University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS:
CASE STUDIES OF CALIFORNIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

By

Syed N. Hyder

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 2010

Copyright 2010 Syed N. Hyder

ii
DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my beloved mother who has always encouraged
me to try my best and never give up. Her belief in hard work and perseverance has
helped me throughout my life‘s journey.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank our faculty dissertation chair, Dr. Larry
Picus. He guided us through this whole process with ease and complete faith in our
ability. His excellent understanding and preparedness made this enormous task a lot
easier to accomplish.
Second, I would like to thank Josie Desmond, my friend and colleague for her
immense help with editing this paper. Thanks also to my cohort member, Helen Morgan
and her colleague Suzzane Launius for their assistance with the formatting of this paper.
Third, I would like to thank the other two dissertation committee members for
their guidance and time. Dr. Nelson made time to read our paper and attend our meetings
despite his variety of professional commitments. Dr. Hentschke provided excellent
feedback and suggestions even though he was numerous time zones away.
I would also like to thank the principals of the six schools that are part of this
study and without whose help this dissertation would not be possible. They were
extremely helpful and very generous with their time in both the interview process and
with my follow-up questions.
Finally, I would like to thank Jerry Almendarez, Assistant Superintendent and
Ingrid Munsterman, Director of the Human Resources Department of the Colton Joint
Unified School District. Their words of encouragement and willingness to support
helped me throughout this endeavor at USC.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures viii
Abstract x
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 2
Federal Role in Education Funding and Accountability 2
Education Funding in California 3
Moving from Equity to Adequacy 4
Education Funding and Student Achievement in California 6
Resource Allocation 8
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 10
Importance of the Study 11
Summary of Methodology 12
Limitations, Delimitations & Assumptions 13
Definitions 15

Chapter 2: Literature Review 17
Introduction 17
History of School Funding and Resource Allocation 19
Federal Role in Educational Reform 19
State Role in School Funding 22
Equity to Adequacy: A Shifting Goal 25
Resource Allocation: Trends, Impact and Concerns 30
Successful Schools 34
Resource Allocation in Successful Schools 48
Professional Development 55
Administrative Leadership 59
Conclusion 61

Chapter 3: Methodology 64
Introduction 64
Sample and Population 67
Instrumentation 70
Data Collection 75
Data Analysis 78
v

Chapter 4: Findings 80
Introduction 80
School Profile 80
Achievement Data 83
Instructional Vision and Improvement Strategies 89
Resource Allocation 110
Impact of Current Funding Crisis 115
Conclusion 116

Chapter 5: Discussion 120
Background 120
Discussion of Findings 122
Implications for School Administrators and Policy Makers 132
Recommendations for Future Research 134

References 135

Appendices 140
Appendix A: Invitation to Participate 140
Appendix B: Document Request List 141
Appendix C: School Visit/Interview Dates 143
Appendix D: List of Documents and Artifacts Provided by 144
Participating Schools
Appendix E: Data Collection Codebook 145
Appendix F: Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol 156
Appendix G: Data Collection Protocol 158
Appendix H: Case Study 1: AA Elementary School 168
Appendix I: Case Study 2: BB Elementary School 178
Appendix J: Case Study 3: CC Elementary School 190
Appendix K: Case Study 4: DD Elementary School 200
Appendix L: Case Study 5: EE Elementary School 211
Appendix M: Case Study 6: FF Elementary School 222

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Comparison of Successful School Strategies Across 47
Research Studies

Table 3.1 Adequate Resource Allocation for a Ideal Elementary School 73
with 432 students

Table 4.1 Enrollment and Locations of Sample Schools 81
Table 4.2 Similar School & Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools 84
Table 4.3 Implementation of Odden‘s 10 Steps and other 108
Research-based Strategies at the Sample Schools

Table 4.4 Class Sizes in Sample School vs. EBM School 110

Table 4.5 Resource Allocation According to EBM vs. Actual Resource 112
Allocation at Sample Schools

Table AA.1 Implementation of Odden‘s 10 Steps and other research-based 173
Strategies at AA Elementary

Table AA.2 School Profile Comparison: AA Elementary School and Evidence 174
Based Model (EBM) School

Table AA.3 Resource Comparison: AA Elementary School and Evidence 175
Based Model for Adequate School Resources

Table BB.1 Implementation of Odden‘s 10 Steps and other research-based 184
Strategies at BB Elementary

Table BB.2 School Profile Comparison: BB Elementary School and 186
Evidence Based Model (EBM) School

Table BB.3 Resource Comparison: BB Elementary School and Evidence 187
Based Model for Adequate School Resources

Table CC.1 Implementation of Odden‘s 10 Steps and other research-based 195
Strategies at CC Elementary

Table CC.2 Resource Comparison: CC Elementary School and Evidence 196
Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources
vii
Table DD.1 Implementation of Odden‘s 10 Steps and other research-based 205
Strategies at DD Elementary

Table DD.2 School Profile Comparison: DD Elementary School and Evidence 206
Based Model (EBM) School

Table DD.3 Resource Comparison: DD Elementary School and Evidence 208
Based Model for Adequate School Resources

Table EE.1 Implementation of Odden‘s 10 Steps and other research-based 216
Strategies at EE Elementary

Table EE.2 School Profile Comparison: EE Elementary School and Evidence 218
Based Model (EBM) School

Table EE.3 Resource Comparison: EE Elementary School and Evidence 219
Based Model for Adequate School Resources

Table FF.1 Implementation of Odden‘s 10 Steps and other research-based 226
Strategies at FF Elementary

Table FF.2 Resource Comparison: FF Elementary School and Evidence 228
Based Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Percentage of US Public School Income from Federal, State and 27
Local Sources During 1951-2006 and Major Events that have
Impacted Education during the Same Period

Figure 2.2 Odden and Picus Evidence Based Model 52

Figure 4.1 Ethnic Breakdown of the Sample Schools 82

Figure 4.2 Percentage of SED and EL Students at the Sample Schools 83

Figure 4.3 API Increase in Sample Schools 84

Figure 4.4 English Language Arts AYP for Hispanic Students 87

Figure 4.5 English Language Arts AYP for SED Students 87

Figure 4.6 English Language Arts AYP for EL Students 87

Figure 4.7 Increase in Percentage of Proficient Students in Math from 88
from 2005 to 2008 for the Significant Student Subgroups

Figure 4.8 EE Elementary School‘s Instructional Model 108

Figure AA.1 Ethnic Breakdown of AA School 168
Figure AA.2 AA Elementary School‘s API 169
Figure AA.3 Language Arts AYP for AA Elementary 169
Figure AA.4 Math AYP for AA Elementary 170
Figure BB.1 Ethnic Breakdown of BB School 178
Figure BB.2 BB Elementary School‘s API 179
Figure BB.3 Language Arts AYP for BB Elementary 179
Figure BB.4 Math AYP for BB Elementary 180
Figure CC.1 Ethnic Breakdown of CC School 190
Figure CC.2 CC Elementary School‘s API 191
ix
Figure CC.3 Language Arts AYP for CC Elementary 191
Figure CC.4 Math AYP for CC Elementary 192
Figure DD.1 Ethnic Breakdown of DD School 200
Figure DD.2 DD Elementary School‘s API 201
Figure DD.3 Language Arts AYP for DD Elementary 201
Figure DD.4 Math AYP for DD Elementary 202
Figure EE.1 Ethnic Breakdown of EE School 211
Figure EE.2 EE Elementary School‘s API 212
Figure EE.3 Language Arts AYP for EE Elementary 212
Figure EE.4 Math AYP for EE Elementary 213
Figure EE.5 EE Elementary School‘s Instructional Model 216

Figure FF.1 Ethnic Breakdown of FF School 222
Figure FF.2 FF Elementary School‘s API 223
Figure FF.3 Language Arts AYP for FF Elementary 223
Figure FF.4 Math AYP for FF Elementary 224

x
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to examine instructional strategies and resource
allocation in successful schools. The study was based on analysis of six effective
Southern California elementary schools. All the analyzed schools were Title I, non-
charter public schools that had demonstrated consistent student achievement, had
narrowed the achievement gap and have reached an API score of 800 or more.
Effective schools in this study were analyzed primarily through the lens of the
steps enumerated by Odden (2009). In addition to effective strategies, this study also
analyzed resource allocation at the sample schools. The study used the Evidenced Based
Model (EBM) (Odden & Picus, 2008) to analyze how the schools are allocating resources
for instructional improvement.
Although compared to the EBM, overall resources are inadequate at these sample
schools (Odden and Picus, 2008), the sample schools are using a variety of research-
based strategies that does not require too much additional funding. These successful
schools are focusing on standards-based instruction and achievement of all students.
They have set ambitious goals and are constantly striving to improve their curricular
programs. They focus on the core curriculum and allocate all their flexible resources to
ensure students are receiving instruction at their level of need. In addition to effective
curriculum, the sample schools use both formative and summative assessments to
evaluate their student performance and analyze data to set goals and plan instruction.
Moreover these schools are providing differentiated instruction that are designed to
narrow the achievement gap and help the struggling students.
xi
It is the effective implementation of the key strategies, not simply resource
allocation that makes these schools successful. Focused approach to improving student
performance, which may look slightly different in different schools, led by an effective
leader helped these schools achieve impressive academic success.

1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Since the 1950s, the public education system in the United States has been under
close scrutiny and has encountered steady criticism from various quarters. On the one
hand, the 1954 ruling in Brown V. Board of Education against the ‗separate, but equal‘
educational model raised awareness about the unequal performance of minority students.
On the other hand, the launch of Sputnik in 1957 made people question the rigor and
effectiveness of US schools (Gallimore & Goldberg, 2001; Marzano, 2003). Since the
late 1950s numerous federal and state laws have been approved, countless reform
measures have been launched and a plethora of court cases have been rendered to
improve overall student achievement and lower the gap among minority and white
students. Strongly tied to these measures and laws was the issue of necessary funding
required to improve student performance. Even after a marked increase in the amount of
overall education funding in the past half century, the achievement gap among different
student groups still remains pronounced; and performance of US students still lags behind
those from many advanced countries (Odden, Monk, Nakib & Picus, 1995; Stecher,
Hamilton, and Gonzalez, 2003; Schneider, 2008). Since the turn of this century, the lack
of sterling progress in K-12 education has shone the bright light of accountability on all
public schools and in this period of fiscal constraints, the focus is also on effective
allocation of resources. This study will analyze resource allocation strategies in
exemplary schools that have lowered the achievement gap and demonstrated consistent
student achievement.

2
Background of the Problem
Federal Role in Education Funding and Accountability
In the early 1960s, during the Kennedy administration, discussion first started
about providing substantial federal aid for K-12 public schools. In 1964, the Gardner
Task Force laid the groundwork for massive investment in public education. The task
force proposed the framework for Lyndon Johnson‘s Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (Cross, 2004). The focus of this massive federal
funding was to provide aid to poor and disadvantaged students. The prevalent thought at
that point was that by simply providing funds for impoverished students would improve
their plight. By the end of the century more than 150 billion dollars had been spent on
Title I with little to show in terms of closing the achievement gap (Cross, 2004). The
dissatisfaction with the result of Title I funding led to a change in the concept of the
program. It transformed from being simply a funding source for schools to a program to
demonstrably overcome educational disadvantage among low socioeconomic students.
This shifting concept ultimately led to the heralding of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act under George W. Bush in 2001.
Since 2001, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act has been at the forefront of the
K-12 public education system in the United States. NCLB has taken the concept of
accountability in public education to a level unseen in any prior acts or regulations
(Stecher et al., 2003). Although NCLB has a plethora of detractors, it has clearly been a
trailblazer in shining the light on the academic achievement of various student subgroups,
particularly the minority students. Schools with significant numbers of a subgroup have
to not only account for overall progress of all their students, but also for the academic
3
growth of the English Learners, Hispanic and African-American students among others
(EdSource, 2005). In order to meet NCLB compliance, all students in grades 2-12 are
tested annually for English language arts and mathematics. Students are required to meet
a certain benchmark of achievement every year. Their progress or lack thereof is tied to
various sanctions against the school. In spite of increasing awareness about student
achievement, one of the biggest complaints against NCLB is the lack of funding required
to achieve many of the mandated outcomes.
Education Funding in California
In addition to the laws emanating from the federal government, public education
in California has also been impacted by a variety of state reforms, regulations, and court
rulings. These measures have had a significant impact on school funding in California.
One of the major rulings was the Serrano vs. Priest court case which began in 1968.
Prior to Serrano, the primary source of school funding was local property taxes
(Edsource, 1999). The Serrano case highlighted that ‗low wealth‘ districts had to have
very high tax rates to generate revenue and even then they were not able to raise as much
revenue as ‗high wealth‘ districts. A part of the response to Serrano was Assembly Bill
65 in 1977 that attempted to equalize the revenue limits by adjusting for inflation
overtime.
In 1978, proposition 13 addressed the tax inequities raised in the Serrano case by
capping the tax rate at 1% for all homeowners (Edsource, 1999). The result of this
proposition was a drastic reduction in property taxes across the state which broke the link
between local property taxes and local schools and dramatically increased the state‘s role.
4
This shift put the state spending on education at the mercy of economic cycles that swung
from deficit spending to accumulating large reserves. In order to somewhat stabilize
education spending, proposition 98 was passed in 1990. This proposition guaranteed a
minimum amount of state and local property tax money for school districts (Edsource,
1999). Although the myriad of bills and measures passed in California attempted to
reduce the inequities between districts, high wealth districts are still able to generate a
higher amount of revenue (PACE, 2006). The inequity among students in different
districts still persists and the funding for most students in California is still far from
adequate.
Moving from Equity to Adequacy
In the past decade, the focus on education funding issues has moved from equity
to adequacy (Odden & Picus, 2008). This is a considerable departure from Brown vs.
Board of Education, Title I, Serrano vs. Priest and numerous other measures that focused
on equitable distribution of funding. The major difference between ‗equity‘ based
funding and ‗adequacy‘ based funding is that the former does not necessarily address
educational quality or student achievement (Odden & Picus, 2008). The ‗equity‘ based
funding model tries to ensure that all students receive the same amount of resources to
help support their learning. While, the ‗adequacy‘ model determines the level of
resources for students based on their individual needs and the amount of resources
required for them to achieve proficiency. Improving student performance is the
cornerstone of all educational policy today. One of the major components of the
adequacy model is standards-based education reform that sets minimum standards for all
5
K-12 students. The Federal No Child Left Behind Act toughened the standards-based
requirement and made it a necessity for all states receiving federal funds. The second
part of the adequacy model, which NCLB does not tackle clearly, addresses the need for
appropriate funding to ensure all students will receive the highest standards of education.
Many states are moving toward the adequacy funding model while many are being forced
by the courts in that direction (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Four principal methods are used to determine an adequate funding level.
Following are brief explanations of these methods (Odden, 2003):
1) Successful District Model: This model identifies successful school districts that are
meeting standards and uses their cost as an estimate of adequacy.
2) Cost Function Model: This approach uses advanced statistical techniques to determine
what resources are required for students to reach a certain performance level.
3) Professional Judgment Model: In this approach, a group of educational experts decide
the adequate expenditure for students based on effective educational strategies.
4) Evidence Based Model: This model employs current educational research to determine
what resources are needed to reach proficiency.
All these approaches have been subject to some criticism (PACE, 2006), however,
the evidence based approach most directly identifies educational strategies that produce
desired results. Hence, the latter approach is a helpful guide for schools in deciding the
most effective allocation of its resources. This approach has been extensively used in
6
New Jersey, Wyoming, Kentucky and Arkansas, among other places, to determine
adequate levels of funding (Odden, 2003).
The adequacy movement has not impacted California as significantly as many
other states (PACE, 2006). The Williams v. California case settled in 2004 is the closest
California has come toward the adequacy movement. This finance case focused mostly
on the lack of decent school facilities for many school children. The Williams case
mandated California to spend almost one billion dollars to improve school facilities.
California‘s education needs, however, extend well beyond just facilities improvement.
Education Funding and Student Achievement in California
According to ―Students First,‖ (2007), students in California, compared to other
states, are consistently underperforming on national assessments. The 2007 National
Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) results indicate that fourth grade students in
California are 48
th
in reading and 47
th
in math among students from all fifty states.
Student performance is equally dismal in eighth grade; the state ranks in the low forties in
that grade level as well. This grim picture does not get any better in high school. Only 7
out of 10 students graduate high school with Latino and Black students performing
significantly lower than White or Asian students. Irrespective of their Socioeconomic
Status (SES), Black and Latino students perform much worse than White students as
measured by the CST scores. Instead of bridging the achievement gap between poor
children of color and privileged students, the school system in California is enlarging the
inequities among different groups. Even the White students in California perform poorly
compared to those in other states (―Students First,‖ 2007).
7
Many attribute the dismal student achievement in California to lack of adequate
funding. According to PACE (2006), in 2006 California spent $59.6 billion on K-12
public education. Although this is a huge amount, it is simply due to the fact that the state
is home to more than six million K-12 students. In terms of per pupil spending,
California ranks only 29
th
among all states and at $9,708, it is 1.6% below the average US
per pupil spending (Odden & Picus, 2008). This level of spending is a huge cause for
concern because California has a very high number of poor, minority students. More
than 1.5 million K-12 students in California are English Learners (Gándara, Rumberger,
Maxwell-Jolly, and Callahan, 2003) and they constitute more than a quarter of all the
students in the state. Moreover, due to relatively high teacher salaries, California
students are in classrooms with very high pupil-teacher ratio. In fact, students in
California have access to fewer adults each day at school than children in forty-seven
other states (PACE, 2006). Unfortunately, due to the extreme fiscal crisis in California
and the United States as a whole beginning in 2008, it seems unlikely that students in this
state will see any funding increase any time soon.
As the likelihood of a funding increase in the near future is moot, the focus needs
to be on how successful schools are demonstrating growth and allocating scarce fiscal
resources. Many schools with similar student population and resources are able to close
the achievement gap and improve student performance. Williams et al. (2005) conducted
a comprehensive study on California elementary schools serving a majority of low-
income students with a significant percentage of English Learners. The study suggests
that successful schools are employing a variety of strategies, such as using assessment
data, implementing standards-based curriculum and employing effective professional
8
development to promote student achievement. A similar study by Perez et al. (2007),
indicates many ―beating the odd schools‖ perform better than their peers even with a
similar level of funding. Schools in the Perez et al. (2007) study employ high quality
teachers and staff, have standards based curriculum and maintain coherent instruction. In
this period of budgetary cutbacks, it will be extremely useful to investigate how these
schools allocate their resources.
Resource Allocation
Traditional methods of spending even in times of fiscal abundance have not
translated into increased student performance. Measures, such as across-the-board salary
increases, class size reduction and targeted spending programs have resulted in greater
cost without corresponding gains in achievement (National Working Group on Funding
Student Learning, 2008). Most of the twentieth century funding system was designed
with a focus on inputs. Standards based reform and increased accountability has shifted
the focus to outputs, that is, student learning. In a learning-oriented finance system, the
resource target moves from the whole district to individual student achievement
(NWGFSL, 2008). In such a system the following steps are key:
 Setting clear goals and aligning resources with those goals
 Engaging students effectively with good instruction and quality curriculum
 Monitoring academic progress
 Analyzing data to evaluate teaching and learning and
9
 Developing an action plan and adapting resources to address weaknesses and
build on strengths
In times of fiscal constraints, employing an effective resource allocation model that is
tied to student learning is imperative.
Statement of the Problem
Despite more than a decade of funding increases and reforms, a majority of K-12
public schools in the United States are still not performing effectively. The situation is
more dire in urban schools with high minority enrollments. Lack of student achievement
is a critical issue in the state of California where almost 50% of the students are minority
and 29% are English Learners (Gándara et al., 2003). Education funding in California
did not meet the basic adequacy standards (PACE, 2006) even before the current fiscal
crisis started. As of February 2010, most school districts are bracing for even deeper
budget cuts. This is in addition to $3 billion in cuts that had already been proposed
earlier in 2009 (School Services California, 2009).
In this period of extreme financial uncertainty, it is unlikely that there will be any
funding increase in the short to medium term. Moreover, simply increasing funding is
unlikely to improve student performance in California. Some research studies suggest
there is no clear relationship between spending and student outcomes (Loeb et al., 2007).
These combined factors suggest that presently the focus should be on finding ways to
allocate existing funds in ways that will improve student learning.
There have been numerous studies demonstrating that certain schools are
performing better than average even with similar levels of resources. On the other hand,
10
there are numerous studies and reports that show resource allocation can be effectively
linked to student achievement (Odden & Archibald, 2001; Odden & Picus, 2008). Some
of the major strategies mentioned in a variety of studies include: hiring high-quality
teachers and staff, professional development for teachers and principals, implementation
of standards-based curriculum, coherent instruction, ongoing assessments and effective
data analysis strategies (―Students First,‖ 2007; Williams et al., 2005). However, many
of the studies on successful schools do not explain the resource allocation and some
studies suggest that there is no best practice for resource use (Perez et al., 2007).
Although, there are some common themes among the key strategies for effectively
allocating resources, the actual allocation can have significant differences among
different states, school districts and even schools.
It is important to have more detailed information on how successful schools in
California, a state that hosts the most diverse student body in the country, allocate
resources. Moreover, the knowledge of how these successful schools are impacted by
current fiscal constraints and how they address these problems will also be beneficial for
all schools in California that are struggling to increase student achievement at a time
when their budget is being slashed.
Purpose of the Study
Along with the whole country, the state of California is in a serious budgetary
crisis. However, many school districts and schools still need to address the embarrassing
achievement gap and lack of progress in student performance. In an era of budget cuts,
the only possible method of increasing learning and achievement is to allocate resources
11
effectively. Schools that are struggling with these dichotomous requirements can benefit
from any information gleaned from other successful schools that have improved student
performance by reallocating resources effectively.
This study investigated a sample of successful schools in Southern California and
analyzed how these schools allocate and use resources to consistently increase student
performance. This study answered the following questions:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school‘s instructional improvement
plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the recent
budget reductions?
4. How the actual resource use patterns at the school sites are aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence Based Model?
Importance of the Study
This research reveals important information regarding resource use in six sample
Southern California schools. The research identified how these schools are allocating
resources to improve student performance. Additionally it also identified how successful
schools are tackling the current budgetary constraints. The information obtained through
this research will be helpful for school principals, superintendents, policy makers and
researchers focused on site-based management.
12
School principals can use the information presented in this study to successfully
allocate their existing resources. This study will give principals information on how to
allocate resources for staffing, how to meet the needs of students who are struggling and
how to determine research-based professional development that will promote effective
instruction. Additionally, principals will get information on how to reallocate resources
in times of fiscal constraints. All the information that is useful for principals will also be
helpful to school board members, superintendents and other district administrators who
are responsible for planning funding allocation to schools and ensuring that the schools
are meeting the educational needs of their students.
Policy makers will find the information in this research useful because it will give
them pertinent information on site-based allocation of funds. They can use the
information to determine educational funding policies and recommend strategies for
failing schools to improve. Researchers can use this study to design a more thorough
research on educational funding.
Summary of Methodology
To study resource allocation in successful schools this study conducted case
studies of six elementary schools in Southern California. The first step involved detailed
investigation of a variety of reports and information. These included: Student
Performance Plan, School Accountability Report Card and the Budget Proposal. The
second step was a detailed interview with the principals. The interview included both
open and close-ended questions.
13
The unit of analysis for this study was individual successful schools. This study
was based on purposeful sampling of successful schools that have demonstrated
consistent academic achievement for their students. Criterion sampling was used to
choose the schools that were studied (Patton, 2002). The chosen schools met the
following criteria:
 Received Title I funds in both 2007 and 2008.
 At least 40 percent of students were classified as socioeconomically
disadvantaged (SED) in both 2007 and 2008.
 Made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in 2007 and 2008.
 Met their schoolwide API target and the API targets for all numerically significant
subgroups in 2007 and 2008.
Triangulation was used to strengthen this study by employing a variety of data.
This study combined observation and interviews. Using multiple methods of analysis
decreased the likelihood of errors (Patton, 2002).
Limitations
There are a number of limitations to this study as seen with any other kind of
research. The study was conducted in six Title I elementary schools in southern
California. Data was collected between September and December 2009. Although
attempts were made to sample a variety of successful Title I schools, the study was
limited to these schools. The schools were not chosen in a random manner; hence, the
data that was obtained cannot be generalized to other schools. The choice of schools to
14
be studied was also limited by the willingness of the principals of the schools to
participate in the study. However, instructional and other improvement strategies
identified by this study can be applied to other schools as well.
The study instrument involved analysis of documents and open and closed-ended
interviews with the principals. The limitation of the first instrument was that only those
documents that schools were willing to provide were analyzed. The limitation of the
second instrument was based on the memory of interviewee (principal) and how
thoroughly he/she revealed all the pertinent information. Nonetheless, the study
highlights some effective resource allocation strategies being implemented at these
schools.
Delimitations
There are several delimitations to this study due to some general constraints on
ability to mount the research, finding sample school, cost concerns and permissions
required to observe the school. The study was conducted on public elementary schools
that serve a significant percentage of impoverished and minority students. The
interviews were conducted with the principal only.
Assumptions
Following are the assumptions employed in this study:
1) AYP and API are accurate measures of student performance.
2) The interviewee provided accurate and honest responses to the questions.

