD had taken major steps
to better coordinate district resources to meet organizational goals. For instance, the
district had created the Executive Cabinet, Instructional Cabinet, and Instructional
Leadership Teams to build capacity and align resources with goals. This coordination
66
had produced ongoing collaboration activities and instructional walk-throughs to expand
pedagogical awareness and foster collegiality among staff members. "The learning
walks have generated awareness of practices among staff district-wide. In the process,
we hope that they will help dispel negative perceptions," stated a central office
administrator.
Summary of Possible Performance Gaps and Their Root Causes
Knowledge
The knowledge lens revealed a significant gap in knowledge associated with
district reforms, especially among teachers. The knowledge gaps or deficiencies fell
primarily within the factual and conceptual knowledge domains—with an inclination
towards the factual. There were a few respondents with knowledge levels within the
procedural domain—which is knowledge to specifically utilize the skills needed for
solving problems that range from simple routine exercises to complex novelties (e.g., the
skills needed to implement a school reform). The overall findings illustrated that
employees possessed varying knowledge levels concerning the three district reforms
under implementation at the time of the interviews, and suggested that the knowledge gap
was a contributing factor to the district’s modest though fragmented level of reform
implementation.
Many staff members demonstrated a general awareness of the district’s reforms,
with respect to the names and basic facts associated with the reforms. For example, the
Ball Foundation, the centerpiece of the district’s professional development plan, was in
its fourth year of implementation and represented the district’s marquee reform. Yet,
67
most respondents only acknowledged peripheral knowledge of the partnership between
the RUSD the Ball Foundation. The following responses were indicative of the general
levels of awareness among respondents: Ball brings money, but I don’t understand how
it’s going to translate to systemic change; I know that it brings some people together for
professional development, but don’t know much else; what do we get in return? Only
two of the 18 non-administrative employees interviewed (one teacher and one counselor)
were able to articulate their understanding of the partnership between the school district
and Ball Foundation, offering extensive details along the factual, procedural, and
conceptual knowledge domains.
Similar gaps in knowledge linked to the ELIS Leads appeared during the analysis
of interview data. The majority of respondents indicated that they were not aware of the
ELIS Lead position, were aware of the position but had no knowledge of what staff
member was in the position, or knew about the position and the person in it but could not
give details concerning the position or the role of the ELIS Lead on campus. For
example, some of the common responses concerning the knowledge level related the
ELIS Lead reform included the following four:
This is my first year, so I don’t fully understand the pieces connected with ELs—
so I’m only speaking in generalities; That would be more Mrs….I don’t have a
caseload here; I don’t have much involvement, so I can’t really say; I personally
am not affected by this because I only have one EL student in my class.
As was the case with the Ball Foundation, however, there were some staff members who
were relatively knowledgeable of the role of the ELIS Lead, and knowledgeable of the
instructional strategies, organizational methods and classification criterion being used
with English learners.
68
Meanwhile, the knowledge gap related to the Three Essential Priorities was more
profound and wide spread than the gaps linked to the Ball Foundation and the ELIS
Leads. For instance, the following statements summarized the level of knowledge most
respondents held about this reform: “
Haven’t heard about it; not familiar; Has not been communicated very broadly;
Don’t know much about this; Not exactly; I was looking at them the other day,
and it sounds like something that came from the Ball Foundation; As a school, we
haven’t been given those yet.
The magnitude of this gap was perhaps due to the reform’s novelty at the time
that the interviews were conducted, as most respondents were either not familiar with the
name of this reform or had only heard that the school district had recently conceived the
idea of the Three Essential Priorities. The knowledge level among site and district level
administrators was notably and exponentially higher than the level among all other
respondents. However, no district level administrator made reference to an
implementation plan for the Three Essential Priorities, which signaled the emergence of
an implementation gap relevant to this reform.
One unique observation made during the analysis of interview data was the
presence of certain perceptions among staff members—and according to staff members,
perceptions among parents and students—about the culture of schools and the cultural
backgrounds of various student groups. For example, some staff members at NHS
perceived their campus to be “ghetto,” given it physical appearance, and believed that
this stigma was in part responsible for the underperformance of the school. One staff
members stated that even district administrators perceived NHS as a ghetto school, and
69
thus had low expectations for the school. Meanwhile, some staff members from RHS
expressed their disagreement with teachers at NHS who believed that NHS staff members
had it easier because of their school’s higher levels of performance, and that consequently
district administrators gave RHS greater support.
Moreover, a couple of staff members at NHS expressed that some Asian parents
looked favorably toward attending RHS or schools in the Walnut Valley Unified School
District because of their high achieving Asian students, as they did not want their
children being dragged down by low-performing students. Meanwhile, some teachers
shared that some Latino parents perceived Asian students to be high achievers, and hoped
that having their own children attend school with Asian students would result in the
higher performance “rubbing off” on their own children. Thus, the perceptions that NHS
was a ghetto school, RHS received preferential treatment from district leaders, and only
Asian students were capable of performing at high academic levels, were cultural issues
that might be addressed within the content and during the implementation of district
reforms.
Motivation
Interviews with teachers, support staff, and administrators suggested that there
were some motivational concerns. The team explored how motivational beliefs affected
the level of reform implementation at the RUSD and the two high schools, examined
motivational issues stemming from external causes, such as goals and attributions, and
looked at motivational problems rooted in internal causes, such as interest and self-
efficacy.
70
Although a few teachers welcomed the independent decision-making afforded by
the RUSD’s hands-off approach, some teachers specified that they would appreciate more
structure. For example, one teacher stated that the district did have a plan for the ELD
program. Another teacher acknowledged a plan but commented, “The [ELIS] Lead is
just not working. Two workshops per year are not good.” When it came to the Ball
Partnership, another teacher said she did not feel like she could contact anyone for
assistance other than her peers; but, even then, she did not know who did what. Another
teacher expressed that not enough was being done at the district level to effectively
implement the reforms at the classroom level.
In such case, the teachers did not see the district valuing certain reform
activities. In particular, the district had not communicated the relevance of the reform
efforts at the classroom level and has not provided enough follow-up support. As such,
teachers on a whole had experienced fragmented reform implementation. Moreover, the
teachers who were on reform committees expressed objections to being pulled from the
classroom to participate in committee meetings, and because of the time commitment,
some teachers had discontinued their participation.
When teachers do not perceive task value, they may choose not to actively pursue
the work goal. Recall that task value is comprised of utility value, attainment value,
intrinsic value, and cost value. Since the relevance of the reform efforts at the classroom
level was vague, teachers did not perceive much utility value, attainment value, or
intrinsic value. Additionally, with having to be away from their classrooms and not being
given adequate follow-up support, teachers felt that the cost value was not justified.
71
Furthermore, teachers and support staff at both school sites were not aware of any
school-wide goals related to the reform efforts. For example, NHS and RHS had been
experiencing difficulty with Latino English learners not progressing through the English
Language Development (ELD) program. Yet, no school-wide goals existed to increase
the rates for re-designating students as fluent English proficient. Although the staff was
aware of this particular challenge at both sites, there was no evidence of measures of
progress to address it. According to one teacher, “The district operates from generalities.
There is not much goal-setting taking place.” Another teacher had a similar view, “The
district does not measure plans or goals it attempts to implement.”
The lack of direction had apparently deterred teachers from making substantial
progress toward full implementation of district reforms. Without clear performance
goals, it appeared that teachers had essentially substituted their own personal goals,
which may not have been aligned to the reform efforts. As such, teachers had not
persisted or spent quality time on tasks related to reform implementation. Furthermore,
the school communities had not seen much progress, making it difficult to commit to
long-term reform. One teacher observed, “The Partnership with Ball will have an impact,
but collaborative leadership is a slow process. We need to have some successes.
Discussions have value and tangible payoff down the road, but there isn’t something
tangible right now…”
At NHS, the staff was concerned with the physical appearance of the school. One
teacher noted, “Rowland High School has a new [International Baccalaureate World
72
School] sign that is permanent and looks very nice. We [NHS] have a banner that flaps
with the wind.” Another teacher made a related comment:
When people drive by our school, they see our parking lot, our trash cans. We
just need a facelift to make it look like the type of school it really is. A nice sign,
‘Nogales High School, an IB World School,’ would be our number one priority.
Meanwhile at RHS, the staff was concerned with maintaining enrollment, having lost
students to neighboring school districts such as Walnut Valley and Fullerton. One
teacher emphasized that, “Rowland High School is frustrated that there is a general
thought that we have it easier.” In other words, the staff perceived that it was doing well,
when in fact RHS had lost many students to neighboring school districts.
In both cases, the belief of collective teacher efficacy, or teachers’ perceptions
that their efforts as a whole would positively impact student achievement, appeared to be
a strong influence. Group efficacy affects persistence. At NHS, concerns about the
appearance of the school campus appeared to hinder the teachers’ group efficacy. They
seemed reluctant to persist because many teachers believed that the physical appearance
of the school was symbolic of their status in the district. This belief had seemingly
impacted reform implementation by encouraging a culture of low expectations. At RHS,
the school had mobilized around the high-performing students, but group efficacy toward
meeting the needs of diverse learners did not appear as high. These teachers may not
have persisted because there were other work goals that had been given more priority.
The teachers may have focused energy on ensuring that high-performing students stayed
enrolled at the school, which may have taking precedence over reform efforts related to
73
raising achievement for all students, especially among ELs and students from
economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
Some staff members expressed views that were inconsistent with a student-
centered approach. When asked about English learners enrolling in Advanced Placement
and Honors courses, one teacher responded, “Some students don’t want to. They think
it’s not worth it. They want to have a life or need to work.” Another teacher pointed out
that the ELD classes were small (about fifteen students) not because of scheduling but
because “many students drop out due to pregnancy, credit deficiencies, and other normal
reasons.” According to support staff, the teachers ranged in their ability to connect with
students and their families. For example, students thrived in certain classrooms but were
mediocre in others or just skipped class altogether. Several teachers did describe students
as lacking motivation to learn and their families as not valuing education. Furthermore,
some teachers felt that there was not much that could be done to help these students.
Based on this data, teachers at both high schools appeared to have attributed the
challenges to implementation reform to deficiencies in the student population, instead of
recognizing variations in students’ home settings and acknowledging that cultural models
are not shared universally. With these external attributions, teachers may have felt it
would be futile to persist, believing it was out of their hands, and instead focused on other
work goals. Moreover, the project team anticipated that addressing this sensitive issue
with the staff at both high schools would likely be met with resistance, especially when
many of the individual and institutional habits and patterns appeared to have been at a
pre-conscious level of awareness.
74
Organization
The data revealed that in addition to performance gaps occasioned by deficiencies
in knowledge and motivation, there were performance gaps resulting from deficiencies in
organizational resources and process. The interviews disclosed that certain practices and
a shortage of material resources had adversely affected performance at the district level
and in various areas of the instructional program (e.g., instruction, professional
development, assessment, etc) at each of the two high schools. Several of these practices
had become rooted into the school or district culture, preventing or slowing progress
along the reform implementation spectrum and, therefore, in the district’s ability to
accomplish its organizational goals.
It was a common theme expressed at NHS that the district had insufficient
financial resources to assist the school with comprehensive teacher professionalism
development efforts or to hire the quality teachers needed to move NHS out of Program
Improvement status. “There is nothing to help a school like ours get the personnel we
need to make this school student centered. The district has some say, but they are bound
by contract,” said one staff member. It was expressed that the lack of resources
constituted a lack of mandate for staff members to effectively connect with and engage
students in the process of learning.
Additionally, several respondents indicated that some district administrators
perpetuated the perception that NHS is a "ghetto" school by failing to provide it the
needed financial support to improve the school’s physical appearance. One teacher stated
that the school had too many bungalows. "We need new buildings," she added. One
75
school administrator stated that that growth had led to the front of school being away
from the main street, making the main street view of school an old building, parking lot,
trash bins. “On weekends, the parking lot is used for a swap meet, perpetuating the
stigma of a ghetto school,” he added. The underlying message was that the lack of
financial resources had sustained the school’s poor physical appearance, impacting
morale among students and staff members and, seemingly, their desire to perform.
The interviews revealed that the practice of issuing intra-district permits was
detrimental to reform implementation and school performance. This practice allowed
students (primarily high achieving) from NHS to enroll at RHS to prevent these students
from transferring to neighboring school districts such as Walnut Valley Unified.
According to one district administrator, the RUSD was "...losing high performing Asian
students to Walnut Valley." As of 2009, the district had lost up to10% of its enrollment or
1,600 students to this neighboring district. The RUSD had responded to this trend by
allowing open intra-district permits to discourage students scheduled to attend NHS from
leaving the district and instead transfer to RHS. One administrator stated that this
process had resulted in a mass exodus of Asian students from NHS to RHS to avoid
district loss of students to Walnut Valley. “Since the population of Asian students is
much larger at RHS than at NHS, there is a general perception of Asians wanting to be
with their people.”
This district practice perpetuated the low-achievement scores at NHS by
facilitating the transfer of many of its high-achieving students to RHS, thereby
reinforcing NHS' negative reputation of being a low-performing school. This
76
reinforcement in turn had "...neutralized morale among staff, students, and parents, which
has made the implementation of strategies and reforms a more challenging task," said a
site administrator. In this case, district practice or policy was not aligned with NHS’
efforts to improve its academic performance goals and, therefore, improve its reputation.