15
Definitions
API Academic Performance Index - A ranking system for California K-
12 schools using a scale from 200 to 1,000 points, with a score of
800 being the target performance for all schools in the state. It is
used to rank schools statewide.
Achievement Gap The disparity in educational performance among different groups
of students.
AYP Adequate Yearly Progress – A benchmark used by the federal No
Child Left Behind Act to measure if adequate percentage of
students are displaying proficiency.
CBEDS California Basic Educational Data System – An annual collection
of data on variety information on California public students and the
school system.
CST California Standards Test – A statewide test in California used to
measure students performance in grades K-11.
EL Student whose Primary language is not English
ESEA Elementary and Secondary School Act – A federal act to improve
student performance among impoverished students.
NCLB Federal No Child Left Behind Act, a reauthorization of ESEA in
2001 that increases accountability for public schools and mandates
that schools achieve benchmark student performance.
16
PI Title I schools not meeting the NCLB benchmark requirement for
two consecutive years are deemed as Program Improvement and
face increased mandates.
RtI Response to Intervention – a systemic plan to provide quality
instruction, assess students and intervene early on to decrease the
number of students receiving Special Education services
SES Socioeconomic Status
Title I Federal funds for educationally disadvantaged students provided as
part of the Elementary and Secondary School Act.

17
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
Introduction
During the mid- nineteenth century, schools in the United States began the
transition process that converted local private and religious schools into taxpayer-
supported free public schools. Since that time, the role played by various levels of
government on funding and managing public schools has evolved tremendously.
Educational policy in the past century was primarily shaped by court decisions, federal
and state regulations and public referendums. Tied very closely to the mandates for the
variety of changes is the funding requirement for these transformations. While
determining the sources of educational funding, educational policy makers have
encountered a plethora of vital issues that include: underperformance of U. S. students
compared to other advanced countries, unequal educational opportunities for minority
students and a significant achievement gap among students from poverty and their more
affluent peers.
Although there are numerous examples of schools that have admirably addressed
the issues of achievement gap and student underperformance, these issues still persist. In
previous decades increased funding was seen as an elixir to all educational problems.
With the advent of No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, increased funding has been
replaced by increased mandates to force public schools to improve. Currently in 2009,
during a period of world-wide recession, it is unlikely that there will be any funding
increase in the short to near term. However, schools still need to deal with the issues of
achievement gap and underperformance. One way to tackle the situation involves
18
effective allocation of resources that support student achievement. This study will
investigate what research-based strategies successful schools are using and how they are
allocating resources to remain successful. The literature review will explore studies on
successful schools, strategies used for resource allocation in successful schools and other
issues that impact school funding and school effectiveness.
This literature review contains seven sections:
I. The first section will explore the regulations and funding issues that have
impacted public education in the last fifty years.
II. The second section will evaluate the trends, impact and concerns involving
resource allocation and student performance. In this section the reasons behind
the increase in educational funding without a commensurate increase in student
achievement will be reviewed.
III. The third section will analyze the strategies used by successful schools. This
section will investigate studies on individual single schools as well as successful
school districts.
IV. The fourth section will evaluate how successful schools allocate resources. This
review will set the groundwork for the research of successful schools in Southern
California.
V. The fifth section will analyze professional development which is a key strategy
employed by most successful schools.
VI. In the sixth section leadership skills and strategies essential to make any school
reform efforts successful will be discussed.
VII. The seventh section will include a conclusion based on all the literature review.
19
History of School Funding and Resource Allocation
The early U.S. schools were usually one-room school houses that were either run
by a private group or the local religious community. As the thinking grew that schooling
will produce an informed citizenry and allow people to pursue the rights established by
the constitution, local governments started investing and exerting more control over
schools (Odden & Picus, 2008). By mid- to late 1800s, most states required local
districts to finance education through property taxes. Throughout the early twentieth
century, states tried to adopt various programs to decrease the resource disparity among
different school districts. However, all the measures taken were not enough to erase the
existing inequality (Odden & Picus, 2008). During the second half of the twentieth
century, local control over public schools has drastically eroded due to a variety of
factors that include: court rulings, federal regulations, state mandates and ballot
measures. Following is a brief discussion of the major issues that have shaped overall
public education and resource allocation in United States.
Federal Role in Educational Reform
Brown vs. Board of Education (1954). In perhaps one of the best-known U.S.
Supreme Court cases of the last century, the Brown court struck down the ―separate but
equal‖ doctrine of Plessy vs. Ferguson (1986). The decision made it clear that laws that
uphold segregation were unconstitutional and ruled that separate schools deprive minority
children of equal educational opportunities (Zirkel, 2001). However, it took almost a
decade before true desegregation was implemented in all public schools (Rosenberg,
1991). In spite of the ruling against segregation, desegregation was accomplished only
when the federal and state governments intervened to support it. The Brown case
20
highlighted the educational inequities faced by the African-American students and
ultimately led to increased funding for education by the federal government.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965). After the passage of Brown vs.
Board of Education (1954), a variety of social inequality issues came to the U.S.
legislature (Ravitch, 1983). Under Lyndon Johnson‘s administration in 1965, the
Congress enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The goal of this
act was to provide funds to districts with large percentages of disadvantaged low-income
children (Rosenberg, 1991). The act was heavily directed at the Southern states and
nearly $1 billion was expended in the first year. Even more money was spent in the
consecutive years. The common belief was that simply providing funds for disadvantaged
students would improve their plight. By the end of the century more than 150 billion
dollars had been spent on Title I with little to show in terms of closing the achievement
gap (Cross, 2004). The dissatisfaction with the result of Title I funding led to a change in
the concept of the program simply as a funding for schools, to a program designed to
overcome educational disadvantages among low socioeconomic students. This shifting
concept ultimately led to the heralding of the No Child Left behind (NCLB) Act under
George W. Bush in 2001(Stecher et al., 2003).
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975). The 1954 Brown decision
also inspired Civil Rights advocates to bring the exclusion of children with disabilities in
public schools into the forefront (Palmaffy, 2001). After tremendous lobbying by parents
and several court cases, Congress enacted the Education for Handicapped Children Act in
1975 (henceforth, this act will be referred to as IDEA, its name since 1990). This statute
was billed as an anti-discrimination measure and also an investment on the nation‘s
21
economic health. Over the last two decades special education cost has increased
immensely. Numerous studies report that a significant part of the increase in educational
funding is due to the rising cost of educating students with disabilities (Hanushek &
Rivkin, 1997; Odden & Picus, 2008). Further research suggests that increased funding
that most often paid for pull-out programs have not significantly increased student
learning (Odden & Picus, 2008).
No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Until the 1990s, most federal level
interventions, such as IDEA and ESEA, focused on providing funding and guidance to
improve student performance with little or no accountability attached to the measures.
Since 2001, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has taken the concept of
accountability in public education to a level unseen in any prior acts or regulations
(Stecher et al., 2003). Although NCLB has a plethora of detractors, it was clearly a
trailblazer in shinning the light on the academic achievement of various student
subgroups, particularly the minority students. Schools with significant numbers of a
subgroup have to not only account for overall progress of all their students, but also for
the academic growth of the African-American students, socioeconomically disadvantaged
students and students with disabilities among others (EdSource, 2005). In order to meet
NCLB compliance, all students in grades 2-11 are tested annually for English language
arts and mathematics. Students are required to meet a certain benchmark of achievement
every year. Their progress or lack thereof is tied to various sanctions against the school.
In spite of increasing awareness about student achievement, one of the biggest complaints
against NCLB is the lack of funding required to achieve many of the mandated outcomes
(Stecher et al., 2003).
22
State Role in School Funding
Along with federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings, public education in the
state of California has also been shaped by state regulations, state court rulings and
propositions. Following are some key events that have significantly impacted funding
and other aspects of K-12 education in this state.
Serrano vs. Priest (1968). Up until the 1960s, California employed a foundation
approach to support public education. In this mechanism, each school district was
guaranteed a fixed amount of revenue per pupil which was generated primarily by local
property taxes. If districts could not raise the required revenue, they would receive state
aid (Policy Analysis for California Education, 2006). Although, this policy seemed
sound on the surface, it led to tremendous inequities among districts due to large
differences in their revenue generating capabilities (Odden & Picus, 2008). The Serrano
lawsuit, filed in 1968 and litigated through the 1970s, charged that a school finance
system based on property taxes was unconstitutional because it did not provide students
equal protection under the law (Edsource, 1999). The Serrano case highlighted that ‗low
wealth‘ districts had to have very high tax rates to generate revenue and even then they
were not able to raise as much revenue as ‗high wealth‘ districts. A part of the response
to Serrano was Assembly Bill 65 in 1977 that attempted to equalize the revenue limits by
adjusting for inflation over time. Although, there was a marked increase in funding for
categorical programs (programs targeted for a particular group of students or for a
specific mandate) in the 1970s, the Serrano case excluded categorical funding from
considerations about equity in general purpose funding (Edsource, 1999).
23
Categorical funding. During the 1970s, categorical funds grew sharply due to
various issues including Federal Civil Rights requirements, court decisions and new
bilingual and Special Education regulations. By 2006, about one third of the state
revenue for schools, nearly $12 billion, was being distributed through categorical
programs. Some studies indicate that even categorical programs can cause substantial
inequities in the level of resources available for students (PACE, 2006). The complex
system of funding in California with 100 discrete categorical funds is not conducive to
advancing student achievement.
A 2007 report on educational reform suggested a variety of strategies for
improving the California public school system (―Students First,‖ 2007). One principle
component of this reform plan is the issue of fair funding. Following are some of the
major criticisms leveled against the funding system, primarily categorical funding, in
California (―Students First,‖ 2007; Loeb et al., 2007):
 The complex funding formula forces principals to spend countless hours on
completing documentation requirements instead of focusing on instructional
issues.
 The bureaucracy associated with the funding formula requires the school districts
to employ an array of accountants, lawyers and consultants that take up a
significant fraction of the money allocated for students.
 Funding based on compliance with rules rather than program outcomes does not
provide schools any incentives to improve student performance.
 Highly prescriptive finance and governance systems hinder schools and districts
from attempting creative strategies for improving student performance.
24
 Due to complex and irrational funding formulas dating back to the 1970s, many
districts that are similar in their costs and needs receive substantially different
resources.
The ―Students First‖ Report (2007) recommends additional funding for California
schools, but suggests that the funds be accompanied by extensive and systemic reform.
One of its key recommendations is a funding formula that is similar to the ‗adequacy‘
model which will be discussed in a later section.
Proposition 13 (1978). In addition to court rulings and legislations, education
funding in California was also impacted by ballot measures that expressed voter concerns
on not only education, but also the tax rate. Proposition 13 addressed the tax inequities
raised in the Serrano case by capping the property tax rate at 1% for all homeowners
(Edsource, 1999). The result of this proposition was a drastic reduction in property taxes
across the state which broke the link between local property taxes and local schools and
dramatically increased the state‘s role. This shift put the state spending on education at
the mercy of economic cycles that swung from deficit spending to accumulating large
reserves (PACE, 2006).
Proposition 98(1990). A second ballot measure, Proposition 98 attempted to
ameliorate some of the funding problems caused by Proposition 13. This initiative was
designed to keep educational funding at pace with changes in enrollment and the cost of
living (PACE, 2006). Due to this proposition, a minimum amount of state and local
property tax money was guaranteed for school districts (Edsource, 1999). This initiative
25
guaranteed 40% of the state funding to K-14 schools and included a set of complex
requirements that limits how new resources can be spent.
Williams vs. California (2004) The Williams case addressed many of the
concerns regarding lack of educational materials and poor facilities in California schools,
particularly those attended by poor and minority children (PACE, 2006). The settlement
obligated the state to provide enough funding to ensure that every student in California
has a qualified teacher, sufficient textbooks and attends a school in good repair. The
Williams case mandated California to spend almost one billion dollars to improve school
facilities. California‘s educational needs, however, extend well beyond what is mandated
by the Williams settlement.
Although the myriad of bills and measures passed in California attempted to
reduce the inequities between districts, high wealth districts are still able to generate
higher amounts of revenue (PACE, 2006). Even in 2009, funding for most students in
California is still far from adequate.
Equity to Adequacy: A Shifting Goal
Almost all the court decisions and mandates coming from the federal level and in
the state of California in the 1900s have dealt with issues involving funding and services
offered to students. Cases such as, Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) and Serrano vs.
Priest (1968) and legislations such as, ESEA and IDEA focused on equitable distribution
of resources and services. However, in many states in the last two decades, the focus of
educational funding issues has moved from equity to adequacy (Odden & Picus, 2008).
Whereas the ‗equity‘ model attempts to ensure equal resource allocation for all students,
26
the ‗adequacy‘ model determines resource allocation based on individual student needs.
The latter model focuses on educational quality and student achievement. The adequacy
model is a departure from earlier school funding plans that were simply based on
revenues available with no systematic assessment of goals and objectives and the cost of
achieving them (PACE, 2006). One of the major components of the adequacy model is
standards-based education reform that sets minimum standards for all K-12 students.
The NCLB Act toughened the standards based requirement and made it a necessity for all
states receiving federal funds. The second part of the adequacy model, which NCLB
does not tackle clearly, addresses the need for appropriate funding to ensure all students
will receive the highest standards of education. Many states are moving toward the
adequacy funding model and many are being forced by the courts in that direction
(Odden & Picus, 2008). Figure 2.1 explains how the funding source changed for US
public schools, when the switch from equity to adequacy takes place and shows the key
events that have impacted public education in the United States and California during the
same time period.

27

Figure 2.1 Percentage of US Public School Income from Federal, State and Local
Sources During 1951-2006 (recreated from PACE, 2006) and Major Events that
have Impacted Education during the Same Period.
Brown v. B. of Ed. ESEA IDEA Shift from Equity to Adequacy NCLB

Serrano V. Priest Prop. 13 Prop 98

Red = Federal Issues, Green = California Issues, Orange = Other State Issues

Adequate funding level can be determined by four principal methods. Following
are brief explanations of these resource allocation methods (Odden, 2003; PACE, 2006):
1) Successful District Model: The key to this model is being able to determine the
differences in how successful schools and unsuccessful schools spend their money. This
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
51-52 55-56 59-60 63-64 67-68 71-72 75-76 79-80 83-84 87-88 91-92 95-96 99-00 2005-
06
Federal Share of US Total State Share of US Total
Local Share of US Total
28
model identifies successful school districts that have fulfilled state expectations. The
spending levels in those districts are used to calculate a base cost for adequate spending
per pupil. This model is easy to explain to the public, but setting the criteria for
successful school can be problematic.
2) Cost Function Model: This model uses advanced statistical techniques to determine
what resources are required for students to reach a certain performance level. This
approach is difficult to explain to the general public but is well-liked by the economists.
Cost function analysis can provide detailed information about the relationship between
inputs and outputs.
3) Professional Judgment Model: In this model, a group of professional educators are
assembled together to determine the adequate expenditure based on effective educational
strategies. These experts are asked to identify the resources needed to achieve an
adequate education. The composition of the educational experts determines the reliability
of their estimates and the accuracy of their recommendations. This process is also easy to
explain to the public but the model can be very cost prohibitive.
4) Evidence Based Model: This model relies on current educational research to identify
the resources needed for a prototypical school to meet the state‘s proficiency benchmark.
Once the components are identified they are subject to the professional judgment of
officials in the state. The modified costs are estimated and applied to the actual schools
in the state. The advantage of this model is the use of research base to identify effective
programs for students. The drawback is that the research base may not be applicable to
all situations.
29
All the models discussed above have been used to measure adequate funding for
education (PACE, 2006); however, only the Evidence Based Model (EBM) directly
identifies educational strategies that produce desired results. The latter approach is a
helpful guide for schools in deciding the most effective allocation of its resources. On
the other hand, there has been numerous criticism leveled at the EBM. Some researchers
suggest that there are conflicting evidence on the impact of various resources and
delivery models, such as, teacher certification and class size, on student performance
(PACE, 2006; Rebell, 2007) For this reason, the Evidence Based Model is the sensitive
to selection of literature chosen to serve as the basis for cost analysis. This model tends
to promote a one size fits all approach and is not sensitive to the differential needs
(PACE, 2006). Another criticism leveled at all cost function models including the EBM
is that these models rely primarily on standardized tests to measure student success.
Many argue that standardized tests alone do not properly measure student achievement.
Other non-cognitive measures, such as, good citizenship and leadership skills are
important criteria for measuring student performance (PACE, 2006). Hanushek (2006)
suggests that EBM, like other costing out studies, does not deal with any inefficiencies
that might currently exist in school districts and in some cases may choose the most
expensive method of running a program rather than the more natural, least expensive
way. Moreover, he claims these studies are done by consultants who are commissioned
by self-interest parties thereby raising questions about their validity.
Regardless of all the criticism leveled at it, the Evidence Based Model is an
approach that is simple, transparent and has the ability to deal with a full range of
educational needs and outputs (Rebell, 2007). Baker (2005) reviewed a variety of studies
30
that estimates the cost of adequate education and he recommends that these methods are a
great tool for resource allocation. He analyzed numerous educational cost studies to
conclude that there are a lot of consistencies among these studies. The EBM has been
extensively used in New Jersey, Wyoming, Kentucky and Arkansas, among other places,
to determine adequate level of funding (Odden, 2003). As the EBM uses research-based,
proven strategies to determine resource allocation for student achievement, it will be
employed as a basis for this research. How EBM allocates resources will be discussed in
detail in the resource allocation in successful schools section.
Resource Allocation: Trends, Impact and Concerns
According to EdSource (2009), the 2008 California Standards Test (CST) results
demonstrate that less than fifty percent (48.2%) of students are proficient in English
Language Arts (ELA). The results are not much better in math; only 51% of students are
proficient. For African-American and Hispanic students the proficiency rate is less than
forty percent in ELA. The performance of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students
and English Learners (EL) is even lower. Overall only 40.2% of all school districts met
their AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) growth target.
In a broader perspective, students in California, compared to other states, are
consistently underperforming on national assessments (―Students First,‖ 2007). The 2007
National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) results indicate that fourth grade
students in California are 48
th
in reading and 47
th
in math among students from all fifty
states. Student performance is equally dismal in eighth grade; the state ranks in the low
forties in that grade as well. This grim picture does not get any better in high school.
31
Only 7 out of 10 students graduate high schools with Latino and Black students
performing significantly lower than White or Asian students. Irrespective of their
Socioeconomic Status (SES), Black and Latino students perform much worse than White
students as measured by the CST scores. Instead of bridging the achievement gap
between poor children of color and privileged students, the school system in California is
enlarging the inequities among different groups. Even the White students in California
perform poorly compared to those in other states (―Students First,‖ 2007).
Many attribute the dismal student achievement in California to lack of adequate
funding. According to PACE (2006), in 2006 California spent $59.6 billion on K-12
public education. Although it is a huge amount, the reason is simply due to the fact that
the state is home to more than six million K-12 students. In terms of per pupil spending,
California ranks only 24
th
among all states and at $9,124 is lower than the average per
pupil spending ($9,565) in the United States (EdSource, 2009). It is noteworthy that
California ranks 11
th
in the United States in per capita income. This level of spending is
a huge cause for concern because California has a very high number of poor, minority
students. More than 1.5 million K-12 students in California are English Learners
(Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly, and Callahan, 2003) and they constitute more than
a quarter of all the students in the state. Moreover, due to relatively high teacher salaries
(ranks 1 in the country), California students are in classrooms with a very high pupil-
teacher ratio. In fact, students in California have access to fewer adults each day at