Another district practice that was antithetical to reform implementation and
school improvement was poor planning. That is, it was conveyed that had been common
that ideas or plans were often proposed at the district or site administrative level, but
rarely made it to fruition in the classrooms. “Whether it’s cultural competence, RTI, or
something else, it’s usually just a buzz word at the district office. These things are never
clarified or actually implemented at our level [classroom],” said one teacher. One case
in point was the English language learner program. Although steps in the right direction
to strengthen the program had been underway for several years (e.g., the ELIS Leads) it
was evident that its fragmented implementation reflected a practice of strong verbal
commitment with limited performance towards actualization. "There is no plan for
English language learners. Just a lot of talk," said another teacher. In other words,
organizational goals were discussed and partly implemented but lacked specificity at the
performance level.
Another example of poor planning or limited follow-through was the
implementation of the ELIS Leads. "It has not been embraced by everyone. There was
initial opposition to it at the secondary level," said a district administrator. Neither the
interviews nor district documents made it clear what mechanisms were being used to
measure the implementation of the ELIS Lead position—for example, a set of goals, staff
77
responsible for monitoring its implementation, and a plan to hold staff members at the
school sites accountable.
Furthermore, according to a number of respondents, the district and school
practice of poor planning had engendered a practice among EL student to intentionally
fail certain classes. “Many students remain classified as long-term English language
learners because of poor grades, not because of language proficiency scores,” said one
respondent. Students have avoided re-designation into the mainstream instructional
program in order to remain in classes with their immediate primary language peers.
Other English language learners had summarily suspended their attendance to certain
classes. "…some teachers are not approachable or do not work well with them," added
the respondent. One teacher said that these were well known practices, but neither the
district nor the schools had addressed them directly. Several respondents made it clear
that the district simply ignored English language learners. By failing to meet their needs,
the district and schools had enabled students to maintain language group affiliation at the
expense of academic performance.
Moreover, a number of respondents expressed that district practices did not
prioritize the needs of English language learners, as evidenced by the lack of
accountability surrounding the English Language Learner Master Plan. For example, at
RHS, this lack of oversight had adversely affected English language learners. Two
respondents responsible for overseeing the English Language Learner program revealed
that early in the fall of 2009 up to one fifth of the English language learner population
had been placed in the wrong content classes. Neither respondent was sure if all student
78
misplacements had been corrected at the time of the interview, and neither respondent
took responsibility for the misplacement. Poor planning was conveyed throughout the
interview as being pervasive, and the majority of respondents demonstrated limited and
inconsistent awareness about the reforms being implemented. For example, none of the
respondents was able to provide evidence of methodical, structured planning related to an
expected practice associated with one or more of the reforms over the course of a given
month.
The interview process revealed that the RUSD had taken measures to better
coordinate resources and processes with district goals. However, there remained
evidence of a culture of decentralization district-wide and within the schools that
continued to limit the alignment and implementation of the various plans and reforms
(e.g., Strategic Plan, Ball Foundation, SPSA, ELIS Leads). Some staff members stated
that this cultural phenomenon has led to knowledge deficits and, ultimately, to
fragmented implementation of district reforms at the school and classroom levels.
Several staff members stated that over the years, the district had loosely operated under a
decentralized structure, relying on self-motivated administrators to get the job done at
individual schools sites or district departments. This had yielded mixed results with
respect to the implementation of reforms, programs, and other efforts to improve student
performance. Another employee stated that in light of recent budget cuts, the district had
made some reorganizational changes to become more efficient and centralize, changes
that triggered a culture clash among some staff members.
79
The above findings synthesized a tangible portrait of the district’s efforts to
implement its adopted reforms. Although the district, in general, demonstrated its
capacity to produce quality educational programs, there was veritable evidence that
performance gaps among English learners continued to thrive. With respect to the
implementation of the three reforms examined in the project, the findings indicated that
reform implementation was fragmented, and suggested the presence of performance gaps
occasioned by deficiencies in knowledge, motivation, and organizational processes and
resources among district and school personnel. The following chapter offers insight into
the specific performance gaps found during the course of the project and details the
recommendations presented by the project team to the RUSD to facilitate the abatement
root causes.
80
CHAPTER 3: PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON BEST
PRACTICES
This chapter was completed by a three-person team: Cuauhtémoc Avila, Dale Folkens,
and Mary Laihee.
Introduction
The Rowland Unified School District has established a culture of educational
excellence as evidenced by its 4 National Blue Ribbon Schools, 16 California
Distinguished Schools, and multiple Golden Bell awards. To build on this excellence, the
RUSD has taken initiative to increase school capacity in order to enhance student
achievement, creating the Executive Cabinet, Instructional Cabinet, and Site Instructional
Leadership to align resources and improve reform implementation. As a result, several
staff members reported higher levels of teacher collaboration at both NHS and RHS.
Additionally, the RUSD’s high level of performance in its exceptional programs has been
complemented by a generally positive disposition toward NHS, RHS, and the school
district. For instance, several staff members mentioned professionalism, high
expectations, and support as key factors to the district’s success.
A thorough analysis of data revealed that although the RUSD had made strides in
implementing reform efforts intended to address student achievement and, thus, meet
federal and state accountability benchmarks for district and school effectiveness, there
remained fragmented implementation of reforms that stemmed from possible gaps in
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational processes. To address these gaps in
performance, the project team identified relevant scholarly research in three areas that
could improve reform implementation, and thus school and district effectiveness: (1)
goals, (2) implementation and accountability, and (3) cultural settings (knowledge). The
81
team detailed a proposed set of recommendations to assist the district in its endeavor to
implement reforms at their intended level in order to improve school and district
performance, and ultimately student achievement.
Literature Review
Goals
The gap analysis inquiry project at the RUSD revealed the impact of teacher
beliefs on reform implementation at the high schools. Motivational concerns around the
variables of goal orientation, task value, teacher efficacy, and attributions were key
factors that contributed to the low to moderate level of reform implementation. In order
to reach a desired level of reform implementation, the review of literature on goals
included (1) creating C
3
goals, (2) fostering communication, and (3) reinforcing teacher
commitment.
Creating C
3
goals
To elicit a positive response, school reform goals must provide an explicit,
realistic, and encouraging vision. According to Clark and Estes (2009), the optimal work
goals are C
3
goals: concrete, challenging, and current. Such goals lead to higher
performance than do ambiguous goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). In order for the C
3
work
goals to have the most impact, they must first be aligned to the overall organizational
goal (Clark & Estes, 2009). For instance, a school district should clarify how short-term
work goals support the longer-term context of school reform (Leithwood, Steinbach, &
Jantzi, 2002).
82
School leadership can facilitate teacher understanding of the connection between
external mandates for change and the school’s vision. Leithwood et al. (2002) emphasize
highlighting the overall aim to improve teaching and learning and to raise student
achievement. Thus, teachers would have a more holistic view and better understand the
direction of school reform and their part in it. C
3
work goals enhance competence, as
well as streamline resources and promote collaboration, which can lead to a higher
incidence of school reform implementation (Cohen, Moffitt, & Goldin, 2007).
When work goals are created as C
3
goals, teachers are more likely to improve
their mastery of the task as opposed to simply reducing risk and barely adhering to the
performance standard (Cohen et al., 2007). C
3
work goals encourage more of a mastery
approach goal orientation, in which a person is more likely to choose more personally
challenging tasks, be more open to risks and new tasks, and seek adaptive help (Pintrich,
2003). To help teachers adopt mastery approach goals, school leadership should also
emphasize individual improvement through accurate feedback and recognize teacher
effort (Schunk et al., 2008). Furthermore, with C
3
goals and a mastery approach goal
orientation, teachers are more likely to develop adaptive behaviors and experience more
positive emotion, such as enjoyment, curiosity, engagement, and encouragement (Gonida,
Voulala, & Kiosseoglou, 2009).
Additionally, C
3
goals help teachers to develop task value (Schunk et al.). With
clear expectations and opportunities to succeed, teacher motivation and engagement in
deeper learning strategies are more likely to thrive. According to Expectancy-Value
Theory, when tasks are at an optimal level of difficulty, teachers will be motivated to
83
master the new skills and will develop perceptions of competence because they have an
opportunity to be successful (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). As such, increased motivation
results from high task value coupled with high expectancy for success. The theory also
espouses accurate feedback, which helps teachers to develop accurate perceptions of
competence and maintain high expectations. In sum, C
3
goals can advantageously impact
school reform implementation by providing teachers with a clear direction, encouraging
mastery of the task, promoting positive effect, and increasing teachers’ task value.
Fostering Communication
The traditional structure of teachers overseeing classroom duties and
administrators overseeing management duties lends itself to a division of knowledge and
labor (Johnston, 2002). However, in order for teachers to be full participants in school
reform implementation, they also must be well versed in the policies. Accordingly,
Leithwood and colleagues emphasize that administrators be clear about the reasons for
school reform policy and invite teachers to be involved in the decision-making process,
as well as provide them with opportunities to develop the necessary skills for
implementation. Johnston (2002) agrees and suggests that principals can play a key role
in facilitating professional development that centers on perspective building through
faculty analysis of federal and state policies, in both historical and contemporary
contexts, and their relationship to the school’s mission. To understand how these align
and as a way to begin this discussion, Johnston recommends that a visual representation
be constructed:
[I]nstructional programs or organizational units would be named, the primary
features of programs listed beneath, and then a circle drawn around each. Lines
84
representing established or potential relationships would then be drawn between
the various program initiatives and organizational units. (p. 227)
This tool is one way to increase task value for teachers by helping them
understand their role within the reform movement, as well as strategize prospective
interactions that could drive implementation. Teacher motivation can be increased by
drawing parallels between a policy and improving student outcomes (Leithwood et al.).
Reinforcing Teacher Commitment
Teachers often describe themselves as committed to their profession and want to
be fulfilled at work. However, the organizational culture of some schools and school
districts may reduce the quality of work experience for teachers. For example, in-group
favoritism toward one school may lower the levels of commitment, morale, and loyalty
for teachers at another school. This is an issue for consistent reform implementation
since teacher/administrator conflict strongly predicts lack of teacher commitment
(Henkin & Holliman, 2009).
Self-Determination Theory postulates that people will experience well-being if
the three basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and belongingness are met
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). As such, a school district should foster a supportive and fair
environment for each of its schools so that all teachers have a sense of relatedness and
connectedness. When teachers have feelings of belonging and trust, they are more likely
to internalize and implement the goals of comprehensive school reform. This is
significant because organizational goals and teachers’ work goals are then aligned and
work is more meaningful, which boosts productivity (Henkin & Holliman, 2009).
85
Teacher efficacy at the previously less favored school would increase due to the
positive physiological and emotional cues, allowing teachers to refocus their efforts on
school reform implementation (Tschannen-Moran, Wolfolk, & Hoy, 1998). If a district is
more transparent in its communication and its policies, it can lead to teachers feeling
more secure in their roles and about the equal status of their schools. Removing this
organizational barrier would increase teacher motivation to concentrate more on
instructional tasks.
Thus, commitment-based management strategies are effective in cultivating
positive emotions and self-efficacy. School leaders can acknowledge teachers for good
work, invite their input on important decisions, provide a forum for teachers to admire
each other’s work, and inform the school community of teachers’ involvement in the
school’s achievements (Leithwood et al.). Leithwood and colleagues urge that teachers
be respected as professionals, so actions that lessen teacher efficacy should be avoided,
including harsh critiques and pessimistic publicity.
Moreover, innovation support—which includes such practices as supporting
teachers with trying out new ideas, diversity among the faculty and administration, and
open communication—is a strong indicator of positive teacher commitment (Henkin &
Holliman, 2009). Hence, when the quality of work experience is improved, teachers are
more likely to report feelings of belonging and trust and are more resilient when
problems arise.
86
Henkin and Holliman suggest that this leads to superior work output and assuming
additional work responsibilities, which would benefit effective reform implementation.
Implementation and Accountability
In an addition to revealing a low to moderate levels of reform implementation
associated with motivational variables, the inquiry project also suggested the presence of
performance gaps in reform implementation linked to procedural organizational
variables. Specifically, the RUSD lacked a sound and comprehensive plan for reform
implementation, one with uniformed steps and procedures, accountability measures, and
strategies to maintain the number of reform initiatives at a manageable level.
The success of an organization, including large urban schools districts, is often
attributed to the presence and practice of essential principles found in recent management
theory, which blends features of early management models (e.g., Frederick Taylor’s
Scientific Management Model of the early 1900s and Mary Parker Follet Parker’s Human
Relations Movement of the 1920s), with features found in contemporary literature. The
work of Bolman and Deal (2008) and Collins (2001) represents the hallmark of current
management theory; theory supported by findings that identify great leaders as being
humble and people-oriented, yet dynamic and relentless, according to several instruments
used to measure the public image, personality traits, and leadership focus, among leaders.
These leaders are skillful at balancing personal qualities with fundamental organizational
principles and strategies to narrow the organizational focus (Au and Valencia, 2010;
Collins, 2001), systematically implement reforms (Hall & Hord, 2001), and use data as
an accountability measure (Datnow, Park, & Wohlstetter, 2007; Foley, 2001; Stecher &
87
Kirby, 2004) to successfully manage large organizations. These principles and practices
have been found to be are germane to educational settings (Finn, 2002; Stecher & Kirby,
2004).
Leadership
Bolman and Deal (2008) contend that successful organizations require leaders
capable of managing personnel, resources, and processes in a highly synchronized
manner. The authors offer such balanced leadership through their Four-Frame
Leadership Model detailing the four primary approaches in management practice:
structural, human resource, political, and symbolic. The model is intended to help
change agents, such as superintendents of schools, conceptualize, coordinate, and apply
the appropriate balance of these approaches to manage the variety and complexity of
issues and situations they encounter. Below is the Four-Frame Leadership Model in
summary form.