32
school than children in any other state in the country (EdSource, 2009). Although there
are concerns about the level of resource allocation, the amount of resource allocated for
public education has in fact increased significantly in both California and the United
States.
According to an analysis by Hanushek and Rivkin (1997), average real
expenditure for K-12 students in the United States increased 3.5% per year for the
hundred year period starting in 1890. In actual dollar amounts, the spending on education
has increased from $2 billion in 1890 to over $187 billion in 1990. Although per pupil
spending in California is lower than the U.S. average, it has increased more than $3,000
in the past 20 years and is currently at $9,124 (EdSource, 2009; EdSource 2008). Despite
more than decades of funding increases and reforms, a majority of K-12 public schools in
California are still not meeting the state and federal accountability mandates. Although,
there is considerable criticism about a lack of commensurate increase in student
performance despite an increase in educational funding; there are studies available that
can explain this conundrum. This section will review some of these studies.
A study by Lankford and Wykoff (1995) on New York state school districts
reveal some significant insights on problems with traditional school funding. The authors
reported that New York state school funding increased by $12 billion from 1979-1980
school year to 1991-1992. Their investigation reveals that much of the increase, almost
54% was due to inflation. Of the rest of the increase, the two major areas of spending
were special education and teacher salaries. Changes in special education policies have
propelled most of the spending increase and it appears that these increasing expenditures
may have come at the expense of general education students. Also, increased teacher
33
salary may have attracted more people to join the profession, but it did not significantly
impact the quality of instruction. According to Odden, Monk, Nakib, and Picus (2005)
increase in teacher salaries throughout the United States were not tied to enhancing
teachers‘ professional expertise.
Research of California school funding by Picus (1991) demonstrates that a
targeted increase in school funding can have a more significant impact on improving
instruction. Picus (1991) investigated school districts‘ response to incentive programs
that offered $1.5 billion in additional funds between fiscal years 1987-1988 and 1989-
1990. The indirect incentives offered through SB 813 were different from general and
categorical aid programs. By offering fiscal incentives to increase the duration of the
school day and school year and raise the salaries of beginning teachers, the program
coaxed the local districts to increase the amount of total expenditures devoted to
instruction. Although these programs may not have directly led to increased student
performance, the incentive program did direct funds in the right direction.
Hanushek and Rivkin (1997) reported that the sizeable educational spending
increase in the U.S. was a result of falling pupil-staff ratios, increasing real wages to
teachers and expenditures outside the classroom. According to Odden and Picus (2008),
although pupil-teacher ratio has decreased since the 1960s, it did not significantly impact
class sizes in the core subjects of reading and math. Most of the new teachers who were
added were specialist teachers who taught music, art, library, physical education and
other non-core subjects. The regular classroom teacher as a proportion of all professional
34
staff fell from 70% in 1950 to 52% in 1995. Hence, despite the staffing increase students
didn‘t get additional help in reading or math, which are the focus of most student
performance policy debates.
Moreover, a significant portion of the funding increase since the 1960s was
allocated to students with disabilities, socioeconomically disadvantaged students and
English Learners (Odden & Picus, 2008). Although help for these groups of students is
vital, the format in which the help was delivered did not improve their performance and
resources were diverted from the general student population (Lankford & Wykoff, 1995).
Research by Odden, Monk, Nakib and Picus (2005) also reveals that using teachers to
provide out of class services and ―pull-out‖ instruction for students with disabilities and
low-achieving students did not boost student performance. Despite a history of inept
resource allocation, many schools and school districts have demonstrated great success in
increasing student achievement. In the following section some studies on successful
schools and the strategies they employ will be reviewed.
Successful Schools
A variety of studies are available that highlight the strategies used by successful
schools. Some of these studies are based on individual schools and some are based on
whole districts. There are other studies that are based on analysis of data from a variety
of successful school studies. Most of these studies focus on schools with a high number
of students in poverty and a high number of minority students. Following is an analysis
of some successful school studies.
35
Williams et al. (2005) conducted a comprehensive study on California elementary
schools that served a significant number of English Learners and poor students. The
study analyzed data from 257 schools serving similar student population in the 2003-
2004 school year. The researchers analyzed the practices and strategies that helped some
schools score better than others on the state test even when they had similar demographic
characteristics. The study identified four broad effective-school practices that had the
most significant correlation with high API scores for the students. These practices are as
follows: using assessment data to improve student achievement and instruction; ensuring
the availability of instructional resources; implementing a coherent, standards-based
curriculum and instructional program; and prioritizing student achievement by using
measurable and monitored objectives. The study also mentions that there is a need for
professional development to train teachers on strategies necessary for teaching students
with diverse needs.
The study by Williams et al. (2005) emphasizes that effective-schools used data
from a variety of sources to drive instruction. Teachers in successful schools meet
regularly to analyze data and modify instruction accordingly. The emphasis is on
analyzing formative assessment data to guide instruction instead of focusing on
summative assessments. In addition to data analysis, teachers in effective schools also
collaborate on developing effective lesson plans and instructional strategies. In these
high API schools there is consistency in how materials were taught and what was taught.
Moreover, effective-schools used a pacing calendar to plan what will be taught and when
it will be taught. The study observes that effective-practice schools were more likely to
have a clear vision that is focused on student learning and has high expectations for the
36
students. These schools had a well-defined plan for instructional improvement and they
made meeting the API goals and AYP target a priority. Teachers in these successful
schools used assessment data to guide and modify instruction. They not only analyzed
the API scores but also district provided tests and other formative tests for tailoring
instruction. Successful schools also ensured that adequate resources were available for
all students. This included not only the necessary instructional materials, but also fully
certified and qualified teachers.
While the Williams et. al. (2005) study focused on individual elementary schools
in California, Marzano (2003) synthesized a variety of studies on school effectiveness
and compiled a list of five key factors. The key factors for successful schools, as
proposed by Marzano (2003) are: guaranteed and viable curriculum; challenging goals
and effective curriculum; parent and community involvement; safe and orderly
environment; and collegiality and professionalism.
According to Marzano (2003), a guaranteed and viable curriculum involves
‗Opportunity to Learn‘ (OTL) which essentially means students are given the opportunity
to learn the standards based curriculum. Schools must identify the essential versus
supplemental curriculum and ensure that essential content is sequenced and covered
properly by the teachers. The time for covering the essential content must also be
protected. Once the curriculum is set, schools must set challenging achievement goals
for the whole school as well as individual students. Progress towards the goals must be
carefully monitored using formative assessments.
Student success is likely to be greater in school with increased parent and
community involvement (Marzano, 2003). Schools can improve parental and community
37
involvement by improving the mechanisms for communication, involving parent and the
community with the day-to-day activity of the school, and changing the governance
structure of the school by giving parents voice in the running of the school. Closely tied
to the community component is a safe and orderly environment in the school. If the
school environment is not safe, students will not be able to focus on the academics and
parents will be more concerned about student safety than their academic achievement.
The final step mentioned by Marzano (2009) for school improvement is
collegiality and professionalism among the teachers. In order for schools to be
successful, teachers need to be not only civil and courteous to each other, but they also
need to be able to communicate freely about their students. Teachers must collaborate
with each other to plan effective instructional strategies for the school. Teachers must
also be engaged in meaningful staff development activities that are focused on the
content, provides opportunities to learn and is integrated with the school reform plan.
The five school reform steps suggested by Marzano (2003) only include strategies
that can be implemented without a drastic addition of resources. Marzano (2003)
intentionally avoids the mention of measures, such as, lengthening school year, offering
after-school programs, or lowering student-teacher ratio, all of which will require a
significant amount of additional resources. However, what Marzano (2003) emphasizes
on is ‗staff development‘ which is referred to as professional development by other
studies in this section. Proper implementation of professional development does require
additional funding in the form of the time teachers need to collaborate and coaches who
may need to guide teachers in their planning and discussion.
38
While Marzano (2003) compiled other research on effective schools, a study by
Togneri and Anderson (2003) analyzed five school districts, from five different states,
that were successful in improving student performance for different groups of students.
They observed that all those districts applied the following strategies:
 Acknowledged poor performance and sought solutions
 Applied a system-wide approach to instruction
 Focused on student learning
 Used data-based decision making
 Adopted a coherent professional development plan
 Refined leadership roles
 Made a commitment to sustain reform
These districts started the reform process by analyzing student achievement data.
The districts leaders took the bold step of admitting that their schools were failing and
that they had to implement new strategies in order to be successful. After analysis of the
results, these districts implemented a system-wide curriculum that connected to state
standards, were coherent across grade levels, and provided teachers with clear
expectations about what to teach. The focus shifted to student learning and the common
vision was increasing achievement for all students. The districts embarked on this
mission by improving instruction, creating a safe and supportive environment for the
students, and involving the parents and the community in the educational process.
Once a system-wide sound instructional process was adopted, these districts
focused on systematic data gathering on multiple issues, primarily student performance.
39
They developed multi-measure accountability systems to gauge student and school
progress and provided support to assist teachers and administrators.
According to the study (Togneri and Anderson, 2006) to assist teachers, these
districts adopted new approaches to professional development. Professional development
was guided by the needs of the school and the student and was not predetermined by the
districts. Most of the professional development activities were on-site and focused on
increasing collaboration among the teachers. In addition to focusing on teacher learning,
these districts also focused on teacher leadership. The responsibility of curricular reform
did not just lie with the principal and superintendent, but all the stakeholders including
teachers and board members took an active role. One of the key features in these
successful districts was that reforming the district was an on-going process. It was not
abandoned in a year or two after much fanfare. It was sustained through strong
commitment of all the stakeholders involved in the reform process.
Absent in the Togneri and Anderson (2006) study is any mention of the school
size. A growing body of research suggests that schools that are smaller in size perform
better than the traditional schools with 1,000-3,000 students (Darling-Hammond, 2002).
However, smaller does not equal effective rather these school display some unique
characteristics that explains their efficiency. A smaller school can personalize education
by supporting the development of meaningful, sustained relationships among teachers
and students. In this model the school community works as a close-knit family instead of
the big factory-like model seen in most urban high schools. Smaller schools can
accomplish a sustained level of student teacher interaction by allocating resources for
more teachers instead of other administrative staff or non-classroom staff. Longer
40
periods and fewer classes per day also increase the personalized nature of small schools.
Another method employed in successful small schools to keep sustained student-teacher
contact is looping, whereby the teacher moves up a grade level with the same set of
students. Faculty advisers also work with a small group of students to ensure that they
are on the right track.
Although a small, close-knit school community is an important feature of Darling-
Hammond‘s (2002) successful school study, high standards and performance based
assessment is also a component, as observed in most effective school studies in this
section. In effective schools, curriculum is consistent, organized and standards-based.
All students are expected to achieve high standards; they are regularly assessed to
examine how they are progressing and what interventions are necessary. The standards
and assessment guide the curriculum and instruction. The curriculum in these schools
engages students as well as challenges them to understand concepts deeply, find and
integrate information, and develop analytical skills. The curriculum is linked to the
students‘ lives and prepares them for future.
High standards and consistent curriculum alone cannot improve student
performance. In successful schools teachers employ an adaptive pedagogy that includes
scaffolding, direct instruction and continued support for students who need assistance
(Darling-Hammond, 2002). A smaller, close-knit community, as mentioned before, helps
with the close monitoring of students. The pedagogy in these schools is also culturally
responsive and respectful of students‘ culture as well as the outside school community.
Successful schools also invest on knowledgeable and skilled teachers (Darling-
Hammond, 2002). Qualified teachers make a difference by making content accessible to
41
students, understanding the needs of diverse learners and supporting the student learning
process. In effective schools, teacher learning is an ongoing process. These schools
invest heavily in collaborative planning and on-going professional development.
Teachers work together to develop the curriculum, to develop lessons and evaluate
student work.
The two final components of successful schools, as reported by Darling-
Hammond (2002) are a strong family and community connections and a democratic
decision-making process. In effective schools, families and communities play a major
role in the school and all stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process.
Although smaller school size is a key feature of effective school‘s analyzed by
Darling –Hammond (2002), it is not listed as key component for school‘s to double
student performance (Odden, 2009). Based on a variety of research, Odden (2009)
recommends ten major steps for districts and schools to make dramatic improvements in
student achievement. Following are the steps recommended by Odden (2009): 1)
analyzing student achievement data, 2) setting ambitious goals, 3) implementing an
effective curriculum and instructional program, 4) using benchmark and formative
assessments, 5) employing ongoing professional development, 6) using instructional time
more efficiently, 7) providing extra help for struggling students, 8) creating professional
and collaborative school cultures, 9) using research-based and proven strategies and 10)
investing on human capital management. Most of the strategies mentioned by Odden
(2009) are included in the Darling-Hammond (2002) study. However, Odden‘s
recommendations do not focus as much on family involvement or shared decision-
making. It also does not mention racial sensitivity among the staff as a key issue.
42
Odden (2009) recommends analysis of data as the first step for effective school
reform. He explains that test data must be analyzed carefully before setting improvement
goals. Successful schools look at their data and acknowledge their weaknesses instead of
finding faults with the NCLB policy. After the initial data analysis, successful schools
set goals that are ambitious and include students from all subgroups. Even if schools do
not meet these goals they usually advance considerably and move closer to their goal.
All successful schools adopted new curriculum and instructional approaches as part of
their educational strategies to dramatically improve student achievement. These changes
are usually implemented with input and collaboration of the teachers and are systemic
across all classrooms and often across all schools in the district.
School and districts that are doubling performance are not only looking at
standardized test data, but also use benchmark and formative assessments to obtain more
in-depth and nuanced information to tailor instruction and modify instructional strategies
(Odden, 2009). Most schools usually use the commonly developed curriculum units and
end-of -the-unit assessments. Grade level or content area teams review performance data
from all students and develop plans to improve performance. In many schools,
professional development is embedded as teachers work with their grade level or content
area colleagues, analyzing the implications of formative and benchmark assessments. In
all successful schools, professional development was considered a critical and on-going
practice (Odden, 2009). Professional development in these schools included all teachers,
were not subject to voluntary participation, focused directly on the curriculum that was
taught and textbooks being used.
43
The sixth step for schools that doubled their student performance was to modify
instructional time during the school day. The strategies used by most schools did not
require additional funding. Most elementary schools employed a protected time block for
the core subjects of reading and math. During this time block, interruption was minimal
and emphasis on learning was paramount. Some schools used a lower class size, a costly
strategy, to help double their performance. In most cases the class sizes were reduced to
15 in kindergarten through third grade. In secondary schools, struggling students
received extra help and students with below basic performance had to receive a double
dose of the core curriculum instead of elective subjects. None of the schools‘ in Odden‘s
(2009) study increased the number of minutes in each period by lowering the number of
periods. However, this strategy was an effective tool in smaller schools to improve
performance, as noted in the Darling-Hammond (2002) study. In addition to changing
student instructional blocks, successful schools also allowed increased collaboration time
for the teachers.
The seventh step in Odden‘s (2009) study also deals with time; however, this
extended learning time is only for struggling students. Students who are below the level
of proficiency receive a wide range of help depending on their needs. These include a
variety of combinations of double periods, tutoring, extended day and summer extra
assistance programs. All these strategies are used to extend the learning time of
struggling students so that they have the needed support to achieve proficiency in the core
subjects, math and reading.
In schools that double their performance, success comes in lieu of a collaborative
culture with distributed leadership provided by both teachers and administrators (Odden,
44
2009). As discussed earlier, teachers in these schools work in groups to develop
curriculum and plan instructional strategies. They work together to analyze data, plan
interventions, modify instructions and on a variety of other curricular issues in a
collaborative and professional manner. This type of school community is commonly
called a ―professional learning community‖ (PLC). In these schools the leadership comes
from not just the administrators, but also teachers who become grade level leaders,
curricular leaders, etc. The principle force that binds a PLC school is the pursuit for high
achievement for all students. In these schools, the strategies used were not decades-old
methods, but research-based strategies that are effective. Schools that doubled their
performance sought out new ideas to improve their instructional plan.
In addition to the nine steps discussed above, Odden (2009) proposes a tenth step,
human capital investment to improve student performance. All the excellent strategies
discussed above are successful only when there are excellent teachers and administrators
to lead the process. All school districts need to recruit qualified, bright teachers and
principals and use a multi-pronged approach to recruit and maintain these qualified
people who are key to doubling student achievement.
Leadership is a key feature required for schools to be successful; however, it is
not mentioned in many successful school studies. Perhaps, some authors feel all reform
measures will only take place under strong and effective leadership; hence, they think
there is no need to point it out. However, Failure Is Not an Option (Blankstein, 2004), a
book that compiles information from various successful school reform models, views
successful school reform as a ‗courageous leadership imperative‘. The reform process in
this model starts with the school leaders focusing on their core values and beliefs to
45
determine their purpose. These ―courageous‖ leaders do not accept failure and march on
with a clear purpose and focus.
As observed in most successful school studies in this section, Blankstein (2004)
also recommends school reform start with a clear goal. In addition, the author mentions
that schools need to start the reform process by clarifying their mission and vision and
identifying what values they embrace. The second stage in this process involves creating
a system that prevents students from falling through the cracks and provides intervention
to students when it is needed. In a successful school, teachers work in collaborative
teams with a clear focus and they use data analysis to make decisions.
The two other steps mentioned by Blankstein (2004) involve engaging the
families and community and building sustainable leadership capacity. Support and
involvement of students‘ families and the community at large is fundamental to
achievement in schools. By effectively involving the families and the community,
successful schools engender broad-based support and strengthen their entire school
community in the process. Similar to Odden (2009), Blankstein (2004) also recommends
investment on human capital to ensure that the culture of reform is sustained through
effective, on-going and sustained leadership. The leadership model mentioned by
Blankstein (2004) is distributive in which the principal as well as the teachers, coaches
and mentors also take the leadership role. Distributed Leadership will be discussed in
further detail in the Administrative Leadership section.
Table 2.1 below summarizes the six different studies discussed in this section.
Analysis of the six successful school studies demonstrate that all successful schools and
districts start by setting ambitious goals for student achievement. The second most
46
important strategy for all successful schools is adopting a new curriculum and effective
and research-based instructional strategies. Most of these schools use various forms of
data analysis to make decisions and guide instruction and most invest considerably in
professional development for teachers. In many of the successful schools a more
distributed leadership is practiced with teachers taking on a greater leadership role. The
three other factors mentioned by Darling-Hammond (2002) require more effort and
planning rather than more funding. Whereas two of the other factors mentioned by
Odden (2009), using time effectively (e.g., increased number of school days, longer days)
and help for struggling students will require considerable amount of additional resources.
Assistance and intervention for struggling students is also a strategy mentioned by
Blankstein (2004). Considering the huge achievement gap that exists even today
(EdSource, 2009), this kind of investment seems essential to improve student
performance in all successful schools.
Although, all the studies discussed in this section have a lot of similarities and
provide a wealth of information on school improvement, the Odden (2009) book Ten
Steps to Doubling Student Performance provides a comprehensive set of strategies for
school improvement. This book was written based on information obtained from
numerous studies and reports by very prominent educators and researchers. Moreover, as
this book was written well after the NCLB Act, the strategies mentioned are more
relevant to help schools impacted by all that Acts accountability requirements. The crux
of this research will employ the steps enumerated by Odden (2009) and investigate which
of these strategies the sample effective schools are using and how they are allocating
resources for instructional improvement.
47

Table 2.1
Comparison of Successful School Strategies Across Research Studies
Broad
Issues
Williams et.
al. (2005) Marzano (2003)
Togneri &
Anderson
(2006)
Darling-
Hammond
(2002) Odden (2009)

Blankstein
(2004)
Problem Acknowledging
poor
Performance
Understanding
student Performance

Goal Student
Achievement is
Prioritized
Challenging Goals
& Effective
Feedback
Vision focused
on Student Learning
High Standards &
Performance –
Based Assessment
Setting
High
Goals
Common Mission,
Vision, Values &
Goals
Curriculum
&
Instruction
Coherent,
Standards-based
Curriculum &
Instruction
Program
Guaranteed viable
Curriculum
System-wide
approach to
Curriculum &
Instruction
Authentic
Curriculum &
Adaptive,
Culturally-Sensitive
Pedagogy
Adopting new
Curriculum &
Instructional
Program

Data Using
Achievement Data
to improve
instruction
Decision based
on Multiple
Data Source
Data-Based
Decision Making
Using Data to Guide
Decision Making
Professional
Development
(PD)
Staff Development Coherent approach
to PD
Collaborative
Planning
& PD
PD
Leadership Teacher Leadership Redefined
Leadership
Roles
Democratic
Decision-Making
Building
Sustainable
Leadership
Parent &
Community
Parent &
Community
Involvement
Family &
Community
Connections
Active Family &
Community
Engagement
Other Instructional
Resources
are
available
Collegiality
&
Professional ism
among teachers
Commitment
to Sustain
Reform
1. Personalization 2.
Continuous
Relationship
3. Knowledgeable
& Skilled Teachers
1. Using Time
Effectively
2. Help for
Struggling Students
3. PLC
4. Investing on
Human Capital
1. Intervention for
struggling students
2.Collaborative
Teaming
48
Resource Allocation in Successful Schools
Although there is criticism at the level of educational funding, many believe
appropriate resource allocation can improve student achievement. There have been
several studies that demonstrate that certain schools are performing better than average
even with similar levels of resources (William et al., 2005). Some research studies
suggest there is no clear relationship between spending and student outcomes (Loeb et
al., 2007) or that there is no best practice for resource use (Perez et al., 2007). However
an overwhelming number of studies have suggested that resource allocation in the past
century has not been made in a way that can boost student performance (Hanushek and
Rivkin, 1997; Lankford and Wykoff, 1995; Odden, Monk, Nakib and Picus, 2005; Odden
and Picus, 2008). Moreover, there are several studies and reports that show resource
allocation can be effectively linked to student achievement (Odden & Archibald, 2001;
Odden & Picus, 2008). Some of the major strategies mentioned in a variety of studies
include: hiring high-quality teachers and staff, professional development for teachers and
principals, implementation of standards-based curriculum, coherent instruction, ongoing
assessments and effective data analysis strategies (―Students First,‖ 2007; Williams et al.,
2005). This section will review some of the studies on resource allocation that lead to
increased student achievement.
Traditional method of spending even in times of fiscal abundance has not
translated into increased student performance. Measures, such as, across-the-board salary
increases, class size reduction and targeted spending programs have resulted in greater
cost without corresponding gains in achievement (National Working Group on Funding
Student Learning, 2008). Most of the twentieth century funding system was designed
49
with a focus on the input. Standards based reform and increased accountability have
shifted the focus on output, that is, student learning. In a learning-oriented finance
system, the resource target moves from the whole district to individual student
achievement (NWGFSL, 2008). However, a key question is what does effective resource
allocation look like in practice at the school level? There is no answer to this question
that will hold up across all settings or remain fixed over time. Yet, there is plenty of
research available on how successful schools reform and allocate resources. According to
NWGFSL (2008), in an effective school system the following steps are key:
 Setting clear goals and aligning resources with those goals
 Engaging students effectively with good instruction and quality curriculum
 Monitoring academic progress
 Analyzing data to evaluate teaching and learning
 Developing an action plan and adapting resources to address weaknesses and
build on strengths
 Moving resources from less effective to more effective uses
 Ensuring resource allocation supports core instructional goals and needs
In order to employ resources effectively, teachers, principals and superintendents
must understand that resources and their costs are interrelated and that they need to tailor
resources to the local needs (NGLFS, 2008). Some important examples of effective
resource use include:
50
1) Investing in teacher quality: School districts can improve their quality of teachers
by not only hiring effective teachers, but also by allocating resources on
professional development, collaborative planning times and performance
incentives.
2) Creating more individualized attention and support for students: Students can be
supported through smaller class sizes, especially in the primary level. In addition
struggling students can be supported through differentiated learning and other
interventions.
3) Using time strategically: Using time effectively is extremely important for
improving instructional programs. Examples include modifying daily schedules
(for example, longer blocks on core subjects) as well as yearly calendar to provide
more instructional minutes and increasing teacher professional development
opportunities.
A study by Odden and Archibald (2000) studied a dozen schools and two schools
districts that reallocated resources and boosted student performance. These schools did
not hesitate to eliminate and reduce certain programs to effectively reallocate their
resources. As a first step, these schools conducted data-driven needs assessment and
analyzed performance of individual students as well as performance by different
subgroups, such as, race, income and mobility, among others. After the comprehensive
assessment, they chose an educational strategy to guide resource reallocation decisions.
Each school‘s educational strategy required attention to issues that drive a school‘s cost
that included: school size, overall class sizes, classes for core subjects, student grouping
51
for instruction, teacher planning time, and professional development. These schools
pooled funding from a variety of sources to reallocate their resources. Following is a list
of strategies employed by the schools in this study:
1) A number of schools increased the number of classroom teachers in order to
reduce class size. They believed that smaller class sizes do impact student
achievement.
2) Most of the schools maintained regular education specialists – teachers for art,
music and other non-core subjects. In addition to valuing these subjects the
schools thought these teachers could be with the students while the core
teachers did their planning and collaboration.
3) Most of the schools made dramatic changes in how special education and
English Learner instruction were delivered. Teachers outside the classroom
were cut and ―pull-out‖ programs were abandoned for in-class support.
These cuts allowed the schools to reduce their class sizes by hiring more
teachers.
4) Many schools also eliminated instructional aides to hire classroom teachers.
Many of the strategies used in these schools have been observed at other
successful schools as well. However, this study traced these schools‘ performance for
only one year after the changes were implemented. More research is needed to determine
how these changes work over time.
The Evidence Based Model developed by Odden and Picus (2008) uses many
of the resource allocation strategies discussed above. This model identifies a wide array
of school level factors required to provide ‗adequate‘ education for all students and
52
determines the cost for these resources (Odden & Picus, 2008). The authors suggest that
funding needs to be tied to educating students to certain proficiency standards. The
Evidence Based Model or the ‗adequacy‘ funding model, that is takes a very different
approach to school funding than the current funding model in California. Instead of the
add-on system of categorical funding, the adequacy model is built from the core with the
student population and demographics determining all the key funding criteria. This
model (Figure 2.2) can be represented by a set of concentric circles that starts with the
core number of teachers and adds on the additional support staff.