● Structural: This approach focuses on structural elements within the organization
as well as strategy, implementation, and adaptation. It works well when there is a
need to clarify goals and expectations, ensure that cause-and-effect relationships
are well understood, and prevents or removes conflict, uncertainty, or ambiguity.
● Human Resource: This approach focuses on people, and emphasizes support,
empowerment (perhaps through distributed leadership mechanisms), staff
development, and responsiveness to employee needs. A focus on people works
well when employee morale is a consideration and when there is relatively little
conflict.
88
● Political: This approach focus on the political realities that exist within and
outside the organization, dealing with interest groups (and their varying agendas),
building power bases, coalition-building, negotiating conflicts over limited
resources, and creating compromises. The political frame is appropriate when
resources are scarce or diminishing, as well as when goals or values are in
conflict.
● Symbolic: This approach focuses on vision and inspiration through traditions,
ceremonies, and rituals. Symbolic leaders make people believe that their personal
work, and the work of the organization, is important and meaningful. This
approach helps to clarify goals and/or cause-and-effect relationships in social
settings.
Collins (2001) suggests that true leadership takes time (up to twenty years) to
effect institutional and long-lasting change. Collins deductively explores the differences
between good companies and good companies that have become great companies, as
measured by financial performance several multiples better than the market average over
a fifteen-year period. Collins finds the overriding factor in achieving the transition from
good to great to be a narrow focusing of company resources on its field of competence.
The impact of this focus is guided through three stages (and their respective principles)
that companies go through during the good to great transition.
Stage I: Build Up
● Level 5 Leadership: Level 5 leaders advocate the concept of team, not the
individual. When goals are accomplished, they look out the window for someone
89
to attribute the success to. When goals are not met, they look at the mirror and
accept responsibility. These leaders show a remarkable sense of personal
humility and an equally remarkable sense of professional will.
● First Who, Then What: Great companies get the wrong people off the bus, the
right people on the bus and in the right seats. When in doubt, great companies do
not hire personnel, they keep looking.
● Confront the Brutal Facts: Great companies start with an honest and diligent
effort to determine the truth of a situation. When they do, the right decisions
often become self-evident.
Stage II: Breakthrough
● Hedgehog Concept: What can you be best in the world at? Great companies are
willing to transcend the curse of competence in many areas to be great in one
area.
● Culture of Discipline: Great companies create a culture of discipline, where
disciplined people exercise disciplined thought and engage in disciplined action.
This eliminates the need for hierarchy, bureaucracy, and excessive controls.
Stage III: Flywheel
● The Flywheel: Great companies generate momentum from the additive effect of
many small initiatives that in time act on each other like compound interest until,
like relentlessly pushing a giant heavy flywheel in one direction, one experiences
the point of breakthrough and beyond.
90
Narrowing the Focus
Successful organizations do a few things well. Narrowing the organizational
focus is the overriding factor between good companies and good companies that become
great (Collins, 2001). Au and Valencia (2010) argue that this principle needs to be at the
heart of school reform policy. Policies should provide schools with incentives for staying
the course and making progress toward clearly specified goals. Currently, federal and
state initiatives, as well as district mandates, present schools with too many opportunities
for reform (Foley, 2001). This stimulates a chase for resources and forces schools to take
on more initiatives than they can manage, resulting in mediocre implementation at best
(Au & Valencia, 2010). Studies conducted by Cambone (1995) and Lipson, Mosenthal,
Mekkelsen, and Russ (2004) reveal that the vast majority of schools successful in raising
student achievement maintain a narrow and consistent focus over a period of years. Thus
it behooves organizations, such as school districts, to identity the root causes of
performance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2009) and implement solutions that directly target such
causes. This is likely to reduce the number of district initiatives while increasing their
impact on employee performance.
Implementation
To successfully effect change, leaders must also have a plan that systematically
guides the implementation of an initiative or reform. Hall and Hord (2001) provide an
excellent overview of the principles and tools that make up their Concerns-Based
Adoption Model (CBAM) for school change. The three main features of the CBAM are
Innovation Configuration (IC), Stages of Concern (SoC), and Levels of Use (LoU). Hall
91
and Hord emphasize 12 principles throughout the CBAM that promote a team approach
to change, highlighting the assertion that knowing what to change is only a small part of
the equation. They argue that knowing how to change is the fundamental feature of the
change process. Below is a summary of the CBAM.
● Innovation Configurations (IC): The IC establishes clarity on what the expected
innovation or reform is, what individuals are supposed to do during its
implementation, and what the innovation looks like at the ideal level of
implementation. The IC also prevents a common pitfall of school reform:
purchase materials, train teachers, and the innovation will be implemented exactly
as planned.
● Stages of Concern (SoC): The SoC measures what teachers think or feel about the
innovation, using seven stages of concern that range from Awareness (where a
teacher is merely becoming aware of the innovation without any particular
concern) to Refocusing (where there is deep reflection about the universal benefits
of the innovation).
● Levels of Use (LoU): The LoU determines the level and quality of the innovation
being implemented. There are eight levels of implementation, ranging from Non-
use (where there exists no evidence that the innovation in question is being
implemented) to Renewal (where the implementer re-evaluates the quality of the
innovation and seeks to modify it or seeks alternatives to better meet the needs of
students).
92
Accountability
The successful implementation of a reform depends to a large extent on effective
leadership practices, precise implementation protocol, and systems for accountability.
Bolman and Deal (2008) link accountability to the Structural Frame, which is grounded
on clear rules and expectations for both individuals and groups. Collins (2001) links
accountability to the hiring of disciplined people, which eliminates the needs for
hierarchy, bureaucracy, and excessive controls. And Hall and Hord (2001) advocate the
LoU strand of the CBAM to hold individuals or groups accountable for the
implementation of an innovation.
A direct and effective form of accountability is found in systems that use data to
drive the decision-making process, such as in value-streams (Womack, et al.) and equity
scorecards (Bensimon, 2004; Harris & Bensimon, 2007). Value-streams is a form of
analysis grounded in the Toyota Process System (TPS) that describes how departments
and divisions within an organization interact and what processes they implement to
identify effective and ineffective practices, while pursuing organizational goals. Value-
streams allow problems to easily be traced to their root causes and dealt with immediately
and effectively because quality control is built into processes rather than into inspections
at the end of production.
Stecher and Kirby (2004) and Finn (2002) content that value-streams is highly
applicable to school systems, as schools and districts can create accountability measures,
outcomes, and process indicators to govern the collective activities of the entire system.
Thus, in the process of implementing an initiative or reform, frequent assessments can
93
help detect and correct implementations problems in the process rather than after the
reform is poorly implemented, and hold individuals and groups immediately accountable
for their respect roles in the process.
Other systems driven by data, such as equity scorecards, enable educators to learn
more about their school, pinpoint successes and challenges, identify area of improvement,
and help evaluate the effectiveness of programs and practices (Datnow,et al. 2007). An
example of a data-driven scorecard germane to K-12 education is the Professional
Responsibility Index (PRI), comprised of an annual score for individual schools in a
system based on several disaggregated indicators of performance, including performance
on standardized assessments, graduation rate, and attendance (Foley, 2001).
The PRI compels schools to pay direct attention to the achievement of every
student. In Philadelphia, for example, the PRI was instituted as part of the
comprehensive reform effort Children Achieving, and revealed an alarming inequity in
student performance outcomes across the district. The low achievement of English
language learners and minority, low-income, and disabled students, and the slow pace of
change, also served as pressures on the whole district to improve. The data forced central
office leaders to develop stronger signals to schools about reforming their instructional
practices (Foley, 2001).
Cultural Settings
The analysis of data revealed that among a number of staff members, there was
the presence of knowledge gaps related to district reforms, school cultures, and the
cultural backgrounds of different student populations. According to Clark and Estes
94
(2009), knowledge gaps are best addressed with four knowledge enhancements:
information, job aids, training, and education. Information enhancements provide the
most basic level of information or facts a person needs to perform a task, such as being
aware that one is responsible for implementing a new reading program. Job aids,
meanwhile, enhance information at a slightly higher level than do information
enhancements, for they “…provide people with recipes for achieving performance goals
in a form that permits them to do it on their own,” (Clark & Estes, 2009, p. 58).
Moreover, training (information and job aids combined) provides “how to” knowledge
and skills through practice and corrective feedback to achieve specific performance goals.
Lastly, education is formal conceptual and theoretical knowledge about what and how
things happen. Each enhancement is intended to address knowledge gaps at specific
levels of knowledge deficiency. Since the knowledge deficiencies in the RUSD
concerning district reforms were declarative (factual and conceptual) and procedural in
nature, training is perhaps the most appropriate knowledge enhancement to address gaps
in the implementation of district reforms.
Building Teacher Capacity
Training or professional development is defined as a comprehensive, sustained,
and intensive approach to improve one’s effectiveness in raising performance (Wei,
Darling-Hammond & Adamson, 2010) and is thus considered a viable tool for capacity
building (Colbert, et al. 2008). However, professional development comes in various
forms, and not all variations are necessarily effective. Wei, et al (2010), in the first two
of a three-phase study on professional development in the United States, have found the
95
following indicators in, what they suggest is, effective professional development. First,
professional development must focus on the specific material that one is expected to
learn. One can easily recall or imagine training sessions taking place in schools with no
students, where there are multiple coffee breaks, consultants in fancy clothing, and
participants veering from the agenda at will. To be impactful, professional development
must be focused, structured, and well-managed (Marchant, 2002). Secondly, professional
development must be offered as a coherent part of a whole school reform effort, with
assessments, standards, and professional development seamlessly linked. Participants
should be able to visualize how a given training connects to other pieces of the system, as
when one is provided with a sample of what one’s performance should look like as a
finished product (Hall & Hord, 2001). Clark and Estes (2009) emphasize that training
objectives should be clearly linked to performance and organizational goals.
Thirdly, professional development must be designed to engage teachers in active
learning that allows them to make sense of what they learn in meaningful ways. That is,
participants must be able to see the purpose and the value in the training. Butler (1992)
and Mariage and Garmon (2003) argue that professional development must be translated
into manageable and comprehensible strategies and procedures to alter teaching practices
in order to improve learning performance. Fourthly, professional development must be
presented in an intensive, sustained, and continuous manner over time. “…professional
development that is short, episodic, and disconnected from practice has little impact,”
(Wei, et al. p. 1). In other words, one-day or infrequent trainings often sputter and
connections to performance and organizational goals quickly evaporate, producing little,
96
if any, effect. By contrast, long-term training has meaningful and lasting effects,
especially as the trainings generate momentum and consistency over time. A case in
point is made by Cobb (2000), who found that among a sample of teachers who received
professional development over a period of years, there were more positive attitudes
toward school initiatives being implemented and more favorable perceptions of their
impact with each successive year of the training.
Finally, professional development must be supported by coaching, modeling,
observation, and feedback. Professional development must prepare participants to make
decisions congruent with expected performance objectives. This means participants need
to acquire and develop the “how to” knowledge to perform tasks independently.
Moreover, with reference to teachers, Fearn and Fanan (2007) contend that to enhance
their knowledge and skills, teachers have to see what effective instruction looks like in
the classroom (modeled), with such living examples modeled by colleagues with whom
they can identify (i.e. other teachers). This position is supported by research in Learning
Theory that centers on learning from examples, such the work of Atkinson, Derry, Renkl,
and Wortham (2000), which has shown increases in skill development when examples
are modeled or presented in close proximity to matched practice problems.
Yet learning in any context, including trainings or professional development, is
inextricably tied to motivational factors. Accordingly, it is reasonable to infer that the
knowledge and skills gap affecting individuals invariantly stifles their collective
motivation to implement innovations, become more aware of the cultural dynamics of
other schools in the district, and increase their knowledge concerning the cultural
97
backgrounds of their students. Clark and Estes (2009) argue that unmotivated individuals
tend to blame others for their poor performance, are indifferent to change and lack the
direction, persistence, and energy to accomplish tasks. Thus efforts to build knowledge
capacity related to district reforms and cultural settings must include strategies to secure
buy-in. Lock and Latham (1990) believe that individual confidence is nurtured through
assigning short-term, challenging, but achievable goals; positive feedback;
depersonalized corrective feedback; and focusing on past successes. Clark and Estes
(2009), on the other hand, contend that buy-in is accomplished by describing the utility of
a task; incentives; positive mood; and trust and fairness.
Developing Teacher Efficacy
Effective professional development supports teachers in reflecting on and
analyzing their own practice, while allowing them to observe experts, as well as to be
observed and receive feedback from experts (Elmore, 2002). During in-services, teachers
should have opportunities to be successful in using innovative instructional strategies.
In-services can include work sessions where teachers can receive clear and accurate
feedback from experienced staff, which will improve their self-efficacy when it comes to
completing the task on their own (Pintrich, 2003). The experienced staff can give
corrective feedback on the strategy instead of directing it toward the new teacher, and the
administrators can give positive feedback to the teachers for accomplishing challenging
tasks to increase their confidence (Clark & Estes, 2009). When the teachers have more
98
confidence in their abilities, they will engage in more meaningful learning, which can
result in improved performance when using the instructional strategies in their own
classrooms.
Furthermore, to maximize the impact of the in-service, the lead presenters should
be experienced teachers whom the staff views as relevant, credible, and competent
(Gredler, 2005). This allows teachers to observe one of their peers who has mastered the
instructional strategies, which can motivate them to change their pedagogy by seeing
someone similar to them who is now an expert (Onchwari & Keengwe, 2008).
According to Social Cognitive Theory, vicarious learning that uses relevant, credible, and
competent models can support teachers in capturing complex skills that cannot be learned
through enactive learning alone (Bandura, 1986). Additionally, teacher experts can also
be used as coping models to increase self-efficacy (Schunk, et al.). When teachers
observe coping models who have overcome feelings of anxiety and inadequacy and who
are eventually able to improve and succeed on the task, the observers become more
confident in their abilities because of the perceived similarity.
Through such in-services, a school district can increase teacher capacity by
systematically allowing the staff to exchange knowledge about best practices (Cohen et
al., 2007). Moreover, Evers, Brouwers, and Tomic (2002) assert that collaboration is the
basis for effective reform implementation and that teacher-centered trainings that focus
on improving self-efficacy may increase teacher willingness to adopt innovative
instructional strategies, as well as reduce teacher burnout. Such professional
development can foster internal accountability, which is vital in the school improvement
99
process. Schools that possess an internal accountability structure are likely to respond to
reform implementation in a more effective and consistent manner (Elmore, 2002).
Elmore also states that when teachers see what is possible to do through the observation
of other teachers, beliefs begin to change, which fosters a practice of improvement.
Increasing Cultural Proficiency
Using the lens of Attribution Theory (Weiner, 2005) described in Chapter 2,
teachers who are less successful in teaching English learners may be attributing their
performance to the perceived stereotype that English learners are apathetic. If a teacher
believes this, he or she is less likely to take responsibility for the instruction of English
learners and more likely to punish them and deny them assistance (Reyna, 2000). Such
maladaptive attributions negatively influence the teacher’s future expectancies for the
success of English learners.
On the other hand, the more adaptive pathway is a result of making attributions to
unstable, internal, and controllable causes (Reyna, 2000). For example, if a teacher
attributes failure to a lack of his own teaching effort, he is taking responsibility and might
expect to do better next time if he engages in more culturally responsive teaching.
Therefore, one solution to reach the desired level of school reform implementation is to
have teachers participate in attribution retraining. Teachers who view instruction of
English learners as unstable and achievable will be more likely to persist at school-wide
reform efforts. Moreover, teachers can develop attributions that are more accurate by
taking a scientific approach to evaluating students and using multiple assessments to
avoid attributional bias (Schunk et al.). Collecting data on a student and using data to
100
inform teaching can help teachers avoid making an ultimate attribution error, as well as
increase teaching efficacy due to more accurate feedback.
This is in line with Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) cultural models and
cultural settings framework, which offers an approach that values students’ funds of
knowledge, moving away from the deficit explanation that blames unsuccessful students
and their families for their diverse backgrounds to the differences in explanation that
recognizes variations in students’ home settings. Gallimore and Goldenberg define
cultural models as shared mental schema of how the world works and cultural settings as
the contextual influences that can impact both teaching and learning. The advantage of a
models and settings analysis is that it forces a hard look at the biases inherent in the
context, or the structure of the school, and proposes ways in which the school system can
be transformed to meet the educational needs of students and the pedagogical needs of
teachers. Instead of attributing diversity to deficiencies in the child, an accountable
educator can apply cultural models and settings to inform their instructional methods and
evaluation procedures. To transform schools, educators must acknowledge that what
they expect or assume as models and settings are not shared universally. Tapping into
student experience makes learning more meaningful by validating a student’s identity and
expands the opportunities to learn, as well as the opportunities to teach.
In a similar manner, Bennett’s (2001) model for ethnic identity development
suggests that schools take into consideration minority youth’s cultural histories and
coping strategies in response to societal oppression and reflect on how they are
manipulated for placement in English Language Development classes. Fostering a
101
cultural model of teaching that moves beyond stereotypical notions about minority youth
is one solution to help teachers become more effective in the classroom by engaging them
in high expectations for all students. According to Bennett, if teachers have high
expectations for minority youth, then their sense of teaching efficacy in relation to
teaching students from diverse backgrounds is increased. As a result, when teachers are
confident in their professional capacity, they are more likely to persist at school-wide
reform activities.
Summary of Recommendations
The following recommendations were generated following a thorough analysis of
both seminal and burgeoning perspectives in motivational and organizational literature.
These recommendations take into account several prevalent themes found throughout the
school district (decentralized practices and the unmet academic needs of English
learners), and if implemented strategically with moral conviction, can guide district
leaders in meeting performance and ultimately organizational goals. A summary of the
following recommendations is found in Appendix H.
Goals
Creating C
3
Goals
In order for the C
3
work goals to have the most impact, they must first be aligned
to the overall organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2009). The RUSD can clarify how
short-term work goals support the longer-term context of school reform (Leithwood et
al.). For example, at NHS and RHS, classroom goals (work goals) can be created to feed
into the Three Essential Priorities for Teaching and Learning (intermediate goals) and
102
into the RUSD’s mission (global goal) so that school reform initiatives are made relevant
to classroom teachers. Thus, with clear expectations and opportunities to succeed,
teacher motivation and engagement can thrive (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), which would
benefit effective reform implementation.
Fostering Communication
Johnston (2002) suggests that principals can play a strategic role in encouraging
teachers to be full participants of school-wide reform efforts. As a way to begin this
discussion, Johnston recommends that NHS and RHS create a visual representation of the
current reform strategies and their relationships, naming programs or units, with their
primary features listed beneath, and drawing a circle around each. Then, lines
representing established or potential relationships would be drawn between the programs.
By drawing parallels between policy and improving student outcomes, teacher
motivation can be increased (Leithwood et al.). The visual representation may help key
players at NHS and RHS better understand their role within the reform movement, as
well as strategize prospective interactions that could drive implementation. Making roles
and relationships concrete and clear can facilitate buy-in and understanding, especially at
the secondary setting, which can lead to a higher level of reform implementation.
Reinforcing Teacher Commitment
When teachers have feelings of belonging and trust, they are more likely to
internalize and implement school reform goals (Henkin & Holliman, 2009). Some
suggestions to build a supportive community across both high schools at the RUSD
include acknowledging teachers for their good work, inviting teachers’ input on school
103
decisions, providing a forum for teachers to admire each other’s work, and informing the
school community of teachers’ involvement in the school’s achievements (Leithwood et
al.). Through the celebration of accomplishments, teachers at both NHS and RHS can
become more cohesive as they witness the RUSD’s overall values being consistently and
equitably reinforced. Teacher efficacy and task value are positively impacted by such
feedback (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998), which are instrumental to achieving the desired
level of reform implementation.
Implementation and Accountability
The challenges faced by the leadership in the RUSD, as do other educational
leaders, may at times be complex and daunting. Nonetheless, the leadership does have at
its disposal a variety of resources that, if utilized properly, can be instrumental in
managing organizational goals (Bennis & Goldsmith, 2003), the needs of employees
(Webb & Norton, 2009), and limited resources during the implementation of district
reforms, in light of the district’s political realities (Houston, 2001).
Leadership
District leaders must create a context for change by accessing and practicing
proven principles of effective leadership, such as those found in the Four-frame
Leadership Model (Bolman & Deal, 2008) and those espoused by the Build-up,
Breakthrough, Flywheel Model (Collins, 2001). These principles must form part of the
institutional culture to impact change, and be integrated within the district’s vision and
set of organizational expectations. In accord with such principles, the RUSD can
implement the Gap Analysis Process Model (Clark & Estes, 2009) to identify the root
104
causes behind the gap in the use of uniformed leadership principles. Solutions to address
the root causes of this particular performance gap can then be identified and implemented
via professional development, motivational activities, or organizational processes, under
the guidelines and principles of the Four-frame Leadership and the Build-up,
Breakthrough, Flywheel models.
Narrowing the Focus
The RUSD must narrow the organizational focus. Schools and districts that are
successful in raising student achievement do a few things well and maintain a consistent
focus over a period of years (Au & Valencia, 2010). This is achievable by reducing or
merging the number of initiatives currently under implementation. For example, the
school district can coordinate value-streams (Finn, 2002; Stecher and Kirby, 2004;
Womack, et al.) around the Three Essential Priorities or, more specifically, the needs of
English learners to narrow its focus and maximize reform implementation efforts. Given
that the academic performance of English learners is, for all intents and purposes, what
has prevented the school district in general and several schools in particular from meeting
external performance benchmarks like API and AYP, it seems logical that at least one
solution to this student performance gap is to focus exclusively on meeting the academic
needs of English learners. The RUSD should prioritize the implementation of the English
Learner Master Plan (ELMP), making it the centerpiece of all district reform initiatives.
All or most of the resources currently invested in professional development (e.g.,
Communities of Practice, instructional walks, Professional Leaning Communities, etc.)
and other district activities should be concentrated on the needs of English learners and
105
the implementation of the ELMP. Filtering and sequencing district resources and
activities through this narrowed focus will make organizational goals more realistic,
while avoiding reform overload (Foley, 2001) with scattered, inconsistent, and ultimately
ineffective efforts (Clark & Estes, 2009).
Implementation
The district needs to establish a clear and consistent protocol to guide the
implementation of reforms. A coordinated effort to monitor the implementation of a
given reform (e.g., the ELMP) can prevent a common pitfall of school reform: purchase
materials, train teachers, and innovation will be implemented exactly as planned. Very
often, judgments are made about the relative success or failure of a reform, without any
effort to document whether or not it is in fact being implemented as intended in the
classroom (Hall & Hord, 2001). Hall and Hord argue that knowing what to change is
only a small part of the equation; knowing how to change is the real key. For example, if
the district elects to focus reforms efforts on English learners, it can develop
implementation protocol for the ELMP, using the principles of Hall and Hord’s (2001)
CBAM as the blueprint for implementation. To implement the ELMP at its highest level
(or the implementation of any of the district’s other reforms), district leaders need to
clearly and effectively communicate the goals and expectations associated with it,
consider the impact on personnel responsible for its implementation, and consistently
monitor and assess its implementation. In line with the CBAM, the district can take the
following steps to implement the ELMP.
106
● Innovation Configuration (IC): clearly communicate what the ELMP is, what it
looks like at its ideal level of implementation, and specify the role of each person
responsible for its implementation.
● Stages of Concern (SoC): as the ELMP is being implemented, conduct surveys to
measure concerns among staff members regarding the implementation of the
ELMP. Determine the level of concerns (Awareness, information, personal,
management, consequence, collaboration, and Refocusing), and address concerns
according to their respective level. For instance, coordinate professional
development through Communities of Practice or Professional Learning
Communities to address the specific concern(s) among staff members.
● Level of Implementation (LoI): have district and school level teams measure the
actual implementation on a scale that ranges from no implementation to full
implementation. For example, monthly progress reports on district and school
level implementation can be part of the agenda at Instructional Cabinet. Also,
instructional walks can exclusively center on or include the various components
of the ELMP. Additionally, administrative classroom observations can be
conducted daily to monitor fidelity to the instructional expectations of the ELMP.
Moreover, the district can coordinate two annual district level symposiums to
report on the needs and progress of English learners via the implementation of the
ELMP. A symposium for all schools can take place at the beginning of the school
year to give schools the opportunity to present their specific plans to address the
needs of English learners via the implementation of the ELMP. A second
107
symposium for all schools can take place at the end of the school year for all
schools to present their respective accomplishments related to English learners
and the implementation of the ELMP.
Accountability
The RUSD must commit to instituting data-driven accountability measures to
guarantee that current reforms are fully implemented. Such accountability can be
accomplished in several ways: (1) through structural management methods that clearly
delineate rules and expectations, (2) through value-streaming of schools or departments
(Finn, 2002; Stecher & Kirby, 2004); Womack, et al) to assess the effectiveness of
district processes, (3) through a local version of the PRI to assess the impact of school
and district practices on student performance (Foley, 2001). Using English learners as
the narrowed focus and the ELMP as the innovation being implemented, the district can
use an accountability scorecard (Bensimon, 2004; Harris & Bensimon, 2007) such as the
PRI to hold itself, schools, and individuals accountable for expectations related to
organizational goals, the focus on English learners, and the implementation of the ELMP.
In the case of schools, the PRI can include three sets of indicators for each school:
student data, school reform implementation data, and interventions for staff members.
Student data may include performance data on the CSTs, graduation rate, attendance,
course failure rate, etc. among the EL subgroup. School reform implementation data can
include level of reform implementation related to a specific reform (e.g., data from the
CBAM). Interventions for staff members may include the specific steps a school is
taking to close performance gaps among staff members, steps such as professional
108
development opportunities for groups or individuals, percentage of performance
improvement plans among staff members, or other efforts that clearly demonstrate that
implementation of the ELMP is being addressed by staff members at the individual level.
The use of data can be instrumental in determining whether or not district and
school practices are having their intended impact on student outcomes (Datnow, et al.
2007), and can hold schools, departments, and individuals in the RUSD accountable for
their performance (Foley, 2001). Accountability is essential in meeting the educational
needs of all students, especially in educational settings where autonomy is highly
regarded. Without data, it will be difficult for the RUSD to have accountability. And
without accountability, the educational needs of students, such as English learners, will
continue to go unmet.