Lawrence O. Picus
Instructional
Materials
Pupil Support:
Parent/Community
Outreach/
Involvement
Gifted
Tutors and pupil support:
1 per 100 at risk
Elem
20%
Middle
20%
High School 33%
The Evidence Based Model:
A Research Driven Approach to Linking Resources to Student Performance
K-3: 15 to 1
4-12: 25 to 1
State and CESAs
District Admin
Site-based Leadership
Teacher
Compensation
ELL
1 per
100
Technology

Figure 2.2 Odden and Picus Evidence-Based Model

53
The adequacy model looks at a whole spectrum of issues including preschool,
summer school and use of technology that require additional resources (Odden & Picus,
2008). However, the major emphasis of the adequacy funding model is a number of
staffing criteria. The two principle criteria for staffing are based on core programs and
extra student needs. The basis of an effective core program is smaller class sizes. The
extra student needs staffing is primarily based on the number of EL students and low
socioeconomic students.
According to adequacy model (Odden and Picus, 2008), the most suitable class
size for grades K-3 is 15 students. For grades 4-6, the recommended size is 25 students.
Studies have indicated that students respond better to same instruction in smaller classes.
In a smaller class, there are fewer discipline issues and hence students are more engaged.
Moreover, in elementary schools, smaller classes can increase social relationship between
the teachers, students and their families. A bit of a dilemma arises with setting up classes
according to the adequacy model. In case of K-3, if all the grade levels are not neatly
divided by 15, it may require an additional teacher for a few students. One solution
proposed by the adequacy model, is to create combination classes, such as, a K-1 or 2-3
combinations. The Odden and Picus (2008) study suggests that grouping based on
developmental progress is preferable than grouping by age or grade level. This model is
in direct contrast with current grade, hence age-specific curriculum standards that are a
requirement in California public schools.
The adequacy model proposes additional staffing based on a variety of student
needs, such as, the number of students on free and reduced lunch, EL students and
Special Education students (Odden & Picus, 2008). The primary form of assistance for
54
students from low SES is tutoring that needs to be provided by certificated teachers. The
recommended method for tutoring is one-on-one for students in the lowest deciles and a
small group model for students who are in slightly higher deciles. Tutors need to be
trained on effective strategies for working with low SES students and improve their
performance. According to the adequacy model one teacher is employed for every 100
low SES students. This model also employs extended-day programs and summer school,
primarily for struggling and low SES students.
According to the adequacy model, specialist teachers are employed to instruct
students in art, music, library skills, vocational education and physical education (Odden
& Picus, 2008). In turn, the core teachers can collaborate and plan during the period
when students are with the Specialist teachers. This allows teachers time during the day
for collaborative planning and professional development. In addition, the adequacy
model allows students to receive more effective instruction on a variety of subjects, such
as arts and music. These subjects are usually ignored in most under-performing schools
in California due to almost exclusive emphasis on language arts and math in the NCLB
accountability protocol. The adequacy model recommends an additional 20% teachers of
the total number of core teachers in a school. In high school, the percentage is 33% to
facilitate block scheduling that allows longer periods for the core courses and a longer
planning period for teachers. In addition to Specialist teachers, the adequacy model also
requires coaches and mentors to assist teachers with instructional strategies.
The Evidence Based Model supports a strong focus on on-going, intensive and
job-embedded professional development (Odden & Picus, 2008). The authors argue that
all the resources employed by this model will be worthwhile only if students are
55
receiving appropriate and effective instruction. This is only possible when teachers are
being exposed to high quality, content-rich, and curriculum-relevant professional
development. Effective professional development leads to good instruction that will
ultimately translate to student success. The authors conclude that professional
development needs to take place throughout the year: during summer for intensive
training, on-site coaching of all teachers to help them incorporate practices into their
daily instruction, and collaborative work during planning and preparation period.
Professional development is a key feature noted in most successful school studies
and school reform movements. Following section will analyze this feature in greater
detail.
Professional Development
A growing body of research demonstrates that there is strong correlation between
effective professional development and improved student performance (Butler, 1992).
An effective professional development occurs when teachers not only learn new skills
and concepts but also transfer the new information and strategies to their daily
instruction. According to Butler (1992), the focus of a successful professional
development should be school improvement. Professional development is mentioned as
a key step in Odden‘s (2009) ten steps to boost student performance. Effective
professional development, as defined by Odden (2009) is ―professional development that
produces change in teachers‘ classroom-based instructional practice, which can be linked
to improvement in student learning‖ (pg. 8).
56
According to Elmore (2002), professional development, in isolation, without
being tied to a large-scale reform movement will not be successful. Professional
development connected to the practice of improvement entails:
 Attention to the knowledge and skill educators require to improve student
learning and how people master that knowledge
 Focus on incentives that encourage people to engage in the difficult and
uncertain process of changing their teaching and administrative practices
 Emphasis on resources and capacities that are required to support the practice of
improvement.
The practice of improvement begins with the change in values and beliefs of people
about what is worth doing and what is possible (Elmore, 2002). Professional
development will be successful when a school has clear goals and the structural condition
for doing all the work. How and where the professional development is conducted plays
a huge role in its effectiveness. Teachers learn better when they are in close proximity to
their work and they are learning by observing their own students or students like theirs.
When all teachers and administrators are exposed to the same training that is based on the
needs of the school, they can discuss, collaborate and work as a team. With clear and
shared ideas, school administrators and teachers are willing to try new ideas in context of
specific curriculum content and specific instructional problems. Administrators are more
inclined to change structures and resource allocation patterns after they have observed
what effective practice in schools looks like. When learning by educators is not anchored
in their work, it is unlikely to lead to durable and effective changes that improve student
achievement (Elmore, 2002).
57
Elmore (2002) recommends that that an effective professional development is
focused on a well-articulated mission anchored in student learning. The author suggests
that an effective professional development that results in significant changes in practice
―will engage teachers in analysis of their practice, and provide opportunities for teachers
to observe experts and be observed by and to receive feedback from experts‖ (Elmore,
2002, p. 17). According to Supovitz and Turner (2000), the implicit logic of using
professional development as a means to improve student achievement is that high quality
staff development will produce superior teaching in the classrooms, which in turn will
lead to higher level of student achievement. Guskey (1991) observed that an effective
staff development activity generally brings change in classroom practices of teachers,
change in their belief and attitudes, and change in the learning outcomes of the students.
Staff development helps educators keep informed of the changing knowledge base so
they can continually refine their teaching skills and strategies (Guskey and Huberman,
1995).
A study (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, and Yoon, 2001) of 1,027 teachers on
effects of different characteristics of professional development on learning reveals similar
results as demonstrated by Elmore (2002). This study concludes that professional
development that is integrated into the daily life of the school (coherence), gives teachers
opportunities for hands-on work (active learning) and focuses on academic subject matter
(content) is more likely to produce enhanced knowledge and skills. Collective
participation of a group of teachers from the same school or grade level increases
coherence and active learning, which in turn are related to improvements in teacher
knowledge and skill and changes in classroom practice.
58
The authors (Garet et al., 2001) report that sustained and intensive professional
development is more likely to have a significant impact rather than a shorter professional
development. The authors argue that professional development tied to a reform process
have a higher impact because these tend to be of longer duration. Contrary to Elmore
(2002), they propose that traditional and reform professional development will have the
same effect if they are of the same duration. Whether tied to a reform movement or not,
the duration of a professional development is a very key feature. According to Odden
(2009) and Elmore (2002), an effective professional development needs to be continuous,
ongoing and annually total at least 100-200 hours.
Although professional development is more effective when conducted at the
school setting and is planned with teacher input, school districts can and do play a major
role in organizing and implementing professional development (Desimone, Porter,
Birman, Garet, & Yoon, 2002). Following are some of the roles school districts can
play in implementing effective professional development:
 Facilitate building a vision of school reform and design of professional
development to support reform
 Guide schools on how to respond to state standards and assessment and determine
how professional development can support the process
 Involve teachers in the planning process
 Determine sources of funding that may be used to support professional
development
Organizing effective professional development requires a considerable amount of
time and money (Odden, 2009). Teachers require pupil-free days to receive their
59
training; this consequently leads to paying for substitute teachers or extending the school
year for teachers to include professional development days. The latter strategy is popular
in more successful schools as it avoids disruption of the instructional time. The cost is
approximately the same for both the strategies. Another major cost is the funds required
to pay for the trainers. For professional development to be effective and successful it
needs to be continuous process (Desimone et al., 2002). This requirement manifests
itself as a cost for instructional coaches who provide in-class coaching assistance. The
coaches are the key to help facilitate the change in instructional practice that increases
student performance (Odden, 2009).
Professional development is an excellent example of shared resources that many
schools receive from the district level. Shared resources, which may include people (for
example, coaches and mentors), equipment, and grants and services housed at the central
office, can reflect a variation in spending in both within schools and across districts
(Miller, Roza, & Swartz, 2004). Determining resource allocation accurately at the school
level in districts that share professional development and other resources can be a
challenge (Miller, Roza, & Swartz, 2004). In addition to the issues involving resources,
determining what kind of professional development is appropriate for a school can also
be a difficult task. An effective school leader can play a huge role in choosing the
appropriate professional development for a school.
Administrative Leadership
A leader plays a very strong role in all aspects of school reform (Marzano, 2003).
The principal can be a strong cohesive force in the process of change. Under the
guidance of an effective leader, teachers can collaborate successfully and avail research-
60
based professional development opportunities (Lyman & Villani, 2004). More
importantly, a principal can play a strong role in establishing a culture of high
expectations and recognition that effort creates ability. Many recent studies on
leadership focus on the idea of a distributive leadership model.
These studies on leadership do not focus on the principal or the superintendent as
the sole leader but rather takes a distributed perspective of leadership (Spillane, Haverson
& Diamond, 2001; Knapp, Copland & Talbert, 2003). In this mode of thinking, leaders
at the school level include principals, assistant principals, department heads, school-based
mentors and coaches, teacher leaders and others. Leadership is treated as an attribute of
the organization as a whole, embedded not only in the formal positions of authority
(principal), but also in functions that crosscut the positions (e.g., professional
development, professional accountability, curriculum development) (Knapp, Copland &
Talbert, 2003).
According to Knapp, Copland and Talbert (2003), leading to improve student
performance requires action in a variety of areas that include:
 establishing a focus on learning
 building professional communities that value learning
 engaging external environments that matter for learning
 acting strategically and sharing leadership
 creating coherence
These five areas of action are not a linear sequence of steps rather each action supports
the other. The five action steps are likely to have a mutually reinforcing effect on each
61
other. Pursing a few of these steps may yield some positive results, however, applied
together they compose a more powerful collection of conditions for supporting student
achievement.
Distributive Leadership is also an important component of the ‗courageous‘
leadership model described by Blankstein (2004). In this model teachers take a more
active role in the decision-making processes at schools. Distributed leadership creates a
culture of initiative and opportunity in which teachers can propose new directions and
start innovations. This model gives depth and breadth to the idea and practice of
leadership. When a culture of distributed leadership is established it can be sustained
over time. Once teachers, department heads, coaches and mentors take a strong
leadership role in a school reform process, the reform is systemic and can be sustained
even when the leader takes a new assignment.
Conclusion
School funding mechanisms in the United States have evolved tremendously in
the past century. One-room local schools funded by the community have given way to
thousand-plus- student high schools funded by the state. Along with the change in
revenue source, the level of revenue deemed appropriate for students and the issue of
equity for all students also changed to be more inclusive and progressive.
Despite all the different changes, achievement gap among different groups of
students still remains a concern. Poor academic achievement is particularly critical in
California, the most diverse state in the country. Lack of adequate resources during this
period of financial instability in 2009 lowers the likelihood of increased resource
allocation to help close the achievement gap.
62
Although adequate level of funding remains a concern, there are many schools
that are demonstrating consistent growth and success even with the current level of
funding. A wealth of information can be gleaned by studying these schools. Most
schools that demonstrated consistent success achieved that by focusing on student
achievement goals. This focus is instilled in practice by careful data analysis. Instead of
recent fads, successful schools analyze their student performance data and a variety of
other data to set performance goals. Data analysis focuses the direction of schools
toward a systematic goal to improve student performance. Once the schools set goals
based on data analysis, they use a research-based, consistent curriculum and instructional
approach to address their goals.
Effective instruction and careful monitoring of student achievement is maintained
in successful schools through ongoing and focused professional development.
Professional development allows teachers to collaborate and plan successful instructional
strategies. It also allows teachers to receive coaching and mentoring on content and
instructional methods. In addition successful schools use many other strategies that
include: smaller class sizes, assistance for struggling students, and increased family and
community involvement among others. Strong leadership is also an important criterion
in successful schools. Strong leadership is essential for effective school reform. The
most effective model of leadership is a shared one where a variety of stakeholders assume
the leadership role. In this study, Odden‘s (2009) Ten Steps for Doubling Student
Performance was used to evaluate and analyze the strategies that successful schools are
employing and how their resource allocation is aligned to these strategies.
63
Evidence Based Model provides a good guideline for adequate resource allocation
to achieve school effectiveness. This model bases resource allocation on all the key
strategies required to increase student performance. Even though many schools do not
have the level of resource recommended by the EBM, they have achieved increased
student performance by creative allocation of resources for essential strategies. This
study analyzed how some sample successful schools in Southern California are using
research-based strategies and how these schools are allocating their resources. The
Evidence Based Model was used as a basis to assess the level of resources available at
these schools.
64
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
Introduction
The 2009-2010 school year is shaping to be a fiscally traumatic year for many
school districts in the United States and certainly in California. The recession that began
in December 2007 saw its greatest impact on school budgets in 2009 and 2010. Along
with the whole country, the state of California is in a serious budgetary crisis. Despite
the fiscal crisis, many school districts and schools still need to address the embarrassing
achievement gap and lack of progress in student performance.
According to EdSource (2009), the 2008 California Standards Test (CST) results
demonstrate that less than fifty percent of the students are proficient in English Language
Arts (ELA). For African-American and Hispanic students the proficiency rate is less than
forty percent in ELA. In a broader perspective, students in California, compared to other
states, are consistently underperforming on national assessments (―Students First,‖ 2007).
Lack of student achievement and achievement gap is a critical issue in the state of
California where almost 50% of the students are minority and 29% are English Learners
(Gándara et al., 2003). To compound this problem education funding in California is
well below the funding level of many other states and does not meet even the basic
adequacy standards (PACE, 2006). However, in this period of extreme financial
uncertainty, it is unlikely that there will be any funding increase in the short to medium
term.
65
In an era of budget cuts, the only possible method of increasing learning and
achievement is to allocate resources effectively. Schools that are struggling to increase
student achievement can benefit from any information gleaned from other successful
schools that have improved student performance by reallocating resources effectively.
This study investigated a sample of successful schools in Southern California and
analyzed how these schools allocate and use resources to consistently increase student
performance. The study answered the following questions:
1. What are the current instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school
level?
2. How are resources used to implement the school‘s instructional improvement
plan?
3. How did the allocation and use of resources change in response to the recent
budget reductions?
4. How the actual resource use patterns at the school sites are aligned with or
different from the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based Model?
In order to answer these questions, this study investigated which of the ten key
steps of school improvement as enumerated by Odden (2008) are being employed at
these schools. In addition, the study also investigated if these schools are employing
other strategies that have been identified as effective in the literature along with those
identified by Odden. This study further analyzed how resources are being used to
implement the effective instructional strategies at these schools. Finally the study
66
evaluated if the resource use pattern at these effective schools are aligned to the resource
use strategies in the Evidence Based Model.
This study was conducted by the author under the direction of Dr. Lawrence Picus
in partial fulfillment of the Ed. D requirements at the University of Southern California‘s
Rossier School of Education (RSOE). It took place concurrently with nine other
successful school studies conducted as part of a thematic dissertation project at RSOE.
Each of the nine dissertations dealt with the same research questions with purposeful
samples reflecting various populations of schools (e.g., elementary, high, high-achieving,
Title I, etc.). All the researchers participated in one-day training in data collection based
on the Evidence-Based Model Codebook, Web-based data entry and retrieval and
interview techniques.
The unit of analysis for this study was individual successful schools. This study
was based on purposeful sampling of schools with a focus on successful schools that are
demonstrating consistent academic achievement for their students. To study resource
allocation in successful schools this study conducted case studies of six elementary
schools in Southern California. The first step involved detailed investigation of a variety
of reports and information. These included: Student Performance Plan, School
Accountability Report Card and the Budget Proposal. The second step was a detailed
interview of the principal. The interview included both open and close-ended questions.
Triangulation was used to strengthen this study and a variety of data, such as principal
interviews, California State Department Data and Single Plan for Student Achievement
was used to decrease the likelihood of errors (Patton, 2002).

67
Sample and Population
This study was based on some purposeful sampling of six Southern California
elementary schools. The focus was on six successful schools that are demonstrating
consistent academic achievement for their students. The logic of using successful
schools is that they are information-rich units that provide pertinent information about
resource allocation that can be emulated by other schools. Studying these information-
rich schools generated insightful and in-depth understanding rather than empirical
generalizations. Criterion sampling was used to choose the schools that were studied
(Patton, 2002). The chosen schools met following criteria:
 Non-charter public elementary school
 Title I school
 School demonstrating consistent student achievement and narrowing the
achievement gap
One of the important goals of this study was to identify information that would be
meaningful and valuable to school principals. Since the majority of schools in California
are public schools, information gleaned from these schools is more pertinent. Although
public charter schools also employ effective strategies, many public schools cannot use
some of the strategies and programs used in charter schools due to collective bargaining
and other contractual issues and state mandates. Elementary schools were the focus of
this study as they are the building blocks that prepare students for middle school and
ultimately help them with high school graduation.
68
One of the key student performance issues, as discussed in the literature review
section, is the achievement gap among Hispanic and African-American students and their
White and Asian-American peers. Most of the minority students in California are
concentrated in the Title I schools where high numbers of students are eligible for the
federal free and reduced lunch program. It is in schools like these where student
performance has to improve significantly to have any impact on the achievement gap that
now exists. Effective Title I schools are good models for schools that are struggling to
close the achievement gap and improve student performance. Title I schools also receive
a higher level of categorical funding than non-Title I schools. How these schools
effectively allocate their resources can be very useful to other schools.
The Academic Performance Index (API) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
was used to measure the effectiveness of a school. A school‘s API and AYP are based on
its students‘ performance on the California Standards Test (CST) which is administered
annually during spring to students in grades two through eleven. Although there are
other measures for evaluating student performance, API and AYP was used as a measure
of success as it is tied to the federal NCLB program. A school must meet its federal
benchmark AYP requirements as well as API target which are measured by the student
performance on the CSTs. This is the indicator that California schools are judged by;
hence, this was used as a measure of effectiveness. In addition to overall student
performance, there was focus on how individual subgroups are performing at the chosen
effective schools.
Schools in California that have received the Academic Achievement Award meet
all of the above criteria. Some sample schools from Southern California that have
69
received the Academic Achievement Award in 2009 were selected for this study. All
these schools also demonstrated the following criteria (California Department of
Education, 2009).
 Received Title I funds in both 2007 and 2008.
 At least 40 percent of students classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged
(SED) in both 2007 and 2008.
 Made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in 2007 and 2008.
 A 2008 Growth API score that was above the median score (779) for the
school's grade type.
 Met their schoolwide API target and the API targets for all numerically
significant subgroups in 2007 and 2008.
 A schoolwide API greater than or equal to 800 or an API growth of at least
double the school's target in both 2007 and 2008.
 A numerically significant SED subgroup that had an API score greater or
equal to 800 or had API growth of at least double the SED growth target in
both 2007 and 2008.
The study included schools from a variety of school districts which allowed
identifying similarities in resource use patterns not only in different effective schools, but
also a variety of school districts as well.

70
Instrumentation
The primary focus of this study was to investigate what instructional vision and
strategies are being employed by successful schools and how they are allocating
resources to implement the strategies. The goal was to glean information that can be
applied by principals and practitioners to allocate resources effectively to improve
student performance. In addition this study also investigated how the resource use
patterns in these effective schools compare with the evidence-based model. A logical
method to obtain this information was to conduct case studies of successful schools
where resources are being allocated effectively to close the achievement gap and improve
student performance. This study used a qualitative approach and employed document
analysis and interviews to uncover the answers.
Documents are a valuable tool to examine an organization or a system.
Documents provide a wealth of information on the process, the procedure and the vision
of an organization (Patton, 2002). Schools are extremely document-rich institutions. All
schools are required by the state law to produce the School Accountability Report Card
(SARC) that details information about enrollment, staffing and other important issues.
These reports were the starting point of the study. The SARC reports were easily
obtained from the school website. The SARC provided information on a variety of issues
including: student achievement; student, teacher and staff characteristics; instructional
minutes, school environment; teacher assignment and some information on expenditures.
Once the SARC reports were examined for preliminary information, then the sites
were contacted with a formal request to be a sample school for the research project. In
71
addition to an email, a phone call was made to inform the principal that the researcher is
part of group led by Dr. Lawrence Picus of Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California and that the group is examining how successful schools are
employing resources (Appendix A). The school level documents that were analyzed
included: the Student Performance Plan, budget documents, and other documents relevant
to site plan and the expenditure. Examination of these documents not only provided a
plethora of information about the process, procedures and vision of an organization but
also act as a stimulus for path of inquiry that was pursued through direct interviews
(Patton, 2002).
The final instrument of investigation was interviews with site principals. The
interviews were used to pinpoint the instructional vision of the school, how this vision
was set and how it is implemented. The interviews were very useful to clarify any
questions regarding all the information that was obtained from the documents and to
obtain any missing information.
Effective instructional improvement strategies were analyzed against the steps
enumerated by Odden (2009). Based on a variety of research, Odden (2009)
recommends ten major steps for districts and schools to make dramatic improvements in
student achievement. Following are the steps recommended by Odden (2009):
1) analyzing student achievement data
2) setting ambitious goals
3) implementing effective curriculum and instructional program
72
4) using benchmark and formative assessments
5) employing ongoing professional development
6) using instructional time more efficiently
7) providing extra help for struggling students
8) creating professional and collaborative school cultures
9) using research-based and proven strategies and
10) investing on human capital management
Analysis of documents and principal interviews was used to determine what strategies the
schools are employing for instructional improvement. The SARC and the Student
Performance Plan provided a wealth of information about instructional strategies.
Interview with the principal clarified the depth and breadth of implementation of different
Odden (2009) strategies and also shed light on a few other strategies that the schools are
implementing. Site budgets were evaluated to check for alignment with the instructional
improvement plan and resource allocation.
In addition to identifying the effective instructional strategies, this study also
compared the resource allocation to the Evidence Based Model (EBM). The Evidence
Based Model as developed by Odden and Picus (2008) employs most of the strategies
mentioned in Odden‘s ten-step model. This model relies on current educational research
to identify the resources needed for a prototypical school to meet the state‘s proficiency
benchmark. Once the components are identified they are subject to the professional
judgment of the officials in the state. The modified costs are estimated and applied to the
73
actual schools in the state. The key resource allocation features of an ideal school
according to the Evidence-Based Model are shown in Table 2:
Table 3.1 Adequate Resource Allocation for a Ideal Elementary School with 432
students (Odden & Picus, 2008)
School
Characteristics
Resources
School
Configuration
K-5 Core Teachers 24
Enrollment 432 Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
Instructional
Facilitators/mentors
2.2
Full Day
Kindergarten
Yes Tutors 1 for every 100 poverty students:
2.16
Number of
Teacher work
days
190 +
10 days of
PD
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100: 0.43
Disabled
students
12% Extended day 1.8
Students in
poverty
50% Summer School 1.8
EL students 10% Learning Disabled
student
3
Minority
students
30% GATE student $25/student
Substitutes 5% of all of the above
Pupil Support 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
Non-instructional
aides
2
Librarian/Media
specialists
1
Principal 1
School site
Secretary
2
74

Table 3.1 (continued)
Professional
Development
instructional facilitators,
Planning & prep time, 10
summer days, $100/pupil for
other PD expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc
Technology $250/pupil
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil
Student activities $200/pupil
This study was started with a training program that was attended by the author
and fellow researchers on May 16, 2009. The training was conducted by Dr. Lawrence
Picus, professor at Rossier School of Education at The University of Southern California.
The training agenda included: review of data collection materials, pre-site visit protocol,
site visit procedure including interview technique, familiarization with the Evidence
Based Model Codebook, data entry and analysis techniques, review of case study write-
ups and possible challenges involved with data collection.
Each member of the thematic group brought in their own unique perspective to
this study and obtained valuable resource allocation information from a diverse variety of
schools. Similarities among these schools shed light on the most effective strategies.
This particular research focused on Title I elementary schools and identified effective
strategies for those schools.
There were numerous limitations to this study as seen with any other kind of
research. The study was conducted in six Title I elementary schools in southern
California. Data was collected between September and October 2009. Although
attempts were made to sample a variety of successful Title I schools, the study is limited
75
to those schools only. The schools were not be chosen in a random manner; hence, the
data obtained cannot be generalized to other schools. The choice of schools to be studied
were also limited by the willingness of the principals of the schools to participate in the
study. However, instructional improvement strategies identified by this study can be
applied to other schools as well.
The study instrument involved analysis of documents and open and closed-ended
interviews with the principals. The limitation of the first instrument was that only
documents that schools were willing to provide and the ones available online were
analyzed. The limitation of the second instrument was the memory of interviewees
(principals) and how thoroughly they revealed all the pertinent information. However,
use of triangulation gave considerable validity to this study.
Data Collection
This research study was based on the framework that practical information on
resource allocation will assist schools struggling to improve student performance. The
data collection process started with email and phone call to some schools in and around
the Inland Empire that met the criteria. Principals who agreed to participate in the
investigation were emailed more details about the research (Appendix A). The email
explained the purpose of the study. It outlined the process that included a two-to-three
hour interview and document examination with the principal and/or other personnel
determined by the principal to be knowledgeable about 2009-2010 resource use. The
76
email also included a list of documents for the principal to provide on the day of the
interview. The letter of invitation included detailed information about the researcher
including the contact information.
The interviews took place between September and October 2009. The interview
included examination of Student Performance Plan, school budget, daily bell schedule,
calendar, School Accountability Report Card, and enrollment information. Test scores,
student demographic data, similar schools ranking and achievement information was
obtained from the California Department of Education Web site before the site visit
After the interview, data was entered into the Evidence-Based Data Collection
Codebook. Schools and interviewees names were coded to protect their anonymity.
Close-ended standardized interview questions for the elementary schools contained 14
question categories: (I) School Profile, (II) School Contacts, (III) District Profile, (IV)
District Contacts, (V) School Resource Indicators, (VI) Core Academic Teachers, (VII)
Specialist and Elective Teachers, (VIII) Library Staff, (IX) Extra Help Staff, (X) Other
Instructional Staff, (XI) Professional Development Staff and Costs, (XII) Student
Services Staff, (XIII) Administration and (XIV) Class Sizes (Appendix B). Examples of
close-ended standardized interview questions include:
i) Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the
number of students eligible for services as an English language learner (ELL) as
defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,
ii) Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL):
Number of enrolled students, who are eligible for the federal free- and reduced-
price lunch program,
77
iii) Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the
site visit, number of students in the school with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special education services.
iv) Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract:
Number of days the teacher contract specifies for professional development, and
v) Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading,
English, and language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods when
students are specially grouped for extended literacy instruction. (E.g. reading,
writing, comprehension)
vi) Library Aide: Number of FTE library aides who help instruct students
This study also included some open-ended interview questions (Appendix C).
The questions were prepared as part of the training manual that all researchers received.
These questions were asked in the sequence as they appear. All interviewees were asked
the same questions in the same order to reduce interviewer bias and to increase
comparability across responses (Patton, 2002). Examples below illustrate the nature of
the open-ended questions:
1. What curricula have been used during your instructional improvement
effort?
(e.g., Open Court Reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
2. What is the instructional implementation has take place as part of your
reform efforts? (e.g., Individualized instruction, differentiated
instruction)

78
Data Analysis
The data gathered from documents, prior to the interviews provided some
information on each school‘s resources and instructional strategies. The interview
protocol was planned to gain clear understanding of the schools instructional
improvement plan and how resource allocation is aligned to their goals. The Evidence
Based Model was be used to compare the schools‘ spending to determine how close the
funding is to the adequate level of funding. In this environment of severe cutbacks on
educational funding in California, the efficiency of resource use is paramount to school
improvement.
Once all the data was collected and interviews were complete, the data was
entered into the web portal (www.lopassociates.com). This is a password-protected site
that stores all the information in an Excel database. Follow-up calls were made to some
schools in order to finish data collection and clarify any inconsistencies or errors. The
data was be checked for accuracy and cleaned as appropriate. The data, along with
information obtained from the interviews, was compiled into detailed case studies on
each of the six schools. The qualitative data, collected through interviews and document
analysis, was complied into detailed case studies for each school (Appendix D).
The numeric data obtained via document analysis and the interviews with the
principals was used to compare the six effective schools. The analysis section provides a
discussion of the trends, similarities and differences among the six schools as well as
79
further discussion of how the school resource allocation patterns compare with the
Evidence Based Model. These analyses help answer the four research questions of this
study.