Cultural Settings
Building Teacher Capacity
In structuring learning activities to increase the knowledge among staff members
as it relates to district reforms, school culture, and the cultural backgrounds of students,
leaders in the RUSD must do so with consideration of the motivational nuances that may
affect the level and quality of the expected learning. Specifically, district and site leaders
can take the following steps to optimize the knowledge capacity. First, clearly
communicate the reform’s goals and expectations (Bolman & Deal, 2008) via print and
electronic media (e.g., newsletters, flyers, posters, and emails) and via presentations to
staff members so that the knowledge of the reforms is common and consistent district-
wide (Marzano, 2003). Secondly, ensure that all professional development activities
109
related to district reforms link training objectives to organizational goals and are
sustained over the course of an extended period of time (Wei et al.). For example, the
RUSD can use the ELMP as the umbrella to guide all assessments, standards, and
professional development so that teachers can visualize how a given training connects to
other pieces of the system (Hall & Hord, 2001).
Developing Teacher Efficacy
To set the context of the professional development, the RUSD can choose an
experienced teacher to be one of the lead presenters, alongside the outside consultant, to
model English learner instructional strategies. This allows teachers to observe one of
their peers who has mastered the instructional strategies, which can motivate them to
change their pedagogy by seeing someone similar to them who is now an expert
(Onchwari & Keengwe, 2008). To maximize the impact of the in-service delivery, when
selecting lead presenters, the district should consider teacher leaders who are viewed by
the staff as relevant, credible, and competent (Gredler, 2005). Another recommendation
would be for the RUSD to incorporate work sessions during the in-services, where
teachers can receive clear and accurate feedback from experienced staff, which would
improve their self-efficacy when it comes to completing the task on their own (Pintrich,
2003). Overall, teacher-centered trainings that focus on improving self-efficacy may
increase teacher persistence at reform implementation, as well as reduce teacher burnout
(Evers et al., 2002).
110
Increasing Cultural Proficiency
One recommendation to reach the desired level of school reform implementation
is to have teachers at NHS and RHS participate in attribution retraining. According to
Reyna (2000), teachers striving toward cultural proficiency are the ones who are making
attributions to unstable, internal, and controllable causes. For example, if a teacher
attributes low EL achievement to a lack of his own teaching effort, he is taking
responsibility and might expect to do better next time if he incorporates more EL
instructional strategies into his lessons. Additionally, if teachers have high expectations
for minority youth, then their sense of teaching efficacy in relation to teaching students
from diverse backgrounds is increased (Bennett, 2001). As a result, when teachers are
confident in their professional capacity with regard to their cultural setting, they are more
likely to persist at school-wide reform activities. If the proper steps in building teacher
capacity are taken, they can produce buy-in, commitment, and increased performance
(Clark & Estes, 2009).
Implications for Professional Practice
One of the guiding principles in managing change is the understanding that
change is a process is not an event (Hall & Hord, 2001). Hence, as the above
recommendations are targeted on the organizational level for the RUSD, progress will not
be achieved quickly, and substantial growth may not be visible for years. Staying the
course over a period of time on a select set of recommendations will be more impactful
than continuously searching for quick fixes to shortcomings occasioned or enabled by
institutional practices that require Horizon 2 reforms, reforms that pursue deep, long-term
111
changes to the culture of an organization (Fullan, 2003). An effective and responsive
leadership team is therefore needed to promote a system-wide learning model that is
encouraging and flexible yet consistent in guiding the change process. Most of all, it is
essential for the RUSD to regularly evaluate its improvement efforts and act on their
realities by making the necessary corrections so that school reform implementation
continues to positively impact performance (Clark & Estes, 2009).
112
REFERENCES
Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R. E.,
Pintrich, P.R., et al. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Situative versus cognitive
perspectives: Form versus substance. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 18-21.
Akinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples:
Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of
Educational Research, 70 (2), 181-214.
Au, K. H., & Valencia, S. W. (2010). Fulfilling the potential of standards-based
education: Promising policy principles. Language Arts, 87(5).
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril/Prentice Hall.
Barron, K. E. & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Achievement goals and optimal motivation:
A multiples goals approach. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp.
229-254). New York: Academic Press.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
educational research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (2003) Learning to lead (4
th
ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change, 36(1), 45–52.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139-148. Retrieved June 19, 2009,
from http://www.pdkinttl.org/kappan/kbla9810.htm.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
113
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brookover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. G., Schneider, J. M., Beady, C. H., Flood, P.K., &
Wisenbaker, J. M. (1978). Elementary school social climate and school
achievement. American Research Journal, 15, 301-318.
Brookover, W. B., & Lezotte, L.W. (1979). Changes in school characteristics coincident
with changes in student achievement. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on
Teaching, Michigan State University. (Eric Document Reproduction No. ED
181005).
Butler, J. A. (1992). Staff development. NW Archives. Regional Educational Laboratory.
Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://www.nwrel.org/archives/sirs/6/cu12.html.
California Department of Education (2010). Retrieved January 12, 2010, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/index.asp
California Education Code, Desktop Edition (2010). California: Thomson Reuters.
California Public School Accountability Act (1999). Retrieved March 1, 2010 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/pa/
Cambone, J. (1995). Time for teachers in school restructuring. Teachers College Record,
96(3), 1-32.
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year
college student performance and adjustment. Journal of educational Psychology,
93, 55-64.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2009). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the
right performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cobb, J. (2000). The impact of a professional development school on preservice teacher
preparation, and children’s achievement: Perceptions of inservice teachers. Action
in Teacher Education, 22(3), 64-76.
Cohen, D. K., Moffitt, S. L., & Goldin, S. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma.
American Journal of Education, 113, 515-548.
Colbert, J.A., Brown, R.S., Choi, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). An investigation of the
impact of teacher-driven professional development on pedagogy and student
learning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 135-154.
114
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld,
F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap…and others
don’t. New York: HarpeCollins Publishers Inc.
Covey, S. R. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in
personal change. New York: Simon & Schuter.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for creating schools that
work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-
performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary
students. Center on Educational Governance. Los Angeles: University of
Southern California, Rossier School of Education.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relationship between assessment
practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge.
Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 145-186.
Drucker, P. (1999). Management challenges for the 21
st
century. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.
Ed-Data (2010). School Reports. Retrieved August 25, 2010 from
http://www.eddata.k12.ca.us/Accountability/AYP.asp?reportNumber=1&fyr=091
0&county=01&district=61119&school=0130609&level=07&tab=2
Edmonds, R. R. (1981). Search for effective schools. Institute for Research on Teaching.
East Lansing, MI. Michigan State University, The College of Education.
Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to
achievement motivation: A hierarchical model and avoidance achievement
motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and
achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143-179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. New York: Albert
Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/Bridging_Gap.pdf
115
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A
study on teachers’ beliefs when implementing an innovative educational
system in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,
227-243.
Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2007). The influence of professional development on young
writers’ writing performance. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 17-28.
Finn, Chester E., Jr. (2002). Real accountability in K–12 education: The marriage of Ted
and Alice. In W. M. Evers and H. J. Walberg (eds.), School accountability: An
assessment by the Koret Task Force on K–12 education. Stanford, CA: The
Hoover Institution.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era cognitive
development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Foley, E. (2001). Contradictions and control in systemic reform: The ascendancy of the
central office in Philadelphia schools. Madison, WI: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. London: Routledge Farmer.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of “seductive details” on
macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and
Instruction, 6, 41-57.
Gonida, E. N., Voulala, K., & Kiosseoglou, G. (2009). Students' achievement goal
orientations and their behavioral and emotional engagement: Co-examining the
role of perceived school goal structures and parent goals during adolescence.
Learning and Individual Differences, 19 (1), 53-60.
Graham, S. (1991). A review of attribution theory in achievement contexts. Educational
Psychology Review, 3(1), 5-39.
Graham, S. & Weiner, B. (1996). Theories and principles of motivation. In Berliner, D.
C. and R. C. Calfee (Eds), Handbook of Educational psychology (pp. 63-84). New
York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
116
Gredler, M. (2005). Chapter 12. In Learning and instruction: Theory into practice (p.
342-379). (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hall. G.E., & Hord, S. M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and
potholes. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002).
Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638-645.
Harris, F. III, & Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative approach
to assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes. Wiley Inter-
Science,120, 77-84.
Henkin, A. B., & Holliman, S. L. (2009). Urban teacher commitment: Exploring
associations with organizational conflict, support for innovation, and
participation. Urban Education, 44(2), 160-180.
House, D. J. (2006). Cognitive-motivational characteristics and geometry knowledge of
adolescent students in Japan: Results from the TIMSS 1999 assessment.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 33(1), 95-111.
Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 21
st
century: It’s not just a job, it’s a
calling. Phi Delta Kappa, 82, 428-433.
Johnson, A. (2003). Procedural memory and skill acquisition. In I. B. Weiner (Ed.),
Handbook of Psychology (pp. 499-523). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Johnston, B. J. (2002). Absent from school: Educational policy and comprehensive
reform. The Urban Review, 34(3), 205-230. Retrieved January 23, 2010,
from www.csa.com
Karoly, L. A., & Panis, C. W. A. (2004). The 21
st
century at work: Forces
shaping the future workforce and workplace in the United States. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG164/
Kirst, M. W. (2004). The turning points: A history of American school governance. In
N. Epstein (Ed.), Who’s in charge here? (p. 14-41). Education Commission of
the States.
Kramarski, B. (2008). Promoting teachers’ algebraic reasoning and self-regulation with
metacognitive guidance. Metacognition Learning, 3, 83-99.
117
Krapp, A., Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (1992). Interest, learning , and development. In
K. A. Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and
development (pp. 3-25). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lashway, L. (2001). Leadership for accountability. Research Roundup. 17(3), 1-14.
Eugene, OR: Clearinghouse on Education Policy & Management.
Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers'
motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 38(1), 94-119. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from www.csa.com
Lezotte, L (2003). Revolutionary and evolutionary: The effective schools movement.
Retrieved March 5, 2010, from
http://www.cascade.k12.mt.us/pages/administration/jsprout/Pages/EffectiveSchoo
ls/RevEv.pdf
Lipson, M., Mosenthal, J., Mekkelsen, J., & Russ, B. (2004). Building knowledge and
fashioning success one school at a time. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 534-542.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting
and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.
Marchant, G.J. (2002). Professional development schools and indicators of student
achievement. The Teacher Educator, 38(2), 112-125.
Mariage, T.V., & Garmon, A. M. (2003). A case for educational change: Improving
student achievement through a school-university partnership. Remedial and
Special Education, 24(4), 215-234.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Changing conceptions of learning: A century of progress in the
scientific study of education. In L. Corno (Ed), Education across a century: The
centennial volume, one hundred years of the National Society for the Study of
Education (pp. 34-75). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
118
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2
nd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). NAEP Summary Data Tables.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 15, 2010,
from http://nces.edu.gov/nationsreportcard
No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Public Law 107-110. Retrieved February 15, 2010
from, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, Office of the Provost. (n.d.). Is your
project human subjects research? A guide for investigators. University of
Southern California.
Onchwari, G., & Keengwe, J. (2008). The impact of a mentor-coaching model on
teacher professional development. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36 (1),
19-24.
Patton, Q. M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
PEW Institute (2008). U.S. population projections: 2005-2050. Retrieved January 15,
2010, from http://pewsocialtrends.org/pub/703population-projections-united-
states
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95 (4), 667-686.
Purkey, C. S. & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary
School Journal, (83) 4, 426-452.
R-30 Report (2009). Rowland Unified School District.
Reyna, C. (2000). Lazy, dumb, or industrious: When stereotypes convey attribution
information in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review, 12(1), 85-110.
Reynolds, P. L., & Symons, S. (2001). Motivational variables and children’s text search.
Educational Psychology, 93, 14-22.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. R. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support
mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 313–349.
119
Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1999). Concept mapping as a tool for learning:
Broadening the framework for student-centered instruction. College Teaching,
47(2), 74-9.
Rother, M, & Shook, J. (1998). Learning to see: Value stream mapping to create value
and eliminate muda. Brookline, MA: The Lean Enterprise Institute.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Sanders, W. & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future
student academic achievement. Knowville, TN: University of Tennessee, Value-
added Research and Assessment.
Sáenz, C. (2008). The role of contextual, conceptual and procedural knowledge in
activating mathematical competencies (PISA). Educ Std Math, 71, 123-143.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (2007). The foundations of educational effectiveness. WA:
UK. JAI Press.
Schiefele, U. (1992). Topic interest and levels of text comprehension. In K. A.
Renninger, S. Hidi, & A. Krapp (Eds.), The role of interest in learning and
development (pp. 151-182). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schiefele, U. (1996). Topic interest, text representation, and quality experience.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(2), 3-18.
Schneider, M., & Stern, E. (2010). The developmental relations between conceptual and
procedural knowledge: A multimethod approach. Developmental Psychology,
46(1), 178-192.
School Accountability Report Card (2009). Nogales High School. Retrieved March 10,
2010, from http://www.rhs.rowland.k12.ca.us/
School Accountability Report Card (2009). Rowland High School. Retrieved March 10,
2010, from http://www.rhs.rowland.k12.ca.us/
Schulz, M., & Robnagel, C. S. (2010). Informal workplace learning: An exploration of
age differences in learning competence. Learning and Instruction, 20, 383-399.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist,
26, 207-231.
120
Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (1995). Self-efficacy development in adolescence. In F.
Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs during adolescence. Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishing.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Seegers, G., Van Putten, C. M. & Vermeer, H. J. (2004). Effects of causal attributions
following mathematics tasks on student cognitions about a subsequent task. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 72(4), 307-328.
Single Plan for Student Achievement (2009). Nogales High School.
Single Plan for Student Achievement (2009). Rowland High School.
Smith, L., & Sinclair, K. E. (2005). Empirical evidence for multiple goals: a gender-
based, senior high school student perspective. Australian Journal of Educational
& Developmental Psychology, 5, 55-70.
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind. Retrieved January 14, 2009 from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/whitepapers/wp138/wp138.pdf
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability:
Lessons for education from other sectors. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Supovitz, J. A. (2001). Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers
College Record, 104(8), 1591-1626.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design.
Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-312.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper &
Brothers Publishers.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its
meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
Tucci, T. N. (2009). Prioritizing the nation’s dropout factories: The need for federal
policy that targets the lowest-performing high schools. Alliance for Excellent
Education, September 2009.
Webb, L. D., & Norton, M. S. (2009). Human resources administration: Personnel
issues and needs in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
121
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hamonnd, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional development in
the United States: Trends and challenges, phase II of a three-phase study. The
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. National Staff Development
Council.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attributional perspective and the social
psychology of perceived competence. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 73-84). New York: Guilford Press.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
Wolters, C. A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and
goal orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236-250.
Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (1996). Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in
your corporation. Sydney, Australia: Simon & Schuster.
Womack, J. P., Jones, D.T., & Roos, D. (1990). The Machine that changed the world:
The story of lean production. New York: Harper Perennial.
World Bank. (2007). The role of education quality in economic growth. (Policy Research
Working Paper No. 4122). Washington DC: Hanushek, E.
122
APPENDIX A: INQUIRY PROJECT TIMELINE
Summer 2009
• Summer Dissertation Conference
Fall 2009
• Inquiry Team Formation
• District Context of Need
• Understanding District Priorities
• Narrowing Inquiry Focus
Spring 2010
• Exploring Root Causes
• Data Collection
• Data Analysis
Summer 2010
• Identification of Performance Gaps and their Root Causes
• Development of Findings and Root Causes Executive Summary
Fall 2010
• Preliminary Presentation of Root Causes Executive Summary to the District
• Presentation of Recommendations/Considerations to the District
Spring 2011
• Presentation of Recommendations/Considerations to the School Board
123
APPENDIX B: PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
Gap Analysis Project at the Rowland Unified School District
Introduction
A team of three doctoral students from the University of Southern California, who are
current educational practitioners representing three local school districts, will pilot a
collaborative project to analyze the impact of the district's reform efforts in making the
two comprehensive high schools effective in both perception and reality.
Overview of the Project
The goal of this project is to provide the Rowland Unified School District with a set of
recommendations to maximize the impact of district reform efforts at each of its two high
schools, Nogales and Rowland.
The team will utilize the Gap Analysis model, which identifies goals and measures
progress being made toward those goals. Goals and potential performance gaps will be
analyzed from perspectives that focus on knowledge, motivation, and organizational
contexts.
The project will consist of three stages: (1) collection of data through field observations
and interviews, referenced against educational best practices and outcome data; (2) data
analysis and interpretation; and (3) presentation of recommendations.
Benefit to the School District
The district will benefit by receiving meaningful feedback on the status of its reforms
efforts, as well as a set of research-based recommendations to improve identified
performance gaps.
Confidentiality
Personal information such as names, addresses, or other identifiable information will not
be obtained in connection with this project.
Team Contact Information
Cuauhtemoc Avila cuauhtea@usc.edu (818) 813-3979
Dale Folkens folkens@usc.edu (909) 855-3072
Mary Laihee laihee@usc.edu (323) 899-7010
124
APPENDIX C: TABLE 1: GAP ANALYSIS PROCESS MODEL
Table 1: Gap Analysis Process Model
125
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Agreement 1: The first round of interviews must target key informants to scan for
themes related to district reforms and student achievement.
Agreement 2: The interview questions must be aligned to district reforms.
Agreement 3: The interviewees must be made aware of the project’s purpose.
Agreement 4: The project team must establish trust with all interviewees, especially
during the scanning interviews with key informants. The team thus created
a letter that included a summary of the project’s goals, process, team
members contact information, and a template of the Gap Analysis Process
Model.
Agreement 5: The interviews must be electronically recorded and the data transcribed
and analyzed into a common data table within three days of the interviews.
126
APPENDIX E: SCANNING INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Describe the overall performance status of the school district.
1a. What is your view of the performance status of the two schools?
1b. What are the strengths of each school?
1c. What are the major challenges at each school?
2. In recent years, what reform efforts have been implemented to address
the challenges at the schools?
2a. What was the process in selecting these reforms?
2b. How would you describe the level of implementation to date of the reforms?
2c. Was there any success with these reforms?
2d. Do they continue to this day or what happened?
3. Are there any formal or informal school or district goals to make the high
schools highly effective?
3a. How does the district envision the high schools to be?
3b. What is the timeframe for accomplishing these goals?
3c. What criteria are used as indicators of improvement towards these goals?
3d. Do different role groups have different goals for this effort?
3e. How far are the district/schools from achieving these goals?
4. What do you believe is keeping the schools from being highly effective?
4a. Is this problem linked to one or many role groups?
4b. What do you believe has led to this?
4c. Do you believe ______________ have the knowledge, motivation, and
127
resources to perform effectively?
5. What do you believe the team should explore or do to gain a better
understanding of the schools' current performance?
128
APPENDIX F: SECOND ROUND INTERVIEWS
Themes
1. Expectations for ELL students
2. Decentralization
3. Goals
4. Perceptions
Stages of Concern
1. What are some things you are doing in your classroom to address the needs of EL
learners?
(Behavior/Experiences)
2. How is it going?
(Feelings/Emotions)
3. What does it take to make this intervention a successful one?
(Knowledge/Skills)
4. What do you see as the pros and cons for your own involvement in the instruction of
EL learners? (Perceptions)
(Opinion/Value)
5. What are the measures of success? (Goals)
(Knowledge/Skills)
6. What is your opinion on having an ELL Lead Teacher? (Decentralization)
(Opinion/Value)
7. What is you role in working with the ELL Lead Teacher?
(Beahvior/Experiences)
129
One-month Interview
1. Tell me about the district's 3 essential priorities. (Perceptions and Expectations)
(knowledge/skills)
2. During the past month, what were your classroom Goals related to first instruction/EL
instruction?
(behavior/experiences)
3. Did this require certain strategies? Can you tell me about them?
(knowledge/skills and behavior/experiences)
4. How were these strategies determined? (Decentralization)
(knowledge/skills and opinions/values)
5. What was the outcome of these strategies? (Perceptions)
(opinions/values and feelings/emotions)
130
APPENDIX G: TABLE 2: INNOVATION CONFIGURATION
Table 2: Innovation Configuration
Dimension High
5 4
Medium
3
Low
2 1
Challenges & Concerns
The textual challenges to
full implementation and
concerns/thoughts of key
players
o No serious obstacle or
challenges
o Staff focused on improving
full use of lever and its
impact on student
performance
o Common commitment to
approach
o Some obstacles and/or
challenges to
implementation
o Staff focused on thoughts
and actions needs to
improving lever
o Majority of staff showing
commitment to approach
o Serious external
obstacle to
implementation
o Staff focused on
whether approach
to lever is best
design or feasible
o Possible strong
disagreement about
best direction
Fully implemented in
practice
The extent that each
component of the change
lever is fully implemented
in practice
o Full implementation of all
components of the lever
across the district
o Best have been established
and are communicated in
coordinated manner
o Practice is reflected in
policy and procedures
o Uneven and/or inconsistent
implementation of the lever
across the district
o Best practices are being
collected with plans for
communicating these
across the district
o Possibly some good
ideas about
implementation of
the change lever
o Little actual
implementation of
the lever beyond
minimal
bureaucratic
requirements
Common Culture: Data,
Reflection, & Continuous
Improvement
Shared understanding,
values, and desired
expectations, including
active use of data,
reflection, and continuous
improvement of the change
lever itself
o Extensive use of data and
reflection about the change
lever—its design,
implementation and
effectiveness in supporting
student achievement
o Use of data and reflection
guides about the change
lever
o Expectations
communicated across the
district
o Moderately effective
continuous improvement
o Little common
understanding of the
change lever
o No/little data
collection regarding
lever
o No/little reflection
about to improve
implementation of
change lever
Sustainable use:
Resources , Staff,
Regulation
Ad hoc vs. stability of staff
and fiscal resources and a
fit with the ongoing
organization
o Strong possibility of
sustainability
o Strong and ongoing staff
and fiscal resource
commitment
o Inclusion in regular way
the district operates
o Moderate possibility of
sustainability
o Moderate staff and fiscal
resource commitment
o District support and
expertise
o Very tenuous
approach to
implementation of
change lever
o Little chance of
sustainability in
terms of staffing,
resources, or
regularized patterns
131
APPENDIX H: TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF ROOT CAUSES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Possible Gap and Recommendations Rationale Literature
Some lack of clarity of overall district goals
• Create high school classroom goals that feed into
the Essential Priorities and into the RUSD’s
mission so that school reform initiatives are made
relevant to classroom teachers.
• School reform goals that provide
an explicit, realistic, and
encouraging vision are more
likely to elicit a positive
response. Such goals lead to
higher performance than do
ambiguous goals.
• With clear expectations and
opportunities to succeed, teacher
motivation and engagement are
more likely to thrive.
• Leithwood,
Steinbach, &
Jantzi (2002)
• Locke &
Latham (2002)
• Wigfield &
Eccles (2000)
Uneven value for goals
• Create a visual representation of the current reform
strategies at NHS and RHS and their relationships,
naming programs or units, with their primary
features listed beneath, and drawing a circle
around each. Then, lines representing established
or potential relationships would be drawn between
the programs.
• Facilitate understanding of the connection between
external mandates for change and the school’s
vision.
• Acknowledge teachers for good work, invite their
input on decisions, provide a forum for teachers to
admire each other’s work, and inform the school
community of teachers’ involvement in the
school’s achievements.
• Making roles and relationships
concrete and clear can help to
create buy-in and understanding.
• Visual representations can help
key players understand their role
within the reform movement, as
well as strategize prospective
interactions that could drive
implementation.
• Teacher motivation can be
increased by drawing parallels
between policy and improving
student outcomes.
• Teacher efficacy and task value
are impacted by feedback.
• When teachers have feelings of
belonging and trust, they are more
likely to internalize and
implement school reform goals.
• Johnston (2002)
• Leithwood et al.
(2002)
• Tschannen-
Moran,
Woolfolk Hoy,
& Hoy (1998)
• Henkin &
Holliman (2009)
Fragmented implementation
• Have a comprehensive plan to facilitate the
implementation of an innovation or reform, such as
the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM):
• Innovation Configuration (IC) offers clear
expectations on what the change is
supposed to look like.
• Stages of Concern (SoC) measures
concerns regarding the implementation.
• Level of Implementation (LoI) measures
actual implementation on a scale that
ranges from no implementation to full
implementation.
• Knowing what to change is only
a small part of the equation;
knowing how to change is the
real key.
• IC prevents a common pitfall of
school reform: purchase
materials, train teachers, and
innovation will be implemented
exactly as planned.
• SoC gauges level of
implementation based on
teachers’ concerns.
• LoI prevents judgments that are
made about the relative success
or failure of a program or reform.
• Hall & Hord
(2005)
132
Table 3, Continued
Table 3: Summary of Root Causes and Recommendations
Narrow the focus
• Narrow the organizational focus
by reducing or merging the
number of initiatives under
implementation.
• Value-stream around the primary
focus (e.g., Three Essential
Priorities or ELs) to maximize
implementation efforts.
• Schools that are successful in
raising student achievement do a
few things well and maintain a
consistent focus over a period of
years.
• Having multiple foci often leads
to organizational efforts that are
scattered and inconsistent.
• Au & Valencia (2010)
• Collins (2001)
• Womack, Jones, & Roos (1990)
Need for a robust system of
accountability
• Value-stream resources and
processes to maximize outputs
while holding individuals
accountable.
• Build a culture of freedom and
responsibility, where self-
disciplined people are willing to
go to extreme length.
• Implement a version of the
Professional Responsibility Index
(PRI), an annual score for every
school in a system, based on
several indicators of performance,
such as test scores, graduation
rate, and attendance.
• Value-streams are accountability
measures, outcomes, and process
indicators that govern the
collective activities of the entire
system.
• When an organizational culture of
discipline mixes with a high ethic,
you get great performance.
• The use of test data is instrumental
in determining whether or not
school practices are having their
intended impact on student
outcomes.
• Stecher and Kirby (2004)
• Bolman & Deal (2008)
• Datnow, Park, & Wohlstetter
(2007)
Foley (2001)
133
APPENDIX I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Despite the accountability measures of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),
and the many accountability provisions found in state and federal policies, establishing
parity in educational access, academic performance, and educational attainment among
all student groups remains elusive. The Rowland Unified School District (RUSD), which
serves a predominantly ethnic minority student population, has responded to these
external pressures with three reform efforts designed to support good instruction, enhance
learning at the elementary and middle school levels for Latino students, and make its two
high schools highly effective in both perception and reality.
Purpose
The current dissertation project was undertaken by a three-person project team
that followed a consulting model. The RUSD requested that the project team analyze the
implementation of its three reforms—Partnership with the Ball Foundation, English
Learner Instructional Support Leads, and Three Essential Priorities—at the district’s two
high schools, Nogales (NHS) and Rowland (RHS). The two major goals of this project
were the following: (1) determine if there exist current gaps in the implementation of the
three district reforms; (2) if performance gaps are identified, provide the RUSD with a set
of recommendations based on scholarly research that addresses the root causes of these
performance gaps.
134
Gap Analysis
For this project, the Clark and Estes (2002) gap analysis model was the most
viable among several available process models designed to assist organizations such as
school districts improve their performance. The principles of the gap analysis model
focus on goals, performance gaps, and solutions.