80
CHAPTER 4
Findings
Introduction
This study was conducted to examine instructional strategies and resource
allocation in successful schools. This section presents findings that were obtained by case
studies of six elementary schools (Appendix H-M) in southern California and analysis of
the relevant literature. The six schools studied are sample successful schools that have
demonstrated increased student performance. The findings reveal: (1) the current
instructional vision and improvement strategies at the school level, (2) how resources are
used to implement the school‘s instructional improvement plan, (3) how the allocation
and use of resources have changed in response to the recent budget reductions and (4)
how the actual resource use patterns at the school sites are aligned with or different from
the resource use strategies used in the Evidence-Based Model (EBM).
All the analyzed schools were Title I, non-charter public schools that had
demonstrated consistent student achievement and had narrowed the achievement gap.
These schools have also reached an API score of 800 or more which is the cornerstone of
state accountability measures of student performance. Following section shows a
comparison of the schools‘ profile.
School Profile
All the school‘s analyzed in this study were located in and around the Inland
Empire, a two county area in southern California. These schools are all part of five
different K-12 districts (School AA and DD are from the same District) with enrollment
ranging from 10,000 to 35,000 students. School BB is part of a district that has more
81
than 34,325 students and School EE belongs to a district with only 10,285 students on its
roster. The enrollment in the other three school districts range from 18,000 to 22,000
students. The schools studied also have a wide range of student enrollment. The smallest
school has only 430 students, which is almost identical to a prototype EBM school and
the largest school has more than 750 students. Table 4.1 shows the enrollment of these
schools and their locations:
Table 4.1 Enrollment and Locations of Sample Schools

School AA School BB School CC School DD School EE School FF
School
Enrollment 580 630 430 688 752 445
School
Location
Suburban
fringe Urban Suburban
Suburban
fringe
Suburban
fringe Suburban
District
Enrollment 22,000 34,325 21,170 22,000 19,000 10,285

The student demographics of these schools are quite diverse. The majority of the
students are Hispanic in all the schools except CC Elementary. There are substantial
numbers of White students in only CC, AA and DD Elementary. The African-American
students represent a large percentage of school enrollment only in BB Elementary. In
each school, the minority students constitute the majority of the student population.
Figure 4.1 shows the ethnic breakdown of the six schools.

82
Figure 4.1 Ethnic Breakdown of the Six Schools:

Similar to ethnicity, there is also some difference in the percentage of
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged students which is measured by the number of students
who receive free and reduced lunch. This percentage determines these schools‘ Title I
funding. The number of EL students is also different in these schools. The percentage of
SED students range from 53% to 78% and the percentage of EL students range from 11%
to 53%. Figure 4.2 shows EE Elementary School has the highest percentage of both EL
and SED students while CC Elementary has the lowest percentage of both student groups.

0
20
40
60
80
100
School
AA
School
BB
School
CC
School
DD
School
EE
School
FF
Other/Multiple Response
Asian
African-American
White
Hispanic
83
Figure 4.2 Percentage of SED & EL Students at the Sample Schools
Five of the sample schools have considerably more SED and EL students
compared to the EBM prototype school (50% SED and 10% EL). These factors add
more challenges to the sample schools in this study. CC Elementary has similar student
demographic to an EBM prototype school.
Achievement Data
API and Similar School Rankings
All the schools in the study demonstrated considerable growth in their API and
AYP scores. The six schools demonstrated an API growth in the range of 57-98 points in
last four years. EE Elementary had the lowest API in 2005 and demonstrated the highest,
a 98 point growth. According to the 2009 results, FF Elementary has the highest API of
866 points. Figure 3 shows the API increase for each sample school between 2005 to
2009.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
School AA School BB School CC School DD School EE School FF EBM
School
62
66
53
58
78
66
50
29
36
11
35
53
22
10
SED
EL
84
According to similar school rankings published by the California Department of
Education, three of the schools, School DD, EE and FF are in the top most, 10
th
decile
when compared with hundred similar schools in the state (This comparison takes into
account various characteristics including demographics, mobility and EL status, among
others). School CC is in the 9
th
decile, School AA is in the 8
th
decile and School BB is in
the 7
th
decile, respectively. In the last three years each school, except School BB, has
demonstrated a positive growth in the decile rankings. School AA has had the highest
growth from 3
rd
to 8
th
decile while School BB remained at the 7
th
decile. Table 4.2
displays the similar schools as well as statewide decile rankings of these schools.
Table 4.2 Similar School & Statewide Ranking of the Sample Schools

School
AA
School
BB
School
CC
School
DD
School
EE
School
FF
2005 2008 2005 2008 2005 2008 2005 2008 2005 2008 2005 2008
Similar
School
Ranking
3 8 7 7 5 9 9 10 9 10 9 10
State-
wide
Ranking
5 7 5 6 7 8 7 9 4 6 7 8

749
739
782
804
715
797
829
811
846
861
813
866
700 750 800 850 900
School AA
School BB
School CC
School DD
School EE
School FF
Figure 4.3 API Increase in Sample Schools
2009
2005
85
The Statewide rankings show that all the schools are in decile 6 or higher even
though all these schools have more challenging demographics than many other California
public elementary schools. School DD is in the 9
th
decile when compared to all the
schools in the state. Even though, School AA and School DD have similar demographics
and are part of the same districts, their decile rankings are quite different. However, the
gap between these two schools has narrowed considerably in the last four years. It can
be inferred from these data that even two schools with similar demographics belonging to
the same school district and following some similar instructional plan can have
considerably difference in student achievement.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) which is based on the California
Standardized Test (CST) was analyzed to evaluate the schools‘ student achievement.
Each of the six schools have met the NCLB benchmark requirements, demonstrated
growth in the overall student performance in the last four years and have managed to
significantly reduce the achievement gap among White students and other minority
students. Hispanic, English Learners (EL) and Socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED)
students are significant subgroups in five of the six schools. Only CC School does not
have a significant subgroup of EL students. Improving the performance of these student
subgroups and lowering the achievement gap is one of the key measures of success for
most Title I schools in United States.
Analysis of the AYP results reveals that the English language arts AYP for
Hispanic subgroup increased 10% -35% in the last four years. The increase was highest,
35.2%, at School AA. Except School CC, each school has more than 50% of Hispanic
86
students achieving proficiency with the highest percentage, 65.5% in School FF. The
AYP increase is similar for SED students as well. All the schools had an AYP increase
of approximately 20% or more for the SED students. The SED subgroup AYP is highest
in School FF at 68%. Among the three major subgroups, the AYP growth was highest
for EL students. Two of the schools, AA and F, had approximately 40% growth for the
EL subgroup. The 3 other schools with significant EL population had more than 25%
growth during this period. For each of the six schools, the growth in the Language arts
AYP for White students during this same period was a lot less and averaged around 12%
(detailed results for each group are included in the case studies that are part of the
Appendix). This trend has played a big part in lowering the achievement gap, a problem
that plagues many schools in the United States, in the sample schools. Figure 4.4, 4.5
and 4.6 displays the English language arts performance of these subgroups in the sample
schools in the last four years.

87
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 4.5 English Language
Arts AYP for SED Students
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 4.6 English Language
Arts AYP for EL Students
Fig 4.4 English Language Arts AYP for Hispanic Students

Figure 4.5 English Language Arts AYP Figure 4.6 English Language Arts AYP
for SED Students for EL Students

*EL students were not a significant subgroup at CC School.
Analysis of Math AYP results demonstrates a similar trend of lowering
achievement gap that was observed for language arts. From 2005 to 2009, the AYP
increased 15% or more for Hispanic students in all six schools that were studied. In
School EE the increase was more than 25%. A similar increase was registered For SED
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
School AA
School BB
Shool CC
School DD
School EE
School FF
88
and EL students during the same period. Meanwhile, the White students did not record
such high increase in their performance. Although, the latter subgroup demonstrated high
growth in School EE and FF, it was still a little less than the growth of some other
subgroups.
Figure 4.7 Increase in the Percentage of Proficient Students in Math from 2005 to
2008 for the Significant Student Subgroups

Each of the schools studied have demonstrated academic progress for all students.
Several of these schools have demonstrated a marked increase in the performance of their
significant subgroups and have managed to considerably lower the achievement gap that
persisted in many of these schools. The following section will outline the successful
strategies used by these schools that have contributed to impressive student achievement.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
School AA School BB School CC School DD School EE School FF
Hispanic SED EL White
89
Instructional Vision and Improvement Strategies
The common instructional vision among all the sample schools is improved
academic achievement for all students and lowering the achievement gap among the
White students and other minority subgroups. The schools are using a variety of
strategies to achieve this vision. The improvement strategies used at these schools were
evaluated through the lens of Odden‘s(2009) Ten Steps for Doubling Student
Performance. All the schools employed most of the ten strategies recommended by
Odden (2009). In addition, a few other effective strategies were also observed in these
schools. Following is a comparative summary of the strategies these schools used to
improve student performance:
1) Analyzing Student Achievement Data
All the six schools included in this study spend a considerable amount of time
analyzing achievement data. The teachers and principals start the year by analyzing the
state test scores. Some schools analyze the CST results as grade level teams while others
have the leadership team analyze the results and disseminate the information to all the
teachers. EE Elementary has the leadership team analyze the data and indentify areas of
weakness and trends to set goals. BB Elementary looks at the data as a whole school and
shares the information with the community to set goals. Data analysis is also used to set
goals that are published in the Single Student Achievement Plan (SPSA) which the
California Department of Education requires each school to submit annually.
2) Setting Ambitious Goals
As discussed in the earlier section, all the schools in the study rigorously analyze
data and set goals. The accountability measures that are part of the federal NCLB Act
90
require schools to meet the AYP targets not only for their whole student body, but also
for the significant student subgroups. These benchmark requirements have made it easier
for schools to set goals and achievement targets. All the schools studied use the AYP
benchmark requirements as a roadmap to set goals for increasing student proficiency
annually. In addition to the NCLB requirements, the California State API requirements
also call for schools to set goals to improve student performance. Unlike the AYP, API is
measured not just by the number of proficient students, but also by how the struggling
(Far Below Basic and Below Basic) students have progressed. To improve their API,
schools have to also focus on ensuring that the struggling students meet their goals.
All the schools in the study have been setting these ambitious goals to increase
performance. As evidenced by their API and AYP scores in the earlier section, the goal
setting is helping these schools significantly improve their student performance. It is
easy for all the stakeholders to know the goals as they are published in the schools‘
SPSA. Some schools (School AA and School EE) also have their API goals posted in
classrooms and other bulletin boards to keep the academic focus relevant. As noted,
three of the schools in the study, School DD, EE and FF, are in the top 10 decile of
similar school rankings. However, this significant achievement has not slowed these
schools‘ drive to excel even further. These schools are not just content being in the top of
the group among similar schools but they want to push their school to be seen as ―a top
school period, regardless of the demographic composition of their student body.‖ (Odden
2009, pg. 46)

91
3) Implementing Effective Curriculum and Instructional Program
Each school in the study focuses on improved curriculum and instructional
strategies very rigorously. They all implement a state-approved and district-adopted
curriculum for all the core subject areas. Although several of the schools recently
adopted a new Envision math curriculum (School AA, BB, DD, EE and FF), they have
been using the language arts curriculum for seven years or more. Due to recent budget
crisis in California, all the school districts have received a waiver to continue their
English language arts curriculum until 2013 (according to California state education law,
schools must adopt a new curriculum every seven years). Although the schools did not
adopt a new language arts curriculum recently, in the past five years they have seriously
revamped how the curriculum material is used and how instruction is delivered to the
students.
Moreover, according to the Essential Program Components (EPC) as formulated
by the California Department of Education, each California public elementary school
receiving categorical funds must allocate a specific number of minutes each week for
language arts and math instruction. All the schools in the study follow these guidelines
very strictly. They also provide intervention for EL and struggling students as mandated
by the state law. The model each school uses to deliver instruction and implement the
curriculum varies considerably. For each school the District provides a pacing guide that
sets the instructional timeline and sequence for the year.
For AA Elementary the District provides the schools with pacing guides that
focus on key standards that are aligned to the benchmark exams. Students take
benchmark exams four times a year that help teachers guide instruction. Prior to the
92
benchmark exam, the focus is on the standards that will be tested on the upcoming exam.
The standards are color coded, orange, green, pink and yellow to correspond with the
standards covered on the four benchmark exams. This color-coding makes it easier for
teachers to indentify the standards and for the principal to ensure that the correct
standards are being taught. In addition to focusing on key standards, the school also
focuses on individual student needs.
At AA Elementary, Focus Time is a schoolwide intervention that involves all
students and teachers, including additional support staff. This 30-minute intervention
takes place throughout the day for different grade levels and is supported by two roving
substitute teachers and several instructional aides. During this block, students are
grouped according to their CELDT levels and their academic performance levels. GATE
students are also grouped and receive differentiated instruction. Use of two roving
substitute teachers and 3-5 aides during focus time significantly lowers the number of
students in each intervention group. Teachers use state approved curriculum to work
with the EL students in small groups during this period.
At BB Elementary, the language arts block of the core curriculum is divided into
three parts. First hour follows some key components of the core curriculum. In the
second hour students are divided according to their ability level and their language
ability. During this segment EL students receive specific targeted instruction. GATE
students also receive instruction that meets their needs. Grade 4 and 5, at-risk students,
use the Read 180 curriculum to bridge the gaps in their reading skills. BB Elementary
employs an Instructional Support Teacher who provides direct services to struggling
students with a focus on narrowing the achievement gap. Two bilingual aides provide
93
direct support in the classroom to struggling students in small group settings. Priority
support is given to low-performing subgroups. There is a separate intervention time for
EL students to work on English Language Development (ELD) with specific state-
approved curriculum.
CC Elementary uses the District prepared annual Scope & Sequence Pacing
Guide for each grade level for language arts, math and science. The Pacing Guide helps
teachers know when and in what sequence each lesson is expected to be taught to ensure
proper content coverage. Additional instructional materials are used to meet the learning
needs of all students who need extra help. These materials are selected by the CC
teachers and are strongly aligned to the state standards. Fourth and fifth grade students
who are about two years behind get an alternative core curriculum called REACH.
Students in grades one through three who score below a certain benchmark level receive
assistance from 3 retired, part-time teachers on a daily basis. Two of these teachers work
with the SRA Reading Laboratory program that provides struggling readers with
strategies necessary to become proficient readers. The third teacher works directly with
classroom teachers to support struggling students in the classroom. Some students also
receive tutoring from adult volunteers or by college students.
DD Elementary follows the same district adopted pacing guide as AA
Elementary. However, there are noteworthy differences in how these two schools
implement the curriculum. School DD spends the majority of its Title I funding on
personnel. DD employs a Title I teacher who works with students in kindergarten
through first grade. In addition, DD employs 10 instructional aides who work three hours
daily. The core instructional time at DD is termed the ―sacred hour‖ and it is during this
94
time when the Title I teacher and the aides provide support to the classroom teacher.
Students are grouped according to their ability level for language arts and math
instruction. Grade levels decide in which class and at what hour most of the support is
necessary. The aides help the classroom teacher in instructing the struggling students.
The Title I teacher pulls students and works with the intensive groups.
Although EE Elementary follows the District adopted curriculum, the school has
made significant changes in how the curriculum is delivered. Early on the principal had
decided that the focus needs to be the state standards instead of the textbook pacing
guide. The principal worked with the leadership team and planned the ―rituals &
routines‖ for teaching language arts and math. During the planning process the team kept
in mind that the EL students at EE Elementary were not ―IQ deficient‖, but rather they
are ―language deficient‖. That language deficiency, the leadership team determined,
could be bridged with repetition of ideas and key skills. The team developed a guide that
laid out each 5-7 day language arts lesson in a set format. This format paid attention to
the key standards that students needed to master in each grade level. The weekly story,
vocabulary words, and spelling, etc. were all laid out in a format that allowed the
necessary skills to be repeated and reviewed regularly.
Students at EE Elementary are placed in classes by their language ability level.
This method of placement allows teachers to focus on students with similar ability levels
during ELA instruction. Stronger teachers with Spanish language skills are placed in
classes with struggling and EL Students. There are 6 part-time aides who assist teachers
during instruction. The aides mostly work with struggling students and focus on ELA.
95
In addition to the core program, EE uses a variety of grade level specific
supplemental programs. The K-1 teachers use a supplemental phonics program and the
EL students in second grade also may use the phonics program if necessary. Students in
grades 2-5 use the Accelerated Reader program to increase comprehension.
4) Using Benchmark and Formative Assessments
At AA Elementary, the standard-based curriculum is nicely aligned with the
benchmark assessments. The school administers Inspect, a benchmark assessment four
times a year. Instruction is geared around these assessments. In addition to the
benchmark exam, AA Elementary uses curriculum-embedded assessments to guide
instruction and monitor student progress. Another type of assessment used at AA is
called MAPS (Measures of Academic Progress). MAPS is a software based assessment
and the test questions adjust to the student's instructional level. Teachers use the
information received from the assessment to guide classroom instruction that meets the
needs of each individual student level.
The standard-based curriculum used at BB is nicely aligned with the benchmark
assessments. The school uses District mandated benchmark assessments. These
assessments are administered 3-6 times a year to monitor student learning in relation to
key concepts. In addition, BB Elementary uses a variety of formative assessments to
evaluate student progress and tailor instruction according to student needs. Teachers also
use the results of local assessments to set grade level SMART goals for student
achievement. In addition, the school uses systematic progress monitoring Language Arts
assessments (General Outcome Measures) that measure individual student progress in
critical areas such as phonemic awareness, fluency and reading comprehension. For
96
students in kindergarten through second grade, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS) are administered as a formative assessment. These assessments
measure the acquisition of early literacy skills. For students in grades three through five a
web-based, AIMSweb progress monitoring system is employed. This assessment is
based on direct, frequent and continuous measurement. The results are reported to
students, parents, teachers and administrators via a web-based data management and
reporting system to determine response to intervention.
At CC Elementary, the District multiple assessment program evaluates students‘
progress towards the standards three times per year in the areas of language arts and
mathematics. These assessments are tied to the District prepared scope and sequence that
acts as a pacing guide. The assessments allow teachers to identify re-teaching and
intervention resources. CC Elementary uses web-based software, Data Director, for
schoolwide, grade level and classroom reports for analysis. CC Elementary also uses the
online program, Study Island, to assess and analyze student progress towards the state
standards.
DD Elementary uses the District prepared assessment calendar and assessments
for benchmarking students. In addition it uses a variety of formative assessments,
including MAPS, to monitor student progress and design intervention.
EE Elementary uses a variety of assessments and data to set goals and guide
instruction. At the beginning of each school year, the principal meets with the leadership
team to analyze the state test results that were taken during the spring of the previous
school year. The information gathered at this meeting is used to set goals, plan student
placement and guide instructional planning. The school also uses benchmark
97
assessments that are aligned to the standard-based curriculum. The school uses district
mandated benchmark assessments. These assessments are administered 3 times a year to
monitor student learning in relation to key concepts. EE Elementary also uses a variety
of assessments to evaluate student progress and tailor instruction according to student
needs. In addition to the benchmark and formative assessments, a variety of fluency
assessments are also administered to students throughout the year. These assessments are
used to monitor at-risk students and provide intervention as necessary.
FF Elementary also assesses students regularly to measure student progress.
Students receive targeted and differentiated instruction at their ability level. The school
also uses district benchmark assessments to measure progress and guide instruction.
The strategies discussed above are not only recommended by Odden (2009) but
also in several other studies that include Williams et. al. (2005), Marzano (2003), Togneri
& Anderson (2006), Darling-Hammond (2002), and Blankstein (2004). The four
strategies discussed up to this point, require very little or no monetary investment
(Odden, 2009). Analyzing data periodically, setting ambitious goals and delivering
curriculum effectively does not require a lot of extra spending. During periods when
there is no fiscal crisis, each school district already has a budget for purchasing new
curriculum. However, the subsequent strategies discussed below require considerable
financial investment. The schools in this study are making an effort to implement most
of the remaining strategies, but the spectrum of implementation is very wide.
5) Employing Ongoing Professional Development
An effective professional development has three major components: workshops or
collaboration meetings that are job-embedded and related to the curriculum taught;
98
ongoing support from an instructional coach; and teacher collaboration regarding
assessment and instruction. All the schools studied allocate time for teacher
collaboration, but it varies significantly from school to school. A few schools have
instructional coaches; however, their assignment entails a variety of tasks besides
coaching teachers. The actual teacher training part of the professional development is
weak in all schools. The time allocated is considerably less than what is recommended
by research (Odden 2009).
Teachers at AA Elementary, collaborate on a weekly basis to discuss instructional
strategies, analyze data and plan intervention strategies. Each grade level has a 40 minute
release time during which teachers collaborate on a variety of topics. During the teacher
release time students receive Arts and PE instruction.
In 2008, BB Elementary started a pilot program with Special Education Local
Plan Area (SELPA) of the San Bernardino County. This program allowed the site to
work with a consultant partner, who provide one-on-one teacher coaching sessions. The
consultant partners also meet regularly with teachers in a Professional Learning
Community format at bi-monthly staff meetings to participate in the Cycle of Effective
Instruction Planning Process. In addition, throughout the year the consultants work with
teachers during school hours on a series of topics that involve lesson delivery, planning
and data analysis.
Teachers are supported with an Instructional Support Teacher who provides
coaching with model lessons and co-teaching. The Instructional Support Teacher also
provides staff development aligned to content standards and effective teaching strategies.
A Technology Coach provides staff development in regard to site and district goals and is
99
always aligned to supporting student learning. Teachers attend conferences yearly in line
with grade level and site goals as identified in the school plan or via grade level SMART
goals.
Professional Development at CC Elementary is primarily guided by the District.
Some of the training offered by the District includes sensory integration strategies, test-
taking strategies, and center-based instruction. All the District training is aligned with
the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. However, teachers only have one
day of training at the District level. The rest of the training days are optional and
attendance is only around 20%. CC Elementary also offers some on-site professional
development for teachers. These trainings are held during the four designated minimum
days distributed throughout the year. The content of these trainings are decided by the
leadership team. Teachers are also able to attend conferences that are pertinent to the
school‘s needs.
The teachers at CC elementary are assisted by a coach. The coach is paid-for by
District funds and works at the school once a week. The coach assists teachers with
instructional strategies, data analysis and planning.
Teachers at DD Elementary collaborate bi-weekly for an hour to discuss
instructional strategies, analyze data and plan intervention strategies. This collaboration
time is allotted during the staff meeting time every other week. Previously teachers were
given release time once a week during PE instruction. However, this release time has
been eliminated due to budget cuts.
EE Elementary has only one assigned professional development day. Part of this
day accounts for welcome back messages from the superintendent and the principal.
100
Although there is only one assigned professional development day, teachers are
supported by a Literacy Coach who provides some coaching and other forms of support.
The coach helps with instruction of at-risk students. In addition, she helps the teachers
analyze and interpret data. The teachers also meet every month to analyze data and make
instructional plans. In addition, there is a release day each trimester for teachers to plan
and analyze data.
The scope of professional development is limited at FF Elementary. Teachers,
however, meet on a regular basis to analyze data and discuss instructional strategies.
6) Using Instructional Time More Efficiently
All the schools in the study have protected periods, with minimum interruptions
for language arts and math instruction. The schools follow the Essential Program
Components (EPC) as formulated by the California Department of Education. The EPCs
require each California public elementary school receiving categorical funds to allocate a
specific number of minutes each week for language arts and math instruction. In
addition, the schools also provide intervention for EL and struggling students as
mandated by the state law.
The schools use a variety of models to teach language arts and math lessons more
effectively. Each school uses instructional aides to assist teachers during language arts
and math instruction. EE Elementary divides their students by their language abilities to
ensure students receive targeted instruction. The struggling students are taught by the
more effective, veteran teachers. AA and BB Elementary divide students according to
ability levels to provide focused intervention. AA Elementary also uses two substitute
teachers to provide small-group, individualized instruction for struggling students. CC
101
Elementary uses the services of three retired teachers to help with reading instruction for
struggling students. At DD Elementary the students are grouped according to their
ability level for language arts and math instruction. Grade levels decide in which class
and at what hour most of the support is necessary. The aides help the classroom teacher
in instructing the struggling students. The Title I teacher pulls students and works with
the intensive group. FF uses aides to assist students during core subject instruction.
None of the schools used smaller class sizes as a strategy to boost the
effectiveness of total instructional minutes (Odden, 2009). Only School AA completely
maintains the California‘s Class Size Reduction policy (20 students per class in grades K-
3). Some schools have eliminated 20:1 in one grade (kindergarten in School CC) or
increased class sizes to 25 in all primary grades (School BB). School EE enrolls as
many as 30 students per class in grades K-3. In all schools the number of students in
grades four and five are above 32 in each class.
Only School AA allows teachers to meet once a week during the school day for
collaboration. School DD eliminated that program due to budget cuts this year. School
BB allows fourth and fifth grade teachers release time twice a week, but that time is used
for teacher preparation. None of the schools added any extra minutes for instruction or
extra instructional days for all students. Moreover, due to the current budget crisis the
parent school district of EE Elementary had to cut student instructional days from 180 to
175. Non-student, teacher work days were also reduced by one day to only 2 days each
school year.
102
FF Elementary has only 2 teacher work days, however the number of student days
is 180, the same as a prototype EBM School. Teachers at FF School meet monthly to
collaborate on instructional strategies and data analysis.
7) Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students
Most of the schools in this study follow the Response to Instruction (RtI) to assess
students and provide intervention for struggling students. AA Elementary effectively
implements the RtI model to assess students in a timely manner and provide the
appropriate intervention. All students are assessed at the beginning of the year with the
MAPS assessment software. Appropriate intervention is designed for all students even
before they qualify or need special education services. The resource teacher provides
service for students both with and without an IEP. Intermediate level students are
supported by the Read 180 program. A variety of programs are used to supports all
students.
BB Elementary utilizes a RtI model that they prefer to call Response to
Instruction, whose focus is the effectiveness of "frontline" instruction that happens during
the day. The heart of the system involves a collaborative process that monitors student
progress and responds when students are struggling. Teachers meet regularly to plan
instruction together and to design lessons to meet the needs of students at all levels. The
school uses a system of progress monitoring (in addition to the required curriculum-based
measures) to evaluate student performance over time. Students are targeted based upon
benchmark screening and monitored throughout the year. The school's Student
Intervention Team serves as a resource to bring teachers together to collaboratively
explore alternatives and differentiated support. The RtI model also allows the school to
103
maximize the use of support staff, including instructional aides and Special Education
staff, to bring support to under-performing students for a dedicated block of time every
school day.
CC Elementary uses a variety of intervention strategies to assist students are
struggling. Students who are academically at risk are identified early in the school year.
Students are given the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills)
assessment to determine their needs. Once identified, these students are provided
additional and differentiated instruction by their teachers in the regular education
classroom. Students in grades one through three who score below a certain benchmark
level receive assistance from 3 retired, part-time teachers on a daily basis. Two of these
teachers work with the SRA Reading Laboratory program that provides struggling
readers with strategies necessary to become proficient readers. The third teacher works
directly with classroom teachers to support struggling students in the classroom.
Students in fourth and fifth grade who are two years behind take part in a reading
intervention curriculum called REACH.
The rest of the six schools, School DD, EE and FF also assess students in a timely
manner and provide appropriate intervention. However, with the exception of School
CC, none of the schools offer any significant extended learning opportunity for the
students. School BB and DD have completely eliminated any extended instructional
hours or additional days due to the budget crisis. These schools offer an after school
program that is run by the city. The program, ―Think Together‖, emphasizes homework
completion, academic enrichment, crafts, art and PE. However, it is not supervised by a
certificated teacher.
104
At School AA, there are two separate summer programs for Kindergarten and EL
students. ―Kindergarten Camp‖ is for students who are getting ready to start school.
They get a head-start on the skills that are essential for success in school. The ―ELD
Boot Camp‖ is designed to frontload students on essential skills for them to be successful
in school.
CC Elementary offers both longer instructional days and additional days to help
its struggling students. During winter and spring break, the school offers intensive
instruction for students who need assistance. Instruction is offered for 4 hours for 5 days.
Students are offered a variety of curriculum that focus on the key standards that students
need to learn. Struggling students are also invited to attend an additional hour of
instruction. BB and FBB students in grades two through five are invited for extended
after school instruction once a week. The school uses a variety of software programs and
websites to help students. These include: Study Island, BetterTeacher.com and Education
City. About 40 students participate in these programs daily that are run by a certificated
teacher and a computer lab technician.
Most of the support offered to struggling students at EE is during the regular
school day. However, before school, the Literacy coach works with at-risk students from
grades 3-5 on reading fluency and comprehension.
FF School offers instructional support to students who need assistance. The
school offers after-school instruction to at-risk students in grades two through five. The
teacher tailors instruction according to the needs of these students.