Figure 1: Gap Analysis Process Model
135
Goals
The gap analysis model emphasizes alignment of goals at the global, intermediate,
and performance levels. A global goal provides a vision for the organization, is broad in
scope, and may take years to accomplish (e.g., a school district’s mission statement). An
intermediate goal is moderate in scope and may take weeks or months to accomplish
(e.g., a curriculum unit plan for a reading program). A performance goal is narrow in
scope and may take hours or days to accomplish (e.g., a classroom reading lesson).
Gaps and Roots
To determine a performance gap between the current level of performance and the
standard level of performance (goal), the present level of performance is subtracted from
the standard or desired goal. For instance, to learn if a district-wide reading program is
being implemented at the desired level, one would examine the current level of
implementation and subtract it from the desired level of implementation. From this
precise problem statement, a thorough analysis of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers follows to determine if one or more of these barriers is associated
with a gap in performance (e.g., the implementation of a reading program at a low level).
Because of its systematic approach, the gap analysis model is useful in identifying and
targeting the root causes of performance gaps. For example, an analysis on the
implementation of the reading program could reveal that a lack of motivation among staff
members is impeding the implementation of the program at its ideal level.
136
Interventions
It follows that the identification of performance gaps and their root causes can
lead to interventions to address the performance gaps. In the above example, a school not
implementing the district-wide reading program at the desired level may discover through
gap analysis that one of the causes behind the program’s limited implementation is the
presence of a motivation gap among staff members. A possible intervention to address
this deficiency is to implement a series of school-wide activities to motivate staff
members. The school may also discover that there exists a motivation gap related to the
reading program among district-level personnel, a gap which must first be addressed and
closed before addressing and closing the motivation gap among staff members at the
school sites. In either case, knowing the root causes of current gaps in performance is
fundamental in generating effective interventions.
Inquiry Process
For this project, the gap analysis process model (Clark & Estes, 2002) served as
the framework for authentic institutional problem-solving. The gap analysis model was
useful in identifying and targeting performance gaps that stemmed from a lack of
knowledge and skills, a lack of motivation, and/or a lack of organizational resources and
effective processes. From the outset of the project, the team’s efforts focused on
developing mutual trust and open communication with the school district. The team
affirmed institutional areas of strength to build on this trust, genuinely recognizing the
district’s current school reform efforts. The team discussed general performance gaps in
student academic performance at the two high schools and conveyed the rationale for
137
using the gap analysis model to analyze the implementation of district reforms intended
to close such performance gaps. The team emphasized that although the gap analysis
model is theoretically sound, it requires several cycles in order to completely close or
eliminate performance gaps.
To measure the current level of reform implementation, the project team reviewed
existing district documents (Strategic Plan, WASC Reports, Single Action Plan for
Student Achievement, School Accountability Report Cards, etc.) and spoke with twenty-
four staff members from the school district and the two high schools who had some level
of responsibility for the implementation of one or more of the three district reforms.
Findings
In its efforts to meet state and federal benchmarks for student performance, the
RUSD has adopted two organizational goals: (1) make its two high schools highly
effective and (2) implement district-wide reforms—e.g. the Ball Foundation, ELIS Lead,
and the Three Essential Priorities. This alternative capstone project focused primarily on
the current level of implementation of district reforms. The review of existing documents
and the conversations with staff members revealed several positive findings and emergent
themes. More importantly, however, the conversations revealed that while currently
some performance goals are being met toward the implementation of district reforms,
many other performance goals have not been made clear or have not been identified and,
therefore, are not being met. Barriers within the four emergent themes, associated with
knowledge, motivation, and organizational processes and resources, appear to be
responsible for the low to moderate level of implementation of district reforms thus far.
138
Positive Activities
The team recognizes that the RUSD has established a remarkable culture of
educational excellence, as evidenced by its many successful schools and programs,
including 4 National Blue Ribbon Schools, 16 California Distinguished Schools, and
multiple Golden Bell awards. To build on this excellence, the RUSD has taken initiative
to build school capacity to enhance student achievement. For instance, the district has
created the Executive Cabinet, Instructional Cabinet, and Instructional Leadership Teams
to align resources and improve reform implementation. As a result, several staff
members reported higher levels of teacher collaboration within both schools. A case in
point is the recent learning walks. Following a learning walk at NHS, a central office
administrator commented, "The learning walks have generated awareness of practices
among staff district-wide. In the process, we hope that they will help dispel negative
perceptions [about NHS]."
Additionally, the team learned that the district’s high level of performance in its
exceptional programs is complemented by a generally positive disposition towards NHS,
RHS, and the district among many staff members. For example, it was shared by several
staff members that RHS has built a culture of professionalism and high expectations
among the staff. "They staff is like a family, with high expectations and
professionalism," said one respondent. Asked what has been the key to much of the
success at the school, several staff members replied that it was the level of
professionalism and the way things operate at the school. Additionally, many staff
members at both high schools reported that they feel supported by the school district.
139
Emergent Themes
During the initial conversation with district personnel, four emergent themes
appeared prevalent in the dynamics of the district’s organizational culture—themes that
were reinforced during subsequent conversations with other district-level and school
personnel. The four emergent themes are the perception that NHS is not a good school;
absence of clear and measurable goals, particularly performance goals; English learners;
and decentralization.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Perceptions
A majority of the conversations with staff members indicated that there is a
perception that NHS is not a good school, given its academic performance, physical
appearance, and composition of its student body population. A similar perception,
though to a much lesser extent, was found about RHS. According several staff members,
it is believed among some students, parents, and community leaders that students will
receive a better education in a neighboring district. At NHS, however, concerns about
the appearance of the school campus seem to hinder teacher efficacy. Staff members
might not be participating fully in reform efforts because they believe that the physical
appearance of their school is symbolic of the school’s sub-par status in the district. Also,
with respect to resources, it was a common theme expressed that the district does not
have the sufficient financial resources to assist NHS with the personnel it needs to make
the school more effective. “There is nothing to help a school like ours get the personnel
we need to make this school student centered. The district has some say, but they are
bound by contract,” said one staff member. It was expressed that the lack of resources
140
constitutes a lack of mandate for staff members to effectively connect with and engage
students in the process of learning. Additionally, several respondents indicated that
district administrators perpetuate the perception that Nogales is a "ghetto" school by
failing to provide it the support needed to improve the school’s physical appearance.
Furthermore, the team learned from a number of conversations that some district
processes and the limitation of resources also contribute to the perception that NHS lacks
effectiveness, resulting in partial implementation of reforms. The most notable of these
practices is open enrollment. At the high school level, this practice allows high achieving
students from NHS to enroll at RHS to prevent these students from transferring to
neighboring school districts--e.g., Walnut Valley Unified School District. According to a
number of district and school personnel, open enrollment has resulted in a mass exodus
of Asian students from NHS to RHS. This exodus in turn has perpetuated the low-
achievement scores at NHS and reinforced its negative reputation of being a low-
performing school. This reinforcement has "...neutralized morale among staff, students,
and parents, which has made the implementation of strategies and reforms a more
challenging task," said a site administrator.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Goals
Some staff members spoke of the organizational goals related to student
achievement and the reforms being implemented, but most staff members at the school
sites were not able to articulate the district’s organizational goals or their individual
performance goals associated with the implementation of reforms. Teachers and support
staff at both school sites were not aware of any school-wide goals or progress indicators
141
related to the reform efforts. In general, they were knowledgeable about the name of
each reform and the contact person assigned to the reform, but not much more. Many
staff members shared that they were not sure about the details and specific components
for the implementation of the reform strategies. One teacher stated that she had never
heard of the “Three Essentials.” When she was provided a copy of the Essentials she
quickly recognized and admitted that she did not know that they were called the
“Essentials.” According to one teacher, “The district operates from generalities. There is
not much goal-setting taking place.”
There was a general sentiment that when plans are proposed at the district or site
administrative level, they rarely make it to fruition, particularly in the classrooms. One
teacher stated that, “The district does not measure plans or goals it attempts to
implement.” Several teachers stated that the English learner program, for example, lacks
a plan with clear goals, expectations, and measures of accountability. Meanwhile, one
teacher added the following: Whether it’s cultural competence, RTI, or something else,
it’s usually just a buzz word at the district office. These things are never clarified or
actually implemented at our [classroom] level. Other conversations emphasized that the
district has not had or has not clearly communicated clear performance goals for
individuals or groups/departments in order to meet API, AYP, or other performance
targets. Apparently, the absence or lack of awareness of clear and measurable goals,
particularly performance goals, prevents many staff members from thoroughly
implementing district reforms.
142
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: English Learners
It appears that the absence or lack of awareness of goals and the perception that
NHS is not a good school are especially impacting the needs of English learners. While
the majority of staff members expressed the need to focus on the achievement of second
language learners, many felt that the school district is not doing enough, if anything, to
address the needs of this student population. In some cases, teachers at both high schools
attributed challenges to reform implementation to deficiencies in the student population.
Some teachers felt that there is not much that can be done to help certain student groups.
These views are inconsistent with a student-centered approach. For example, when asked
about English learners enrolling in Advanced Placement and Honors courses, one teacher
responded, “Some students don’t want to. They think it’s not worth it. They want to
have a life or need to work.” Another teacher pointed out that the ELD classes are small
(about fifteen students) not because of scheduling but because “many students drop out
due to pregnancy, credit deficiencies, and other normal reasons.”
At RHS, meanwhile, the school has mobilized around the high-performing
students, but teacher efficacy toward meeting the needs of diverse learners is not as high.
Staff members here might be focusing energy on ensuring that high-performing students
stay enrolled, which could be taking precedence over reform efforts related to raising
achievement for all students. An instructional assistant that works with English learners
stated that some English learners have summarily suspended their attendance to certain
classes because "…some teachers are not approachable or do not work well with them."
Some staff members believed that not following up on the needs of English language
143
learners has resulted in the cultural phenomena of intentional failure, as students
intentionally fail certain classes to prevent re-designation into the mainstream
instructional program in order to remain in classes with their immediate primary language
peers.
Root Causes within Emergent Themes: Decentralization
The existence of a culture of decentralization emerged in many conversations.
According to a number of staff members, district mandates are often seen as optional or
are loosely enforced, leaving implementation to the discretion of school sites or
individuals. Such a culture of decentralization is also practiced within the site level, as
departments and individual employees seemingly perform their job responsibilities with
minimal oversight. Some teachers expressed low task value related to the reform efforts
because not enough is being done at the district level to effectively implement the
reforms at the classroom level. Some respondents felt that the district does not
communicate the relevance of the reform efforts at the classroom level nor provide
enough follow-up support. For instance, one teacher stated, “The [ELIS] Lead is just not
working. Two workshops per year are not good.” Additionally, a few of the staff
members indicated that they were aware of the request from the district office in regards
to the implementation of reforms but were unclear as to why they had been asked to do
certain tasks. For example, a teacher stated that he has been trained with strategies to
facilitate the learning of his English learning students but added that he does not
understand why and how these strategies are supposed to fit within lessons in his
144
classroom. Without central accountability, there is a tendency for individuals to perform
their responsibilities at their judgment.
Additionally, the team learned that recent budget cuts, coupled with efforts to
implement one of the three key initiatives of the Ball Foundation—the development of a
strategic plan—did occasion the need to centralize some district processes. However, the
team discerned that the district’s culture of decentralization is interfering with district
efforts to effectively align and implement the various district and school-level reforms
and plans (e.g., Strategic Plan, Ball Foundation, Single Action Plan for Student
Achievement, ELIS Lead) at their desired level. In the following statement, one staff
member captures the essence of how recent actions to centralize some district practices
have been received by many staff members: Recent efforts to reorganize central office to
coordinate such plans has occasioned somewhat of a culture clash across the district.
Limitations and Cautions
Several challenges limited the depth and scope of the project. First, the project
did not constitute a traditional study and, therefore, interviewing students was not
permissible. Interviewing students could have afforded the project insightful information
concerning the impact of the implementation of reforms on learning. Second, relevant
timeframe to collect the data was limited to only a couple of months and was, thus,
insufficient to allow for multiple visits to the schools for general campus observations
and silent participation in various committee and stakeholder group meetings. Such
observations could have perhaps enhanced the team’s understanding of the dynamics
surrounding the emergent themes. Third, the time of year in which the data were
145
collected (March-May) encompassed the district’s state exams testing window and
WASC visitations for the two schools. Thus, scheduling the interviews and interviewing
energetic staff members was rather challenging. Collecting data during a less intense
time of year at the two schools would have been more conducive to optimal conditions
for data collection and perhaps a richer quality of information. Finally, the participants
represented a group of key informants rather than a comprehensive sample of district
employees. The findings from the conversations with key informants were largely based
on respondents’ self-reports. Nonetheless, self-reports or perceptions, whether consistent
with reality or not, often guide individual behavior and thus should be acknowledged and
addressed.
Conclusion
The RUSD has made strides in implementing reform efforts intended to address
student achievement to meet federal and state accountability benchmarks for district and
school effectiveness. However, a detailed analysis of extant data and conversations with
staff members finds fragmented implementation of reforms that stem from gaps in
knowledge, motivation, and district process and resources. In light of the district’s recent
reduction of financial resources, it is imperative and cost-effective for the RUSD to
extensively assess the effectiveness of reform implementation with a sense of urgency.
Firstly, this assessment will help the district intensify current reform efforts that are
positively impacting student achievement, without further straining district budgets.