105
8) Creating Professional and Collaborative School Cultures
Examination of the data analysis plans and teacher collaboration meetings
indicate that staff at all of the schools in this study work in a collaborative manner. The
staff works collaboratively to set goals and achievement targets for all students.
Throughout the year they meet to discuss data and plan instructional strategies. All the
principals promote some form of distributive leadership at their schools. For example, at
school EE, the leadership team is strongly involved in the decision making process. They
set the goals and disseminate the information to all teachers. At CC Elementary all
teachers are involved in choosing the formative assessments, supplementary curriculum
and the staff development focus. However, none of these schools have regularly
schedule collaboration meetings every week as the PLC (Professional Learning
Community) recommends.
9) Using Research-based and Proven Strategies
All the schools in the study use research-based improvement and instructional
strategies to achieve excellence. However, the major instructional strategies are
generally determined by the District. The principals generally follow the district
direction and guide teachers in implementing strategies promoted by the district. At
some schools, such as School CC, teachers decide on what instructional strategies to
receive trainings on and they also visit other successful schools. Some of the strategies
these schools use include, Cooperative Learning, Direct Instruction, and targeted
strategies for EL students.

106
10) Investing on Human Capital Management
Each school in the study has an environment that allows teachers to take
leadership roles and improve their knowledge and skills. However, the scope of this
study did not allow for the proper assessment of the implementation of this strategy at
each school.
In addition to the Odden (2009) strategies discussed above, two other strategies
mentioned on various studies (Marzano, 2003); Togneri & Anderson, 2006; Darling-
Hammond, 2002 & Blankstein, 2004) were also evidenced at the schools.
Parent & Community Involvement
Parent and community involvement is encouraged by the principal and staff at all
the schools. Parents participate in school activities through a variety of parent groups,
such as, School Site Council (SSC), English Learner Advisory Committee (ELAC) and
PTA. School parents are offered a variety of programs that ultimately help their children.
At School AA and BB, many parents participate in the ESL program offered twice a
week. There is a program for parents that offer tips for effective child rearing at School
AA and DD. Each school has evening events to encourage parent participation with
school activities.
Leadership
In each school, the principal plays a critical role in setting the instructional visions
and creating an environment of high expectations that lead to impressive student
achievement. At AA Elementary, the principal is the driving force behind all the reform
and changes that have taken place in the last four years. He has managed to create a
culture where all staff members have high expectations and set ambitious goals for
107
themselves and their students. His enthusiasm and energy drives the staff to work even
harder. The principal is also trying to create a distributive model of leadership. He
welcomes teachers taking leadership roles and nurtures his staff so that they can excel.
The principal of BB Elementary brought in a big shift in the school vision. He
played a role in focusing on the achievement gap and improving overall achievement.
However, due to a variety of reasons (Appendix I) all teachers at BB are not totally
behind the principal. They do the bare minimum to fulfill their job requirements.
However, majority of the teachers support the principal‘s vision and are working to lower
the achievement gap.
Since he started, the principal of CC Elementary has used a low-key yet persistent
leadership style to push academic achievement at CC. He eliminated many of the
programs instituted by the previous principal that were not embraced by the teachers.
When he started he asked teachers to write down 3 things that they wanted to get rid of
and 3 things that should not be touched. He used that information and guidance from the
leadership team to point CC toward a new direction of success. The principal makes
decisions in a collaborative manner by taking input from the teachers on all instructional
and curricular issues.
The principal of EE Elementary has played a huge role in all aspects of the
school. She was the driving force behind getting the teachers to work in a focused
collaborative manner. She has managed to create a culture where most staff members
work in a focused manner in all aspects of teaching from lesson delivery to assessments.
The principal guided the teachers to work under an A to F Umbrella Model as
shown on figure 4.8.
108
Figure 4.8 EE Elementary School’s Instructional Model

A = Access D = Designing Rituals
B = Best Practices E = Explicit Instruction
C = Collaboration F = Feedback
The A-F Umbrella model requires EE staff to ensure all students have access to
the curriculum, teachers use best practices in the classroom, teachers collaborate and plan
on a regular basis, teachers design ritual strategies for lesson delivery, they provide
explicit instruction and adequate and timely feedback. The focused approach of
instruction led by the principal has generated great dividends for EE Elementary School.
Table 4.3 shows a summary of different strategies used by the schools.
Table 4.3 Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and other research-based strategies
at the Sample Schools
Odden’s Strategies School
AA BB CC DD EE FF
1) analyzing student
achievement data
1 1 1 1 1 1
2) setting ambitious goals
1 1 1 1 1 1
3) implementing effective
curriculum and
instructional program 1 1 1 1 1 1
4) using benchmark and
formative assessments 1 1 1 1 1 1
5) employing ongoing
professional development 2 1 2 2 2 2
6) using instructional
time more efficiently 1 1 1 1 1 1

109
Table 4.3 (continued)
7) providing extra help
for struggling students 3 3 2 3 3 3
8) creating professional
and collaborative school
cultures 2 2 2 2 2 2
9) using research-based
and proven strategies 2 2 2 2 2 2
10) investing on human
capital management Not observed in this study
Other Strategies

11) Family and
community Involvement 1 1 1 1 1 1
12) Effective Leadership
1 1 1 N/A 1 1
1 = Strong Implementation, 2 = Average Implementation, 3 = Weak Implementation
To implement the variety of strategies, the sample schools focus on allocating
resources in a manner that will directly benefit students. A major portion of the available
on-site funding is spent on personnel who work directly with the students. Four of the
schools employ a coach or instructional tutor to help students. All the schools employ
instructional aides to help the students who are at-risk. School AA, CC and FF use
funding to offer after school and additional days of instruction. These strategies appear
to have helped these schools achieve success. However, there is still some achievement
gap in these schools and several of the schools are not among the top 10
th
decile.
It is likely that the schools that were studied can benefit from more resources in a
variety of areas where the resource allocation is weak, specifically, on professional
development and in providing help for struggling students. Following section compares
the schools resource allocation with the Evidenced Based Model.

110
Resource Allocation
The resource allocation model presented by the Evidenced Based Model (Odden
and Picus, 2008) will be used to analyze resource allocation at the sample schools. One
of the biggest differences observed in the sample schools and an EBM prototype school is
the class size. All the schools in the study have a higher number of students in each class
compared to an EBM school class. Table 4.4 shows the class sizes.
Table 4.4 Class Sizes in Sample School vs. EBM School

EBM AA BB CC DD EE FF
K

15 20 25 20 21 30 20
1-3

15 20 20 20 21 30 20
4-5

25 33 33 33-35 33 33 33

In addition to a wide discrepancy in the number of core teachers, the sample
schools are underfunded in many other areas. Table 4.5 displays the actual funding at the
sample schools vs. the funding that should be allocated according to be the EBM.
There is wide discrepancy in resource allocation between the sample schools and a
prototype EBM school. Each of the schools has a substantially fewer number of core
teachers. The percentage of teachers that needs to be increased to meet the EBM
requirements ranges from 20% at FF Elementary to as high as 50% at EE Elementary.
Funding for certificated staff, which is the key expenditure for all school districts, is the
major resource inadequacy noted in the sample schools. Only 3 of the 6 sample schools
employ one full-time certificated teacher, in addition to the core teachers to help with
111
coaching, struggling students and other instructional issues. The sample schools are
extremely underfunded in terms of additional teachers whose number would be in the
range of 15-20 at an EBM school.

112

Table 4.5 Resource Allocation According to EBM vs. Actual Resource Allocation at Sample Schools

School AA School BB School CC School DD School EE School FF
School
Element

EBM Actual

EBM Actual

EBM Actual

EBM Actual

EBM Actual

EBM Actual
Core
Teachers
37 24 36 26
24
17

38 29 42 27
24
20
Specialist
teachers
7.4 2
1
7 0.2
1

4.8
1 7.6 1 8.2 1
4.8
0
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
3 0 3.3 1
2.2
0.2 3.3 0 3.4 1
2.2
1
Tutors
3.6 0 4.3 0
2.16
0 4 0
5.9
0
2.16
0
Teachers for
EL
1.7 0 2.36 0
0.43
0 2.4 0
4
0
0.43
0
Extended
day FTE
2.3 0
2
2.7 0
1.8
0.75 1.9 0 3.1 0
1.8
0.1
Summer
School FTE
2.3 0.1 2.7 0
1.8
0.25 1.9 0 3.1 0
1.8
0
Learning
Disabled
student FTE
4 2

3 2
3
2 5 2 5 2
3
2
GATE
student
$25/
Student
$7/
student
$25/
student
$50/
student
$25/
student
$12
/student
$25/
student
$8/
student
$25/
Student
$9/
student
$25/
student
$10/
Student
Substitutes
5% of
all of
the
above 0
5% of all
of the
above 0
5% of all
of the
above
0
5% of all
of the
above 0
5% of all
of the
above
0
5% of all
of the
above
0

113

Table 4.5 (continued)
Pupil
Support
3.6 0 4.3 0
2.16
0 4 0 5.9 0
2.16
0
Non-
instructional
aides
3 0 3 0

2
0 3.2 0 3.2 0
2
0
Librarian/
Media
specialists
1.5 0
3
1.5 0
1
0.8 1.6 0* 1.6 0
1
0
Principal
1.5 1 1.5 1
1
1 1.5 1 1.5 1
1
1
School site
Secretary
3 2 3 2
2
2 3 2 3 2
2
2
Professional
Development
EBM
PD
4

~
$16,30
0
EBM
PD
4

~
$20,000
5

EBM
PD
4

~
$15,000
EBM
PD
4
0
EBM
PD
4

~
$20,000
EBM
PD
4

~
$22,000
Technology
$/ pupil
$250 $17 $250 $15 $250 $90 $250 $50l $250 $15 $250 $20
Instructional
materials $/
pupil
$140
$25
$140
$50
$140
$50
$140
$20
$140
$50
$140
$45
Student
activities $/
pupil
$200
$20
$20l
$35l
$20
$50l
$20l
$15 l
$200
$35
$200l
$30

1
Each School has numerous instructional aides or substitute teachers to assist with struggling, EL and Special Education students
2
Some schools offer extended days but the programs are not run by certificated staff
3
Each school has a library technician
114

4
EBM PD = instructional facilitators, Planning & prep time, 10 summer days, $100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers, conferences, travel, etc
5
Although EE allocates a moderate sum of money for PD, it receives county help for a significant level of
PD.
Most schools in the study are using a variety of creative methods to
provide additional support for the students. School CC employs retired teachers who
work part time to help struggling students. School AA uses two substitute teachers to
help lower the number of students in each instructional group when students are receiving
targeted and differentiated instruction. All the schools in the study employ instructional
aides who work part-time. Part-time employment does not require benefit payments
which saves these schools a considerable amount of money. The schools in the study
significantly waver from the EBM model which recommends tutoring by certificated
teachers (Odden, 2009). There are some studies that indicate instructional aides or
paraprofessionals can be effective if a strict selection and training criteria is followed
(Farkas, 1998; Miller, 2003). However an overwhelming number of studies including the
EBM model recommend certificated tutors (Odden & Picus, 2008; Shanahan & Barr,
1995; Wasik & Slavin, 1993).
After-school and extended day tutoring that require certificated tutors are also
limited in the sample schools. Only school CC and AA Elementary School offer some
additional instructional days for the struggling students. Extended day instruction is only
offered at CC and FF Elementary for some students. A few schools use outside agencies
to provide childcare services for students. Although these services help with the safety
and security of the students, they do not greatly contribute to their learning. Additional
help for struggling students at the sample schools is extremely limited compared to the
EBM model.
115

Professional Development is another area where a huge discrepancy is noted in
allocation of resources between the EBM model and the sample schools. All the schools
in the study provide some time for teacher to collaborate on data analysis and
instructional planning. However, the actual training piece is very weak in all the schools
except BB Elementary. BB Elementary uses funding from an outside agency that pays
for an outside consultant group to provide coaching, training and other assistance to
teachers on a regular basis. Besides BB, the actual number of training days for PD at the
other schools is also very limited; only 1-3 days compared to 10 days in the EBM model.
Additionally, spending on technology, instructional materials and other non-
personnel items is also less at the sample schools. The next section will explore how the
current fiscal crisis in California has impacted the sample schools.
Impact of Current Funding Crisis
The budget crisis in California has impacted these schools in a variety of ways.
However, all of these schools, as they are Title I schools, have been able to bridge some
of the funding gap by the allocation of the stimulus funds that were made available by the
Federal government.
School EE has faced the most extreme consequences of the current budget crisis.
The school district has increased the class size in the primary grades from 20 to 30
students. The student attendance day has been reduced by 5 to 175 days. Non-student
days for teachers have been reduced to only 1 day from 3 days which was the norm
previously. These changes are likely to have some impact on student achievement at EE.
Incidentally, EE Elementary has the highest number of EL and SED students among the
116

sample schools and has demonstrated one of the strongest growths in student
achievement.
All the schools, except School BB, have eliminated or significantly reduced
professional development. School AA, DD and EE have cut all after school instruction
programs. Many of the effects of the budget cuts are yet to materialize at these schools.
Conclusion
The sample schools in this study were Title 1, elementary schools, in California
that are demonstrating impressive student achievement. All the schools in the study had
significant difference with a prototype Evidence Based Model school that was used to
compare these schools‘ resource allocation. The school sizes varied from 430 students at
CC, which is similar to an EBM prototype school to 750 at EE, which is more than 50%
larger. More than 50% of the students at these schools receive free and reduced priced
lunch or are classified as SED. The minority students are the majority in all the schools
and Hispanics were the major student subgroup in all the schools except CC Elementary.
These sample schools have demonstrated consistent academic achievement for
not only the overall student population, but for the significant subgroups as well. The
schools have substantially lowered the achievement gap among White students and other
significant subgroups, specifically, the Hispanic, EL and SED students. All the schools
have an API score that is higher than 800 and are in the higher deciles of the California
same school rankings. School DD, EE and FF are in the 10
th
decile of the same school
rankings and School AA, BB and CC are in the 8
th
, 7
th
and 9
th
deciles respectively.
117

Compared to the Evidenced Based Model, the sample schools have woefully
inadequate resources. They have significantly higher class sizes and the number of
additional support teachers is very limited to nonexistent. One sample school (School
EE) has 50% less core teachers than the EBM model. Four of the schools have only 1
support teacher and the other two (School AA and CC) have none. Except for School
BB, professional development is also very limited in the sample schools.
Although, overall resources are inadequate at these sample schools (compared to
the EBM model) (Odden and Picus, 2008), they are using a variety of research-based
strategies that do not require that much additional funding. The sample schools are
focusing on standards-based instruction and achievement of all students. They have set
ambitious goals and are constantly striving to improve their curricular programs. They
focus on the core curriculum and allocate all their flexible resources to ensure students
are receiving instruction at their level of need. In addition to effective curriculum, the
sample schools use both formative and summative assessments to evaluate their student
performance and analyze data to set goals and plan instruction. Moreover, these schools
are providing differentiated instruction that is designed to help, EL, at-risk, GATE and all
other students at their ability levels.
The strategies discussed above are part of the ten strategies enumerated by Odden
(2009) as essential for improving student performance. These strategies have
significantly contributed to the lowering of the achievement gap that can be observed at
all of these schools. However, part of the credit for these schools‘ achievement probably
goes to government accountability measures as well. The federal NCLB act forced most
118

schools to analyze their test scores and improve subgroup performances. This policy
very likely contributed to the sample schools‘ impressive success. Moreover, the stigma
of being labeled a PI (Program Improvement) school if the school does not meet the AYP
benchmark, also likely motivated these schools to endeavor harder to improve student
performance.
As well as the federal accountability, the state accountability measures also
guided these schools to excel. The API score was likely a major driving force for these
schools to improve. Furthermore, according to the Essential Program Components (EPC)
as formulated by the California Department of Education, each California public
elementary school receiving categorical funds must allocate a specific number of minutes
each week for language arts and math instruction. All the schools in the study follow
these guidelines very strictly. They also provide intervention for EL and struggling
students as mandated by the state law. For each school the district provides a pacing
guide that sets the instructional timeline and sequence for the year.
Besides the strategies discussed above, the sample schools also employ several
more of the ten strategies identified by Odden (2009) strategies to a substantial degree.
The schools have a collaborative culture that promotes discussion of data, student
performance and instructional strategies. Students are regularly assessed and targeted
intervention is used for all students. However, the extra help for students at the sample
schools is limited and mostly takes place during a regular school day. Professional
development which requires considerable resources is also weak in most of the schools in
the study.
119

Despite lack of funding towards many of the key research-based strategies the
sample schools are demonstrating considerable success in increasing student
performance. Another likely reason for these successes is the tireless efforts of the
school principals. The leaders in each school have worked hard to create a culture of
learning and make extra effort to stay ahead of the curve in terms of using research-based
and effective strategies. Even the schools that rank among the top ten percent of similar
California schools are analyzing and devising new strategies to increase student
performance. Most of the teachers in all the schools, except BB which has some
detractors, are behind the administrator and have bought into the vision of increased
student achievement.
Comparison of the sample schools and individual analysis of these schools
demonstrate some unique results. School EE, that currently has the least amount of
resources and the largest number of struggling students, has the highest overall success
rate. School BB, that has the best professional development has shown the lowest growth
among all the sample schools. On another note, the principal at BB School has the least
among of support among the six sample schools. School CC, that is closest to the
composition of an EBM school, is not the highest performing group in the sample.
It is the effective implementation of key strategies, not simply resource allocation
that makes these schools successful. A focused approach to improving student
performance, led by an effective leader, helped these schools achieve impressive
academic success.

120

CHAPTER 5
Discussion
Background
Over the past century, the mechanism for school funding in the United States has
evolved tremendously. Local and community funding for schools has given way to major
financial support by the state and federal government. Along with these changes in
revenue source, the level of revenue deemed appropriate for students and the issue of
equity for all students also changed to be more inclusive and progressive.
Despite all the different changes in revenue allocation, achievement gaps among
different groups of students remains a concern. Poor academic achievement is
particularly critical in California, the most diverse state in the country. Students in
California, compared to other states, are consistently underperforming on national
assessments. Lack of student attainment and achievement gap is a grave issue in this
state where almost 50% of the students are minority and 29% are English Learners
(Gándara et al., 2003). This predicament is further compounded by the fact that
education funding in California is well below the level of many other states and does not
meet the basic adequacy standards (PACE, 2006). However, during this period of
extreme financial uncertainty, it is unlikely that there will be any funding increase in the
short to medium term.
Even though adequate level of funding remains a concern, there are many schools
that are demonstrating consistent growth and success despite the lower level of funding.
Many of these schools are using a variety of research-based strategies to improve student
121

performance. Analysis of six effective school studies (Blankstein, 2004; Darling-
Hammond, 2002; Marzano, 2003; Odden, 2009; Togneri & Anderson, 2006; Williams et.
al., 2005) demonstrate that all successful schools and districts start by setting ambitious
goals for student achievement. The second most important strategy for all successful
schools is adopting a new curriculum and effective and research-based instructional
strategies. Most of these schools use various forms of data analysis to make decisions
and guide instruction and most invest considerably on professional development for
teachers. In many of the successful schools a more distributed leadership is practiced
with teachers taking on a greater leadership role.
Although, all the studies analyzed in this study have a lot of similarities and
provide a wealth of information on school improvement, the Odden (2009) book, Ten
Steps to Doubling Student Performance provides a comprehensive set of strategies for
school improvement. This book was written based on information obtained from
numerous studies and reports by prominent educators and researchers. Moreover, as this
book was written well after the NCLB Act, the strategies mentioned are more relevant to
help schools impacted by the Act‘s various accountability requirements. Hence, effective
schools in this study were analyzed primarily through the lens of the ten steps enumerated
by Odden (2009). In addition to effective strategies, this study also analyzed resource
allocation at the sample schools. The study used the Evidenced Based Model (Odden &
Picus, 2008) to analyze how the schools are allocating resources for instructional
improvement.
122

This study was based on the case studies of six elementary schools in southern
California and analysis of the relevant literature. The six schools studied were sample
successful schools that have demonstrated increased student performance. All the
analyzed schools were Title I, non-charter public schools that had demonstrated
consistent student achievement. The schools have narrowed the achievement gap and
also reached an API score of 800 or more. The study answered questions on instructional
vision and improvement strategies, resources use for implementing the instructional
improvement plan, change in resource allocation in response to the recent budget
reductions, and alignment of actual resource use patterns with the Evidence-Based
Model. This final chapter will present the discussion on the findings as related to the
effective school improvement strategies cited in the literature and resource allocation as
related to the Evidenced Based Model (Odden & Picus, 2008), possible implications of
the study on school administrators and policy makers, and suggestions for future
research.
Discussion of Findings
Instructional Vision and Improvement Strategies
Each of the six schools in this study is committed to improving student
performance and lowering the achievement gap. A variety of evidence suggest that the
schools‘ staff work tirelessly to strategize and implement measures that lead to improved
student performance. These schools are effectively using several of the strategies
enumerated by Odden (2009) and a few other research-based strategies as well.

123

Analyzing Student Achievement Data.
All the six schools included in this study spend a considerable amount of time
analyzing achievement data. The teachers and principals start the year by analyzing the
state test scores. Some schools analyze the CST results as grade level teams while others
have the leadership team analyze the results and disseminate the information to all the
teachers. Data analysis is also used to set goals that are published in the Single Student
Achievement Plan (SPSA) which the California Department of Education requires each
school to submit annually.
Setting Ambitious Goals.
All the schools in the study have been setting ambitious goals to increase
performance. Their high API and AYP scores indicate that goal setting is helping these
schools significantly improve their student performance. The benchmark requirements
that are part of the federal NCLB Act have made it easier for schools to set goals and
achievement targets. All the schools studied use the AYP benchmark requirements as a
roadmap to set goals for increasing student proficiency annually. The California State
API requirements also assist schools to set goals to increase student performance. These
schools are not content being in the top of the group among similar schools but they want
to push their schools to be seen as a high performing school regardless of their student
demographics.
Implementing Effective Curriculum and Instructional Program.
Each school in the study focuses on improved curriculum and instructional
strategies very rigorously. They all implement a state-approved and district-adopted
124

curriculum for all the core subject areas. All the samples schools are due for a new
language arts adoption but because of the current budget crisis in California, they have
received a waiver to continue their English language arts curriculum until 2013.
Although the schools did not adopt a new language arts curriculum recently, in the past
five years they have seriously revamped how the curriculum material is used and how
instruction is delivered to the students. These schools are using the CDE guideline that
requires schools to allocate a specific number of minutes each week for language arts and
math instruction.
The parent school districts have taken the CDE recommendations and allocated
resource to develop standards-focused pacing guides that sets the instructional timeline
and instructional sequence for the year to assist schools. Although each of these schools
follow district pacing guide, the manner in which instruction is delivered varies
significantly from school to school. Even School AA and School DD that are from same
district use different strategies to deliver instruction and implement the curriculum.
The schools use a variety of strategies during the core instructional block. These
strategies include grouping students by ability level and language proficiency; using
instructional aides to provide assistance; employing research-based instructional
strategies; providing alternative curriculum for students who are two years behind; and
using coaches, resource teachers, substitute teachers and retired teachers to assist
struggling students in smaller groups, among others.

125

Using Benchmark and Formative Assessments.
All the schools in this study use both summative and formative assessments
extensively to set goals, plan student placement and guide instructional planning. The
schools use district-mandated benchmark assessments that are aligned to the standard-
based curriculum. These assessments are administered three to four times a year to
monitor student learning in relation to key concepts. The schools use a variety of
formative assessments to evaluate student progress and tailor instruction according to the
students‘ needs.
The schools in this study have been using the above four instructional strategies
with considerable rigor. Two major factors have contributed to the strong
implementation of these improvement strategies. These strategies do not require a lot of
additional funding as they can be implemented without purchasing new materials or
employing additional personnel. However, these strategies do require a rethinking of the
instructional priorities and the schools in this study have accomplished that change with
much hard work. Secondly, the federal and state accountability measures have forced all
schools to focus on student achievement. These measures have made it easier for the
schools to refocus their priorities and plan a roadmap for increased student achievement.
Compared to the four strategies above, the implementation of the rest of the
Odden (2009) strategies are not as meticulous at the sample schools. These strategies
require considerable funding and employment of additional personnel which is a major
126

spending commitment that most schools in California cannot afford. The schools in this
study are making some effort to implement most of the remaining strategies but the
spectrum of implementation varies considerably.
Employing Ongoing Professional Development.
The schools in this study are only implementing some aspects of professional
development. All the schools studied allocate time for teacher collaboration but it varies
significantly from school to school. A few schools have instructional coaches, however,
their assignment entails a variety of tasks besides coaching teachers. The actual teacher
training part of the professional development is weak in all but one sample school. The
time allocated for teacher training is considerably less than what is recommended by
research (Odden 2009). Several schools have decreased the number of teacher training
days due to the recent budget crisis.
Using Instructional Time More Efficiently.
All the schools in the study have protected periods, with minimum interruptions
for language arts and math instruction. The schools follow the Essential Program
Components (EPC) as formulated by the California Department of Education. The EPCs
require each California public elementary school receiving categorical funds to allocate a
specific number of minutes each week for language arts and math instruction. In
addition, the schools also provide intervention for EL and struggling students as
mandated by the state law.
The schools use a variety of models to teach language arts and math lesson more
effectively. Each school uses instructional aides to assist teachers during language arts
127

and math instruction. These schools also use substitute teachers and retired teachers to
support struggling students. The sample schools allocate most of their resources to
implement a more effective instructional time. The major spending at these schools is
allocated for hiring instructional aides and other non-contracted certificated personnel.
Due to the high cost, however, none of schools used smaller class sizes as a
strategy to boost the effectiveness of gross instructional minutes (Odden, 2009).
Moreover, a few schools have abandoned the 20:1 Class Size Reduction program in the
primary grades which is still higher than what is recommended by the EBM. A few
schools maintain teacher collaboration during the school day but a few have eliminated
that program due to budget cuts this year. Moreover, due to the current budget crisis the
parent school district of EE Elementary had to cut student instructional days from 180 to
175. Non-student, teacher work day was also cut from 3 days to 1 day only.
Extended Learning Time for Struggling Students.
Most of the schools in this study follow the Response to Instruction (RtI) model to
assess student and provide intervention for struggling students. The implementation
varies from school to school; however, each school has some plan in place to assist their
struggling students during regular school hours. Except School CC, none of the schools
offer any significant extended learning opportunity for the students. School BB and DD
have completely eliminated any extended instructional hours or additional days due to the
budget crisis.

128

Creating Professional and Collaborative School Cultures.
Examination of the data analysis plans and teacher collaboration meetings
indicate that staff at all of the schools in this study work in a collaborative manner. The
staff works collaboratively to set goals and achievement targets for all students.
Throughout the year they meet to discuss data and plan instructional strategies. All the
principals promote some form of distributive leadership to guide and motivate teachers at
their schools.
Using Research-based and Proven Strategies.
All the schools in the study use research-based improvement and instructional
strategies to achieve excellence. However, the major instructional strategies are
generally determined by the District. The principals follow the district directions and
guide teachers in implementing strategies promoted by the district.
Investing in Human Capital Management.
The scope of this study did not allow for the proper assessment of the
implementation of this strategy at each school.
In addition to the strategies enumerated by Odden (2009) discussed above, several
other strategies were also evidenced at the schools. Parent and community involvement
is encouraged by the principal and staff at all the schools. Parents participate in school
activities through variety of parent groups. Each school has evening events to encourage
parent participation with school activities.
Most of the effective strategies discussed above have not only been mentioned by
Odden but numerous other research studies as well. Many of these strategies are also part
129

of the Essential Program Components which California Department of Education urges
all schools to follow. Despite the availability of effective schools research many schools
in California are not able to properly implement these strategies. Although lack of
resources is a major reason for this (addressed later) but presence of capable leadership is
a key factor that facilitates implementation of these effective strategies at the sample
schools.
In each school, the principal plays a critical role in setting the instructional vision
and creating an environment of high expectations that lead to impressive student
achievement. In most of the schools, the principal is the driving force behind all the
reform and changes that has taken place in the last four years. He or she has managed to
create a culture where most of the staff members have high expectations and set
ambitious goals for themselves and their students. Focused approach on instruction led
by the principal has generated great dividends for the sample schools. The school with
the least progress, School BB, is where the principal has been battling a considerable
number of detractors among the staff.
Resource Allocation
Compared to the EBM model, the sample schools have noticeably less resources.
One of the biggest differences observed in the sample schools and an EBM prototype
school is the class size. All the schools in the study have higher number of students in
each class compared to an EBM school class. Moreover, due to recent budget crisis in
California a few schools have further increased their class sizes. The percentage of
teachers that needs to be increased to meet the EBM requirements ranges from 20%-50%.
130

Funding for certificated staff, which is the key expenditure for all school districts, is the
major resource inadequacy noted in the sample schools. Only 3 of the 6 sample schools
employ one full time certificated teacher in addition to the core teachers to help with
coaching, struggling students and other instructional issues. The sample schools are
extremely underfunded in terms of additional teachers whose number would be in the
range of 15-20 at an EBM school.
Most schools in the study are using a variety of creative methods to provide
additional support for the students. Some of the schools employ retired teachers or
substitute teachers to help struggling students and to help lower the number of students in
each instructional group when students are receiving targeted and differentiated
instruction. All the schools in the study employ instruction al aides who work part time.
Part-time employment does not require benefit payments which saves these schools
considerable amount of money. The research regarding the use of instructional aides is
mixed; but, nevertheless, the schools use aides as it is a less expensive alternative to
employing additional certificated teachers (Farkas, 1998; Miller, 2003; Shanahan & Barr;
and Wasik & Slavin, 1993).
After school and extended day tutoring that require certificated tutors is also
limited in the sample schools. Only a few schools offer some additional instructional
days or extended days for the struggling students. Additional help for struggling students
at sample schools is extremely limited compared to the EBM model. Due to recent
budget crisis several schools have eliminated their already meager after school programs.
131

Professional Development is another area where a huge discrepancy is noted in
allocation of resources between the EBM model and the sample schools. All the schools
in the study provide considerable time for teacher to collaborate on data analysis and
instructional planning. However, the actual training piece is very weak in all the schools
except BB Elementary. Besides BB, the actual number of training days for PD at the
other schools is also very limited; only 1-3 days compared to 10 days in the EBM model.
Additionally, spending on technology, instructional materials and other non-personnel
items is also less at the sample schools.
Although, overall resources are inadequate at these sample schools (compared to
the EBM model) (Odden and Picus, 2008), they are using a variety of research-based
strategies that does not require too much additional funding. The sample schools are
focusing on standards-based instruction and achievement of all students. They have set
ambitious goals and are constantly striving to improve their curricular programs. They
focus on the core curriculum and allocate all their flexible resources to ensure students
are receiving instruction at their level of need. In addition to effective curriculum, the
sample schools use both formative and summative assessments to evaluate their student
performance and analyze data to set goals and plan instruction. Moreover these schools
are providing differentiated instruction that are designed to help, EL, at-risk, GATE and
all other students at their ability levels.
Comparison of the sample schools and individual analysis of these schools
demonstrate some distinctive results. School EE that currently has the least amount of
resources and the largest number of struggling students has highest overall success rate.
132

School BB that has the best professional development has demonstrated the lowest
growth among all the sample schools. However, it is also the school where many
teachers have not rallied behind the principal in support of the instructional reform that
has been underway. School CC that is closest to the composition of an EBM school is
not the highest performing group in the sample.
Effective implementation of the key instructional strategies along with
appropriate allocation of resources makes these schools successful. Focused approach to
improving student performance, which may look slightly different in different schools,
led by an effective leader helped these schools achieve impressive academic success.
Implications for School Administrators and Policy Makers
Review of the literature and investigation of the sample schools provided a variety
of information for school administrators and policy makers. According to the EBM
model and several other research studies, most schools in California are underfunded
(Odden and Picus, 2008; PACE, 2006). However, some research studies also suggest
that there are many schools that are successful with the current level of funding (Williams
et al., 2005). The six case studies also indicate that schools can be effective and
demonstrate increased student performance even if the resource allocation is not
adequate. Moreover, under the current California state funding model which is directly
tied to the state and federal fiscal climate, schools are regularly forced to deal with the
seesaw of funding that can significantly impact the services a school can offer. Hence, it
is prudent for all school administrators and policy makers to focus on improvement
strategies that yield the maximum dividend with minimum additional resource allocation.
133

Setting ambitious goals, using consistent and effective curriculum, employing
assessments and data analysis to guide instruction are strategies that can be implemented
with limited resources. School administrators working on school reform need to facilitate
a shift of focus on high academic achievement and lowering of the achievement gap.
Using the Essential Program Components (EPC) provided by the California Department
of Education and the benchmark requirements of the NCLB Act can make goal setting
and data analysis much easier. Promoting a distributive leadership culture that allows
shared decision-making will facilitate the implementation of consistent and effective
curriculum. Implementation of appropriate assessments to monitor student progress and
design intervention will assist with student success. These strategies are easier to execute
effectively when a school has committed teachers who are willing to faithfully implement
the strategies and there is a leadership structure that promotes collaboration and high
expectations.
On occasions when additional funding is available, administrators need to focus
on other research-based strategies that include professional development, help for
struggling students and effective use of instructional time. Similar to administrators,
policy makers should also focused on research-based strategies when considering
resource allocation. The Evidence Based Model provides a wealth of information on
strategic resource allocation that can improve student achievement significantly. In the
past increased funding went to increases in teacher salaries (Lankford & Wyckoff, 1995,
Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997) or to reduce class sizes and increase the number of teachers
(Hanushek & Rivkin, 1997, Picus 1994, Odden & Picus, 2008). These resource use
134

strategies have not yielded improvement in student performance. There is also criticism
about how resource is allocated in California. Several studies indicate that the complex
categorical funding formula used for resource allocation in California hinders school
improvement (―Student‘s First, 2007: Loeb et al., 2007). State policymakers should look
at research-based methods to reorganize resource allocation in a manner that can increase
student achievement and decrease paperwork for administrators.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study adds to the body of research on school-level resource allocation
strategies to improve student achievement. The focus of this study was effective
schools. It would be useful to study other schools with similar resources that are not as
effective. A comparative study of schools with similar funding could further identify
what resource allocation and instructional strategies makes some schools more effective
than others. Such a study can clearly identify which of the strategies are more critical for
a school‘s success.
This study identified several strategies that the sample schools are all using to
increase student achievement. It will be useful investigate how these schools are
implementing these strategies in further detail. Common elements of these strategies can
help create a roadmap for effective schools with limited resources.

135

References
Baker, B. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical
assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259-
287.

Blankstein, A.M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student
achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Butler, J. (2002). Staff Development. School Improvement Research Series, 12.
Retrieved March 22, 2009 from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu12.html

Cross, C T. (2004) Political Education: National Policy Comes of Age. New York:
Teachers College Press, 2004

Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). The right to learn (pp. 148-176). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2002) Redesigning High Schools: What Matters and What
Works. The School Redesign Network. Stanford, CA. Retrieved February 4,
2009 from: http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/10_features.pdf or
http://www.srnleads.org/resources/publications/10_features.html

Desimone, L., Porter, A.C., Birman, B. F., Garet, M. S., & Yoon, K. S. (2002). How do
district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of
professional development that districts provide to teachers? Teachers College
Record, 104(7), 1265-1312.

Dufour, et.al. ( 2006) Learning by Doing – A Handbook for Professional Learning
Communities at Work. Indiana: Solution Tree

Edsource, Inc. (2005, June). The state’s official measures of school performance.
Retrieved October 11, 2006, from
http://www.edsource.org/pdf/perfmeasguide05.pdf

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, DC: Albert
Shanker Institute.

Farkas, George. (1998). Reading One-to-one: An Intensive Program Serving a Great
Many Students While Still Achieving. In Jonathan Crane, (Ed.), Social Programs
That Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

136

Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001) Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 45-56.

Garet, M. S. Porter, A., Desimone, L. Birman, B. & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Gándara,P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J. & Callahan, R., (2003, October 7). English
Learners in California Schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36).Retrieved February 20, 2009
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36/.
Guskey, T. R. (1991). Enhancing the effectiveness of professional development
programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2(3), 239-247.
Guskey, T. R., & Huberman, M. (1995). Professional development in education: New
paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press
Hanushek, E. (2006). Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges‘
Good Intentions and Harm our Children. Stanford, CA: Hoover Press. Available
at http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/4284872.html
Hanushek, E. A., and Rivkin, S.G (1997). Understanding the Twentieth-Century Growth
in U.S. School Spending. The Journal of Human Resources, 32(1), 35-68. Stable
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/146240.
Knapp, M. S., Copland, M. A., & Talbert, J. E. (2003). Leading for learning: Reflective
tools for school and district leaders. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study for
Teaching and Policy, University of Washington. Retrieved February 15, 2009,
from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/
Loeb, S., Bryk, A., & Hanushek, E. (2007) Getting Down to Facts: School Finance and
Governance in California. Stanford University, CA: Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The James Irvine
Foundation, and The Stuart Foundation.
Lyman, L. L. and Villani, C. J. (2004). Best leadership practices for high-poverty
schools. Scarecrow Education: Maryland, Toronto, Oxford

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into Action. ASCD:
Alexandria, VA.

137

Miller, Samuel D. (2003). Partners in Reading: Using Classroom Assistants to Provide
Tutorial Assistance to Struggling First-grade Readers. Journal of Education for
Students Placed At Risk, 8(3), 333-349.
Miller, L., Roza, M., & Swartz, C. (2004). A cost allocation model for shared district
resources: A means for comparing spending across schools. (CRPE Working
Paper 2004-4). Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education, University
of Washington.

Lankford, H. & Wyckoff, J. H.. (1995). Where has the money gone? An analysis of
school spending in New York. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
17(2), 195–218.

National Working Group on Funding Student Learning (2008) Funding Student
Learning: How to Align Education Resources with Student Learning Goals.
School Finance Redesign Project. Retrieved on February 19, 2009
http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/view/csr_pubs/247

Odden, A. (2009). Ten steps to doubling student performance. Manuscript submitted for
publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A., & Archibald, S. (2001). Reallocating resources: How to boost student
achievement without asking for more. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Odden, A. R. and Picus, L. O. (2008). School Finance: A Policy Perspective (4th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Odden, A., Monk, D., Nakib, Y., & Picus, L. (1995). The Story of the Education Dollar:
No Academy Awards and No Fiscal Smoking Guns. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(2),
161-168.

Palmaffy, T. (2001). The Evolution of the Federal Role. In Finn,C. Rotherham, A. &
Hokanson, C. (eds.). Rethinking Special Education for a New Century.
Washington, D.C.: Thomas Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy
Institute.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Policy Analysis for California Education (2006). Crucial Issues in California Education:
Rekindling Reform. Retrieved February 11, 2009
http://gse.berkeley.edu/research/pace/reports/Crucial_Issues_2006.pdf

Picus, Lawrence O. (1991). "Incentive Funding Programs and School District Response:
California and Senate Bill 813" Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(3),
289-308.
138

Ravitch, D. (1983). The Troubled Crusade: American Education, 1945-1980. Basic
Books.

Rebell, M. (2007). Professional Rigor, Public Engagement and Judicial Review: A
Proposal for Enhancing the Validity of Education Adequacy Studies. Teacher
College Record 109(6) ID Number 12743, Available at
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12743

Rosenberg, G.N. (1991) The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?
The University of Chicago Press.

Schneider, M. (2008) Reading the TIMSS Results: Why the Good News May Not Be So
Good Education Week. Retrieved Feb 3, 2009, from
www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/12/04/15schneider.h28.html&destination=http
://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/12/04/15schneider.h28.html&levelId=2100
School Services California (2009). State Categorical Flexibility and Federal Funds
Workshop. Sacramento, CA.
Shanahan, Timothy, & R. Barr. (1995). Reading Recovery: An Independent Evaluation of
the Effects of an Early Instructional Intervention for At-risk Learners. Reading
Research Quarterly, 30(4), 958-997.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-
27. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3594470
Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1) 1-40.
Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child
behind. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from
http://www.rand.org/pubs/white_papers/WP138/WP138.pdf

Students First: Renewing Hope for California‘s Future (2007). The report of the
Governor‘s Committee on Education Excellence. Available at:
http://www.everychildprepared.org/

Supovitz, J., A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on
science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37 (8), 963-980.

139

Togneri, W., & Anderson, S. E. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can
do to improve instruction and achievement in all schools. Washington, DC: The
Learning First Alliance and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development. Pp.10-22, 31-45, 47-56.

Wasik, Barbara, & Robert E. Slavin. (1993). Preventing Early Reading Failure With One-
to-One Tutoring: A Review of Five Programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28,
178-200.

Williams, T, Kirst, M., Haertel, E., Perry, M., Studier, C., & Brazil, N. et al. (2005).
Similar Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do Better? A large-
scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income students.
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.

Zirkel, P.A. (2001). Decisions that Have Shaped U.S. Education. Educational
Leadership, vol. 59 (4), 6-12.

140

APPENDIX A

Email Invitation to Participate

I Dear Mr. ________:
I am an elementary school principal in Fontana. It is part of the Colton School
District. I am also an Ed.D. student at USC and am currently working on my dissertation.
My dissertation is on resource allocation strategies at effective schools. I have chosen
your school as it is a very successful Title I school. My investigation will entail review
of some documents: SARC, student performance plan and the school budget among
others. It will also require an interview with the principal. I am hoping you will allow
me to interview you and analyze your school as a model for effective schools. I will call
you later this week to discuss my research in detail.

II Dear Mrs. ________:
It was a pleasure talking to you the other day. I am very pleased that you have
agreed to volunteer your school and your time for my research. Initially I will review
your SARC and a few other documents. During the interview, I will need the following
from you:

1. Staff list – a number for each grade level will be OK. But I also need to know
any teachers on assignment, sp ed. teachers, classified support staff, etc.
2. Any district staff that is regularly supporting your school
3. School schedule
4. Any consultants helping your school and the amount of money allocated for
them
5. Class sizes … I do not need the exact number for each class but the maximum
allowed in each grade level
6. Daily rate for substitute teachers
7. Budget and plan for professional development _ substitute cost, stipend,
consultant cost, conference fees, etc.

I will also be asking you about instructional strategies, school vision, your
leadership style and a few other issues. I am hoping to schedule an interview in October.
I can visit most THURSDAYs or FRIDAYs. Here are some dates: Oct 1, Oct 9, Oct 15
& Oct 16, Oct 22 & 23, Oct 29 & 30. I am available any time that is convenient for you.
The interview will be about 2-3 hours. Please let me know what date and time works best
for you.

Thank you again for your support and assistance. I have attached my preliminary
Abstract for you to peruse.

Sincerely. Syed Hyder
141

APPENDIX B
List of Documents requested from Schools
Document Request List

All of these documents should be for the current 2009-10 school year.

1. Staff List (School)

This list will likely include any person who works in the physical space of the school. It
is necessary to understand the full-time equivalent (FTE) status of each employee, as well
as what their job entails (for a principal or classroom teacher, this may be obvious, for
special education staff or student support staff, this is not readily clear).

 Some staff are paid to work less than 1.0 FTE with the school, yet are housed at
the school full-time. Only the portion of the day that the staff person provides
services to the individual school should be recorded.
 Special education and ELL staff, especially, may be dedicated to more than one
project (e.g. 0.5 FTE reading coach, 0.5 FTE resource room).
 Distinguish how special education and EL staff provide support (e.g. do they
work with an individual child or a classroom, etc.).
 Individuals who serve the school may not be listed and instead are based out of
the district or regional education agency (e.g. speech therapy, visiting coaches) so
you will need to ask them about these people—see below.

2. Staff List (District)

A list of all district employees who do not appear on school staff roster, but who provide
direct services to schools (guidance counselors, psychologists, special education
diagnosticians, etc) and which schools they provide services to, expressed in FTE units.
For instance, a special education diagnostician who works with 3 schools might be listed
three times on this sheet (0.5 FTE, 0.3 FTE, 0.2 FTE) depending upon the number of
days she is allocated to the various schools. Note: You will only be recording the
proportion of FTEs that she spends providing services to the individual school you are
studying.