Secondly, the assessment will help identify interventions to eliminate existing barriers to
reform implementation. Thirdly, the assessment will help discontinue those efforts that
146
are yielding little, if any, impact on reform implementation or student achievement. The
next phase of the project includes the team consulting with the RUSD to develop a
comprehensive plan that addresses the root causes of performance gaps. The team will
follow up on the above findings and the comprehensive plan with a set of
recommendations based on scholarly research to assist the district in its endeavor to
implement reforms at the desired level in order to improve student achievement.
147
APPENDIX J: POWER POINT PRESENTATION
Rowland Unified School District
USC Inquiry Project:
Proposed Solutions
University of Southern California
RUSD-USC Partnership Inquiry Team
November 17, 2010
Introduction
Project Design
University of Southern California
148
3
Gap
Analysis
Process
(Clark & Estes, 2002)
Systematic, problem-
solving framework
(six steps)
Organizations can “dig
deep” into the root causes
of the performance gaps
Performance gaps are
identified, quantified,
and classified
Sound solutions are
developed from a deep
understanding of the
problems
How to examine root causes: motivation
knowledge/skill organizational culture
All goals are aligned & can
be measured
PHASE III
“one-month” interviews
Follow up on unique issues
PHASE II
Stages of Concern (SoC)
Innovation Configurations
Inquiry Methods
4
PHASE I
District Context
Scanning Interviews
Document Analysis
149
Project Timeline
Overview
5
Fall
2009
Inquiry Team Formation, Context of Need, Understanding District
Priorities, Narrowing Inquiry Focus
Spring
2010
Exploring the Roots
Data Collection
Summer 2010
Data Analysis, Identification of Performance Gaps & their Root
Causes, Development of Findings
Fall
2010
Presentation of Findings & Recommendations/ Considerations to
District groups
POSSIBLE GAPS IDENTIFIED BY ALL
THREE TEAMS
University of Southern California
150
•Goals
•Pedagogy
Knowledge
& Skill
Motivation
Organizational
•Self-efficacy
•Attributions
•Goals
•Value
• Accountability
• Perceived levels
of Support
• Aligning of Goals
COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL REFORM TEAM
University of Southern California
Gilda Dixon
Brent Forsee
Monalisa Hasson
151
Areas of Strength
Self-Efficacy
• A clear belief within
RUSD that the capacity
and innovation for
improvement lies within
the district.
De-Centralization
• RUSD staff take tremendous
pride in the historical culture
of de-centralization. This is
seen as a strength as district
leadership and staff believe a
de-centralized approach
fosters creativity and
innovation.
Evidence
Evidence of this effort
• Communities of practice
• Instructional Cabinet
• Various site leadership teams
comprised of teachers and site
leadership.
RUSD’s partnership with The
Ball Foundation leading to
inter-school and inter-
departmental collaborative
effort that has grown in the
past four years.
Current RUSD Reform Initiatives:
10
Strategic Plan
Ball Foundation
Program
Improvement
Three Essential
Priorities for
Teaching &
Learning
152
Alignment of Organizational Goal
Structure: Considerations
Clarify the
organizational goal
structure
Visual representation
of Three Essential
Priorities for Teaching
& Learning
Provide principals with
specific training on
goal structure
Intermediate Goal:
Implement
Three Essential
Priorities for Teaching
& Learning
Organizational
Goal: Academic
Success for ALL
Students
Work Goals:
C3 Goals
This link
must be
made
more clear
for all
RUSD role
groups
11
Determine district-wide “non-negotiables”
consistent with goal alignment
Create accountability structures at
site level.
The Three Essential Priorities
should work as a filter for all other
reform initiatives.
Recommendations
153
Goal Alignment
Clear
non-negotiables
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
I
n
g
Attainable Goals
Immediate goals
targeted to
non-negotiables
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
(Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002)
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
University of Southern California
154
HIGH SCHOOL TEAM
University of Southern California
Cuauhtemoc Avila
Dale Folkens
Mary Laihee
Positive Findings at the
High Schools
Remarkable culture of
educational excellence
Initiatives to build school
capacity to enhance
student achievement
155
Resources
•Appearance of disparity with resources
•Disconnect between goals and efforts
for attainment
Implementation &
Accountability
•Fragmented implementation
•Absence of accountability
Cultural Settings
Perceptions regarding the
educational abilities, efforts and
involvement of students and the
communities of each school
17
Goals
•Too many general goals
Possible Gaps
Affecting the
High Schools
Goals
Key finding: Too many general goals
The mission of RUSD, the progressive international community united in learning,
is to empower students so that each actualizes his or her unique potential and
responsibly contributes to a global society, through a system distinguished by
rigorous academics, innovative use of technology, creative exploration, and
nurturing learning experiences.
Essential Priority I for
Teaching and Learning:
Strengthen first, best
instruction, EL instruction and
RtI
2
HS Classroom Goal
Measure/Indicator: ?
Standard: ?
Gap: ?
Essential Priority II for
Teaching and Learning:
Implement district-wide
agreements about efficacious
instruction and support for
teaching and learning
HS Classroom Goal
Measure/Indicator: ?
Standard: ?
Gap: ?
Essential Priority III for
Teaching and Learning:
Build cultural proficiency
across the system to improve
teaching and learning
HS Classroom Goal
Measure/Indicator: ?
Standard: ?
Gap: ?
Create C
3
performance goals aligned to global goal
•Concrete, challenging, current
•Demonstrate relevancy to HS practitioners
(Clark & Estes, 2002; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002)
156
Goals
Key finding: Too many general goals
Facilitate perspective building
around policies
Celebrate accomplishments
toward goals
Invite HS
teacher input
on important
decisions
Provide a
forum for HS
teachers to
admire each
other’s work
Inform the
school
community of
HS teachers’
involvement in
the schools’
achievements
• Teachers as full participants
• Create a visual representation of the
current reform strategies at NHS and
RHS and their relationships
(Johnston, 2002; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002)
• When teachers have feelings of
belonging and trust, they are more
likely to internalize and implement the
goals of CSR
(Henkin & Holliman, 2009; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002)
(Johnston, 2002; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002)
Perspective Building Graphic
Three
Essential
Priorities
Executive
Cabinet
Instructional
Cabinet
Site Instructional
Leaders
Communities of
Practice
20
157
Resources
21
Equitable
Distribution of
resources
Students to be
educated by an
experienced, highly
qualified and
consistent staff
(Behrstock & Clifford, 2010)
Evaluate the stability of
the staff assigned to the
school. Revisit
contractual elements
regarding placement and
movement of staff
members.
Equitable
Distribution
of staff
Equitable
Alignment of
goals
Staff at have access to
similar resources and
professional growth
Goals and expectations
should be challenging
and rigorous for
students at both schools
(Education Trust, 2005)
Staff and student access to
programs should be district-
wide not dependent upon
the school site.
Growth goals for both
schools should reflect the
same expectations for
teaching and learning.
Students have access to
equitable resources and
programs (Bolman & Deal, 2008)
Implementation &
Accountability
22
Implementation
Innovation
Configuration
Stages of
Concern
Level of Use
Accountability
Equity
Discipline
Enforcement
158
Cultural Settings
Socio-Economic
Integration
Districts throughout the
US have used SEI to
address gaps for lower
SES populations.
(Kahlenberg, 2007; Robisheaux, 1993)
Examine drawing school
boundaries to integrate
the community.
(Kahlenberg, 2007; Robisheaux, 1993)
Community-
School Outreach
Utilize school facilities
(libraries, computer labs, and
athletic venues) for the benefit
of the community. ’
(O’Donnell, Kirkner, & Meyer-Adams, 2008)
Mutually beneficial community
involvement for the schools.
(Au, 1993; Daggett, 2007)
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
University of Southern California
159
HISPANIC ENGLISH LANGUAGE
LEARNER TEAM
University of Southern California
Alberto Alvarez
Maurita De La Torre
Lesette Molina-Solis
Positive Findings for ELs
Excellent culture of
professionalism and
high expectations
Master Plan for ELs
English Learner Advocacy Clear vision for reform
160
The implementation of a
relatively new district plan for
supporting the progress of
EL’s.
A perceptions of
professional accountability
by teachers for the
progress of Hispanic EL’s.
A gap of cultural knowledge
of students’ backgrounds
and experiences.
27
The academic impact of
a decentralized district
on the Hispanic EL
subgroup
Possible
Gaps
Change Process
Turnaround Process
Adult Learning Theory
Heightened Rigor
and Expectations
“meaningful change
easy, quick
victories,”
Pappano (2010)
“Effective change
is costly,”
Reeves (2004)
“Organizational and
structural change
must take adult
learning theory into
consideration,”
Rickey, (2010)
It can be done….
CREATE, (2010)
Academic vocabulary
Focus with long-term
ELs in Garden Grove
Unified School District
161
Districts role as an intermediary is effective
when it provides:
“…an established
instructional and
curricular focus,
consistency and
coordination of
instructional activities,
strong leadership from
the superintendent, and
an emphasis on
monitoring instruction
and curriculum.”
(MacIver and Farley 2003)
Large scale reform
now necessitates
focused attention on
how to motivate
teachers to change
practices
(Elmore 1996)
PD for principals
and is essential in
making then
instructional
leaders
(Anderson 2003)
Professional
development should
include not only best
practices in teaching
but how to use data to
make instructional
decisions. (Anderson
2003, MacIver & Farley
2003, Spaillane &
Thompson 1998)
District Support
A way of being that enable both individuals
and Organizations to respond effectively to
people who differ from them.
(Lindsey, Robins, & Terrel, 2003, p. 5)
Funds of Knowledge
Considers the everyday
knowledge of families &
communities as resources
to be used in instruction
(Gonzalez, Moll, Floyd-Tenery,
Rivera, Rendon, Gonzalez, &
Amanti, 1993)
Cultural Modeling
Goal is to connect students’
knowledge from the home
with knowledge presented
at school
(Lee, Rosenfeld, Mendenhall,
Rivers, & Tynes, 2003)
Third Space
Establish a connection
between the student and
classroom culture so that
students understand how
to participate in the class
(Gutierrez, 1995)
Cultural Proficiency
162
Connect Cultural Proficiency to
academic goals
Coherent District Support for
alignment of goals
Recommendations
31
Augment Accountability
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
University of Southern California
163
Determine district-
wide “non-
negotiables” and
ensure “buy in” from
all stakeholders.
Coherent
District
Support
Link classroom
goals to EPs
districtwide
Building
Cultural
Proficiency
Strengthen
Community
of the
school
Clarify the roles
of the four reform
initiatives and
how they relate
to each other .
Examine
School
Boundaries
Create
accountability
structures at
site level.
SUSTAINABILITY
of the Reform Effort
Augment
Accountability
QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION
University of Southern California
164
Special Thanks
RUSD
Dr. Maria G. Ott
Dr. Rob Arias
RUSD District Leadership Team
RUSD site administrators & staff
USC
Dr. David Marsh
Dr. Robert Rueda
Dr. Michael Escalante
Marsh/Rueda 2010
Dissertation Group
35
University of Southern California
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective
PDF
Comprehensive school reform implementation: A gap analysis inquiry project for Rowland Unified School District
PDF
Utilizing gap analysis to examine the effectiveness of high school reform strategies in Rowland Unified School District
PDF
A gap analysis inquiry project on district-level reform implementation for Rowland Unified School District
PDF
Using the gap analysis to examine Focus on Results districtwide reform implementation in Glendale USD: an alternative capstone project
PDF
An alternative capstone project: A gap analysis inquiry project on the district reform efforts and its impact in narrowing the Hispanic EL achievement gap in Rowland Unified School District
PDF
An alternative capstone project: bridging the Latino English language learner academic achievement gap in elementary school
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Closing the Hispanic English learners achievement gap in a high performing district
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Closing the achievement gap for Hispanic English language learners using the gap analysis model
PDF
An alternative capstone project: gap analysis of districtwide reform implementation of Focus on Results
PDF
Comprehensive school reform: Effective implementation
PDF
The role of the superintendent in raising student achievement: a superintendent effecting change through the implementation of selected strategies
PDF
An alternative capstone project: Evaluating the academic achievement gap for Latino English language learners in a high achieving school district
PDF
An alternative capstone project: closing the achievement gap for Latino English language learners in elementary school
PDF
An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...
PDF
An alternative capstone project: A qualitative study utilizing the gap analysis process to review a districtwide implementation of the Focus on results reform initiative: Identifying and addressi...
PDF
Reform strategies implemented to increase student achievement: a case study of superintendent actions
PDF
Increasing college matriculation rate for minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged students by utilizing a gap analysis model
PDF
The superintendent and reform: a case study of action by the system leader to improve student achievement in a large urban school district
PDF
High school math reform and the role of policy, practice and instructional leadership on math achievement: a case study of White Oak Tree High School
Asset Metadata
Creator
Avila, Cuauhtémoc Rafael
(author)
Core Title
Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: addressing the performance gap at two high schools
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
02/16/2011
Defense Date
01/19/2011
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
achievement gap,High School,implemention,OAI-PMH Harvest,reforms
Place Name
California
(states),
Los Angeles
(counties),
school districts: Rowland Unified School District
(geographic subject)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Rueda, Robert S. (
committee chair
), Escalante, Michael F. (
committee member
), Marsh, David D. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
cuauhtea@gusd.net,cuauhtea@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3665
Unique identifier
UC1358949
Identifier
etd-Avila-4327 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-431028 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3665 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Avila-4327.pdf
Dmrecord
431028
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Avila, Cuauhtémoc Rafael
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
achievement gap
implemention