3. School Schedule (School)

It is helpful to have a copy of the bell schedule to talk through the amount of instructional
time for reading, math, etc.

4. Consultants (School, District, and State)
Budgeted dollar amount for all other consultants other than professional development
contracted services.
142

Appendix B Continued

5. Class Sizes
You want a copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. Make sure to enter the
class size for every class that is taught at the school.

6. Funds for Daily Substitutes
Daily rate for substitute teachers who replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes
who replace teachers who are participating in professional development.)

7. Professional Development Budget

 Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount for substitutes and
stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
 Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide training
or other professional development services.
 Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional development
activities, and costs of transportation within the district for professional
development.
 Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials, equipment
needed for professional development activities, and rental or other costs for
facilities used for professional development.
 Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or reimbursement
for college-based professional development, and fees for conferences related to
professional development.
 Other Professional Development: Dollar amount for other professional
development staff or costs.

143

APPENDIX C
School Visit/Interview Dates
School 1 AA Elementary School September 24, 2009
School 2 BB Elementary School October 9, 2009
School 3 CC Elementary School October 16, 2009
School 4 DD Elementary School October 23, 2009
School 5 EE Elementary School November 16, 2009
School 6 FF Elementary School November 20, 2009

144

APPENDIX D

List of Documents and Artifacts Provided by Participating Schools

1. SARC (School Accountability Report Card)
2. SPSA (School Plan for Student Achievement)
3. School Budget
4. Staff List
5. School Schedule
6. School Calendar
7. Student/Parent Handbook

145

APPENDIX E
Data Collection Codebook

DATA COLLECTION CODEBOOK

This Codebook is intended to be used solely for EDUC 790 and 792 (Picus) – School
Resource Use and Instructional Improvement Strategies. It identifies data collection
items and their definitions. This document is organized according to the corresponding
Data Collection Protocol and the web portal for data entry (www.lopassociates.com).

I. School Profile
Each data item has a place for notes. This section is meant to be used for any
notations that you would like to record as a personal reminder. Notes fields will
not be used in data analysis.
A. School Name: In your training binder, there will be a group of schools for
which you are responsible. The school name and contact information are
located under the Schools tab.
B. School State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned
the school. You do not need to enter this; it has been entered for you.
C. Address Line 1: Street address of the school
D. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the school
E. City: City of the school
F. State: ―CA‖ is automatically entered for you.
G. Zip: Postal zip code of the school
H. Phone: Main office phone number for the school
I. Fax: Main office fax number for the school
J. Website: School‘s official website

II. School Contacts
This section is for recording the contact people at the school. This will include
the principal, and most likely the secretary. Anyone else you interview should
also be recorded here. Any notes you‘d like to make about this person (E.g.
phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what
the data source is.

146

Appendix E continued

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead
of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member
I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: ―WY‖ is automatically be entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

III. District Profile

A. District Name: This is the name of the district where the school is located.
District State ID: This is the identification number that the state has assigned
to the district within which the school resides.

IV. District Contacts

This section is for recording the contact people at the district office. This will
include the superintendent, and possibly an assistant superintendent and/or
director of curriculum and instruction. Anyone else you interview should also be
recorded here. Any notes you‘d like to make about these individuals (e.g.
phonetic spelling of their name) should go in the notes sections, as well as what
the data source is.

A. Title: The job title of the person who you interview from the school.
B. Honorific: Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., Rev., etc.
C. First Name: Formal first name of school staff member (E.g. Michael instead
of Mike)
D. Initial: (optional) Middle initial of school staff member
E. Last Name: Surname of school staff member
F. Suffix: (optional) Jr., etc.
G. Phone #: Direct phone number to the school staff member
H. Fax #: Fax number for the school staff member

147

Appendix E continued

I. Email Address: Preferred email address of the school staff member
J. Mail Address: Street address of the contact person
K. Address Line 2: (optional) Second line of street address of the contact person
L. City: City of the contact person
M. State: ―WY‖ is automatically be entered for you.
N. Zip Code: Postal zip code of the contact person
O. Zip + 4: Four digit extension of the zip code

V. School Resource Indicators

School resource indicators should be collected for the 2009-2010 school year.
Enter personal notations pertaining to the data in the yellow notes fields.

A. Current Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled at the school on
the day of the site visit minus any pre-kindergarten students.
B. Pre-kindergarten Student Enrollment: Headcount of students enrolled in any
pre-kindergarten programs at the school on the day of the site visit. These
students should not be included in the previous category, Current Student
Enrollment. Make sure to also ask this question at secondary schools.
C. Grade Span: Range of grades that the school provides instruction in. (E.g. K-
5)
D. Number of ELL/Bilingual Students: As of the day of the site visit, the number
of students eligible for services as an English language learner (ELL) as
defined by the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
E. Number of Students Eligible for Free- or Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL):
Number of enrolled students who are eligible for the federal free- and
reduced-price lunch program.
F. Total number of Special Education Students (IEPs): As of the day of the site
visit, number of students in the school with an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) indicating their eligibility for special education services. (This
will most likely be a larger number than the number of students who are in a
self-contained special education classroom.) Does not include gifted and
talented students.
G. Number of Special Education Students (self-contained): Number of students
in the school with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) indicating their
eligibility for special education services.
H. Total Length of School Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
required to be present at school. If multiple grade spans are present for
different amounts of time, report the average length. (e.g. If the school day
begins at 8:30am and ends at 3:15pm, then the total length of the school day is
405 minutes.)

148

Appendix E continued

I. Length of Instructional Day: Number of minutes per day that students are
present for instruction. This information should be available from the school
bell schedule or a school staff member. Subtract recess, lunch, and passing
periods time from the total minutes in the school day. This calculation is
different from how the state measures the “instructional day.” (E.g. If the
length of the school day is 405 minutes, and the students have 20 minutes for
lunch and 25 minutes for recess, then the length of the instructional day is 360
minutes.)
J. Length of Mathematics Class: Number of minutes of mathematics class
periods per day. These include periods when students are specially grouped
for extended mathematics instruction. Report an average per day length.
K. Length of Reading/English/LA Class: Number of minutes of reading, English,
and language arts (LA) class periods. These include periods when students
are specially grouped for extended literacy instruction. (E.g. reading, writing,
comprehension) Report an average per day length.
L. Length of Science Class: Number of minutes of science class periods per day.
These include periods when students are specially grouped for extended
science instruction. Report an average per day length.
M. Length of Social Studies Class: Number of minutes of social studies and
history class periods per day. These include periods when students are
specially grouped for extended history or social studies instruction. Report an
average per day length.
N. AYP: This is a measure as to whether the school made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) during the previous school year (2007-08). Enter ―Y‖ or ―N‖
or ―NA.‖
O. API

VI. Core Academic Teachers

The classroom teachers primarily responsible for teaching a school‘s core
academic subjects of reading/English/language arts, mathematics, science,
history/social studies, and foreign language. In elementary schools, core
academic teachers consist of the teachers in the self-contained regular education
classrooms. Some elementary schools may also departmentalize certain core
subjects such as math or science, especially in the upper grades. These teachers
are also to be included as core teachers. In middle schools, high schools, or any
other departmentalized school, core teachers consist of those teachers who are
members of the English/language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, and
foreign language departments along with special education or ESL/bilingual
teachers who provide classes in these subjects. The teachers should be entered as
full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. (E.g. a half-time
teacher would be entered as 0.5) If teachers are assigned to multiage classrooms,
149

Appendix E continued

divide up the FTEs weighted by students per each grade. Enter each teacher‘s
name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the corresponding notes fields.
Indicate in parentheses if the teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category. Example:
Grade 1: Matthew Perry (0.5), Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston;
Grade 2: David Schwimmer (0.25), Courteny Cox Arquette (0.33), Matt
LeBlanc

A. Grades K-12: Number of FTE licensed grade-level teachers who teach the
core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the individual subject
categories.
B. English/Reading/LA, History/Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, and
Foreign Language: Number of FTE licensed subject-specific teachers who
teach the core subjects. The FTEs should not duplicate those in the grade
categories.

VII. Specialist and Elective Teachers

This expenditure element consists of teachers who teach non-core academic
classes, and usually provide planning and preparation time for core academic
teachers. The teachers should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which
may include decimals. In the notes sections, enter each teacher‘s name that
corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the
teacher is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Art/Music/PE: Number of FTE specialist teachers, such as art, music, and
physical education (PE) teachers, who usually provide regular classroom
teachers with planning and preparation time.
B. Drama/Technology/Health: Number of FTE teachers who provide instruction
in a subject area that represents a special academic focus.
C. Career & Technical Education: Number of FTE vocational education teachers
D. Driver Education: Number of FTE drivers education teachers.
E. Study Hall: Number of FTE teachers who monitor study hall.
F. Athletics: Number of FTE teachers who coach an athletic team during the
school day. This does not include time spent as an athletic director, which
would be captured under the Administration section.
G. Other: Number of FTE specialist teachers who are not specifically listed
above.
H. Other Description: Indicate the subject area that the ―Other‖ specialist
teacher(s) instruct.

150

Appendix E continued

VIII. Library Staff

Library staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Enter each staff member‘s name that corresponds to the FTEs
entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a
1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Librarian/ Library Media Specialist: Number of FTE licensed librarians or
media specialists who instruct students
B. Library Aide: Number of FTE library aides who help instruct students

IX. Extra Help Staff

This category mainly consists of licensed teachers from a wide variety of
strategies designed to assist struggling students, or students with special needs, to
learn a school‘s regular curriculum. The educational strategies that these teachers
deploy are generally supplemental to the instruction of the regular classroom.
Extra help staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may
include decimals. Do not include volunteers in the FTE counts. Enter each staff
member‘s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields.
Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Certified Teacher Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
B. Non-Certified Tutors: Number of FTE tutors who are not licensed teachers
and provide help to students one-on-one or in small groups of 2-5.
C. ISS Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who monitor/teach In-School
Suspension (ISS) students.
D. ISS Aides: Number of FTE Title I funded aides who monitor/teach In-School
Suspension (ISS) students.
E. Title I Teachers: Number of FTE non-special education teachers who provide
small groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
F. Title I Aides: Number of FTE non-special education aides who provide small
groups of students with extra help as a function of the Title I program.
G. ELL Class Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers of English as a second
language (ESL) who work with non-English speaking students to teach them
English.
H. Aides for ELL: Number of FTE aides of English as a second language (ESL)
classes who work with non-English speaking students to teach them English.
I. Gifted Program Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct students in
the gifted program.

151

Appendix E continued

J. Gifted Program Aides: Number of FTE aides who instruct students in the
gifted program.
K. Gifted Program Funds: Dollar amount budgeted for the gifted program for the
2008-09 school year
L. Other Extra Help Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provide
supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school‘s
curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
M. Other Extra Help Teachers Description: Indicate what the ―Other‖ extra help
staff do.
N. Other Extra Help Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provide supplemental instructional assistance to students to learn the school‘s
curriculum. (Use this category sparingly.)
O. Other Extra Help Classified Staff Description: Indicate what the ―Other‖ extra
help classified staff do.
P. Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for students with severe disabilities):
Number of FTE licensed teachers who teach in self-contained special
education classrooms and work with ―severely‖ disabled students for most or
all of the school day. These teachers may teach a modified version of a
school‘s curriculum or other learning goals required by their students‘
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Q. Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who assist
regular classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or
mental disabilities, or a learning problem. These students generally have ―less
severe‖ disabling conditions.
R. Special Ed. Resource Room Teachers: Number of FTE licensed special
education teachers who provide small groups of students in special education
with extra help in specific areas.
S. Special Ed. Self-contained Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist in self-
contained special education classrooms and work with ―severely‖ disabled
students for most or all of the school day.
T. Special Ed. Inclusion Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist regular
classroom teachers with mainstreamed students who have physical or mental
disabilities, or some learning problem. These students generally have ―less
severe‖ disabling conditions.
U. Special Ed. Resource Room Aides: Number of FTE special education aides
who provide small groups of students in special education with extra help in
specific areas.
V. Number of Extended Day Students: Number of students who participate in the
extended day program.
W. Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program: Number of minutes per week
that the extended day program is offered.

152

Appendix E continued

X. Teacher Contract Minutes per Week: Number of work minutes per week in
the teacher contract.
Y. Extended Day Teachers: Number of FTE licensed teachers who provide
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.
Z. Extended Day Classified Staff: Number of FTE staff who provide students
with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum after school.
AA. Description of Extended Day Classified Staff: Description of classified
staff‘s role in the extended day program.
BB. Minutes Per Week of Summer School: Number of minutes per day
multiplied by the number of days per week that students attend summer
school.
CC. Length of Session: Number of weeks that summer school is in session.
DD. School‘s Students Enrolled in the Summer School Program: Number of
students from the individual school who are enrolled in the summer school
program (a subset of the following item).
EE. All Students in Summer School: Total number of students enrolled in the
summer school program.
FF. Summer School Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who provided
students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in the regular
curriculum during summer 2008.
GG. Summer School Classified Staff: Number of FTE classified staff who
provided students with extra instructional time to achieve to the standards in
the regular curriculum during summer 2008.

X. Other Instructional Staff

Included here are instructional staff members that support a school‘s instructional
program, but do not fit in the previous categories. Other instructional staff should
be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter
each staff member‘s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related
fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category.

A. Consultants (other than PD contracted services): Dollar amount for all other
consultants other than professional development contracted services.
B. Building Substitutes: Number of FTE permanent substitutes.
C. Other Teachers: Number of FTE teachers who instruct, but were not included
in previous categories.
D. Other Instructional Aides: Number of FTE aides who assist instruction, but
were not included in previous categories.
153

Appendix E continued

E. Funds for Daily Subs: Daily rate for daily certified teacher substitutes who
replace sick teachers. (This is not for substitutes who replace teachers who
are participating in professional development.)

XI. Professional Development Staff & Costs

This expenditure element includes spending on the professional development of a
school‘s staff and the staffing resources necessary to support it. Professional
development staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), and cost
figures should be entered as a dollar amount, both of which may include decimals.
Enter each staff member‘s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the
related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that
category.

A. Number of Professional Development Days in the Teacher Contract: Number
of days the teacher contract specifies for professional development.
B. Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time): Dollar amount budgeted for
substitutes and stipends that cover teacher time for professional development.
For time outside the regular contract day when students are not present before
or after school or on scheduled in-service days, half days or early release days,
the dollar amount is calculated by multiplying the teachers‘ hourly salary
times the number of student-free hours used for professional development.
For planning time within the regular contract, the dollar amount is calculated
as the cost of the portion of the salary of the person used to cover the teachers‘
class during planning time used for professional development. For other time
during the regular school day, including release time provided by substitutes,
cost is calculated with substitute wages. For time outside the regular school
day, including time after school, on weekends, or for summer institutes, the
dollar amount is calculated from the stipends or additional pay based on the
hourly rate that the teachers receive to compensate them for their time.
C. Instructional Facilitators/Coaches: Number of FTE instructional facilitators
and coaches. This may include on-site facilitators and district coaches
(though only the FTE for the specific school should be recorded). Outside
consultants who provide coaching should be captured in an estimated FTE
amount depending on how much time they spend at the school.
D. Trainers/Consultants: Dollar amount for outside consultants who provide
training or other professional development services. If trainers are from the
district, convert to a dollar amount.
E. Administration: Number of FTE district or school-level administrators of
professional development programs. (Again, only the FTE for the specific
school should be recorded).
154

Appendix E continued

F. Travel: Dollar amount of the costs of travel to off-site professional
development activities, and costs of transportation within the district for
professional development.
G. Materials, Equipment, and Facilities: Dollar amount of the materials for
professional development including the cost of classroom materials,
equipment needed for professional development activities, and rental or other
costs for facilities used for professional development.
H. Tuition & Conference Fees: Dollar amount of tuition payments or
reimbursement for college-based professional development, and fees for
conferences related to professional development.
I. Other Professional Development: Either FTEs or Dollar amount for other
professional development staff or costs. (Use this category sparingly.)
J. Other Description: Specify what the ―Other‖ professional development is, and
indicate whether it is a FTE or dollar amount.

XII. Student Services Staff

This expenditure element consists of school-based student support staff, as well as
school expenditures for extra-curricular activities and athletics. Student services
staff should be entered as full-time equivalents (FTEs), which may include
decimals. Enter each staff member‘s name that corresponds to the FTEs entered in
the related fields. Indicate in parentheses if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in
that category.

A. Guidance: Number of FTE licensed guidance counselors.
B. Attendance/dropout: Number of FTE staff members who manage attendance
and report dropouts.
C. Social Workers: Number of FTE licensed school social workers.
D. Nurse: Number of FTE registered nurses or nurse practitioners
E. Parent advocate/community liaison: Number of FTE staff members who serve
as the parent advocate and/or community liaison, often working with parents
to get their children to attend school.
F. Psychologist: Number of FTE licensed school psychologists or educational
diagnosticians.
G. Speech/OT/PT: Number of FTE licensed speech, occupational (OT), and
physical therapists (PT) who provide services to the school‘s students
H. Health Asst.: Number of FTE health assistants
I. Non-teaching aides: Number of FTE non-teaching aides. (E.g. Lunchroom
aides, Aides who help students board buses; DO NOT include cooks – the
defining difference is whether the staff member is supervising students or
not.)
155

Appendix E continued

J. Other Student Services: Number of FTE other student services staff. (Use this
category sparingly.)
K. Other Description: Indicate what the ―other‖ student services staff member
does.

XIII. Administration

This expenditure element consists of all staffing resources pertaining to the
administration of a school. Administrators should be entered as full-time
equivalents (FTEs), which may include decimals. Enter each staff member‘s name
that corresponds to the FTEs entered in the related fields. Indicate in parentheses
if the staff member is not a 1.0 FTE in that category.

A. Principal: Number of FTE licensed principals.
B. Assistant Principal: Number of FTE assistant principals.
C. Other Administrators: Number of FTE other administrators. (Use this category
sparingly.)
D. Other Description: Indicate what the ―Other‖ administrators‘ duties are.
E. Secretary: Number of FTE Secretaries.
F. Clerical Staff: Number of FTE clerical staff members.
G. Technology Coordinator: Number of FTE technology coordinators and IT
staff.
H. Security: Number of FTE security staff.
I. Custodians: Number of FTE staff who provide custodial services

XIV. Elementary Class Sizes (We are NOT collecting this data for middle and high
schools.)

Sometimes it is easiest to get this information when you get the staff list, but other
times the secretary can just copy the sheet that tells them how many students are
in each classroom (we don‘t want student names). You want a (preferably
electronic) copy of the master class schedule to enter this data. When entering
the data online, make sure to enter the class size for every class that is taught at
the school. Click on the Class Size option from the main menu and a new menu
will be displayed on the left. This menu will have options for grades Pre-8 plus
Special Education. When you click on a grade, the page with that grade's sections
will be displayed where you can enter the individual class sizes.

156

APPENDIX F
Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol
Open-Ended Data Collection Protocol
School Sites

Following are open-ended questions intended to capture each school’s strategies for
improving student performance. Ask the questions in the order that they appear on this
protocol. Record the principal’s answers as s/he gives them and focus on getting the key
elements of the instructional improvement effort with less emphasis on the process
aspect.

I. Tell me the story of how your school improved student performance.

2. What were the curriculum and instruction pieces of the strategy?

1. What has the content focus of your improvement process been?
(E.g. Reading, Math, Reading First, Math Helping Corps, etc.)
2. What curricula have you used during your instructional improvement
effort? (E.g. Open Court reading, Everyday Math, etc.)
 Is it aligned with state standards?
 How do you know it is aligned? (E.g. District recent review for
alignment)
3. What has been the instructional piece of your improvement effort?
 Does your staff have an agreed upon definition of effective
teaching?
4. What is the instructional vision for your improvement effort?
(E.g. Connecticut standards or the Danielson Framework)
5. Have assessments been an integral part of your instructional
improvement process?
 If so, what types of assessments have been key? (E.g. formative,
diagnostic, summative)
 How often are those assessments utilized?
 What actions were taken with the results?
6. What type of instructional implementation has taken place as a part of
your reform efforts? (E.g. Individualized instruction, differentiated
instruction, 90 minutes of uninterrupted reading instruction)
 Were teachers trained in a specific instructional strategy?
 How did you know that the instructional strategies were being
implemented?

157

Appendix F continued

3. What were the resource pieces of the strategy? How long have the
resources been in place?
1. Early Childhood program: Is it half or full day? Number kids? Staffing
ratios? Eligibility?
2. Full Day Kindergarten
 If yes, how long have they had full day kindergarten?
3. Class Size Reduction
 Reduction Strategy (E.g. 15 all day long K-3 or reading only with
15)
4. Professional Development:
 When are the professional development days scheduled for? (E.g.
Summer Institutes, Inservice Days)
 What is the focus of the professional development?
 Do you have instructional coaches in schools? Were there enough
coaches? (Did they need more but couldn’t afford it?)
5. ―Interventions‖ or Extra Help Strategies for Struggling Students:
 Tutoring: Specify 1:1, in small groups (2-4), or in medium groups
(3-5)
 Extended day: How frequently (Number minutes & Number of
times per week), Academic focus, Who instructs (certified teachers
or aides), Who participates
 Summer school: How Frequently (Number hours a day, Number
weeks), Who instructs (certified teachers or aides), Who participates
 ELL
 Scheduling: (E.g. double periods in secondary schools)
6. Parent outreach or community involvement
7. Technology

C. Was the improvement effort centrist (central office orchestrated) or
bottom up?
D. What type of instructional leadership was present?
E. Was there accountability built into this improvement plan? (E.g. School
Board report which helped solidify focus)
F. What additional resources would be needed to continue and expand your
efforts?

158

APPENDIX G
Data Collection Protocol
DATA COLLECTION PROTOCOL

School Profile
School Name School’s State ID
Number
Address

City State Zip
CA
Phone Fax

Website

NOTES:

School Contact (1)
Title
Principal
Honorific First Name Last
Name
Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Contact (2)
Title
Honorific First Name Last
Name
Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:
159

Appendix G continued

School Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last
Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Profile
District Name

District State ID

District Contact (1)
Title
Superintendent
Honorific First Name Last
Name
Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

District Contact (2)
Title

Honorific First Name Last
Name
Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:
160

Appendix G continued

District Contact (3)
Title

Honorific First Name Last
Name

Phone # Fax #

Email Address

NOTES:

School Resource Indicators
Current Student Enrollment

Pre-Kindergarten Student Enrollment

Grade Span

Number of At-Risk Students*
*Collect from district
Number of ELL/Bilingual Students

Number of High Mobility Students*
*Collect from district
Number of Students Eligible for Free- and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRL)

Total Number of Special Education Students (IEPs)

Number of Special Education Students (self-contained)

Total Length of School Day

Length of Instructional Day

Length of Mathematics Class

Length of Reading or English/LA Class

Length of Science Class
161

Appendix G continued

Length of Social Studies Class

Length of Foreign Language Class

AYP

NOTES:

Core academic teachers
(Self-contained Regular Education)
FTEs

Kindergarten
(Full day program)
Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

English/Reading/L.A.

History/Soc. Studies

162

Appendix G continued

Math

Science

Foreign Language

NOTES:

Specialist and Elective Teachers
/Planning and Prep
FTEs
Art

Music

PE/Health

Drama

Technology

Career & Technical Education

Drivers Education

Study Hall

Athletics

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers

Other Specialist & Elective Teachers Description:

NOTES:

163

Appendix G continued

Library Staff
FTEs
Librarian

Library Media Specialist

Library Aide

NOTES:

Extra Help I FTEs or Dollars ($)
Certified Teacher Tutors

Non-Certified Tutors

ISS Teachers

ISS Aides

Title I Teachers

Title I Aides

ELL Class Teachers

Aides for ELL

Gifted Program Teachers

Gifted Program Aides

Gifted Program Funds
$
Other Extra Help Teachers

Other Extra Help Teachers Funded with Federal Dollars:

Other Extra Help Classified Staff

Other Extra Help Classified Staff Funded with Federal
Dollars:

164

Appendix G continued

NOTES:

Extra Help II FTEs
Special Ed. Teacher (Self-contained for severely disabled students)

Special Ed. Inclusion Teachers

Special Ed. Resource Room Teacher

Special Ed. Self-contained Aides

Special Ed. Inclusion Aides

Special Ed. Resource Room Aides

NOTES:

Extra Help III
Number of Extended Day Students

Minutes per Week of Extended Day Program
minutes
Teacher Contract Minutes per Week
minutes
Extended day Teachers

Extended Day Classified Staff

Description of Extended Day Classified Staff

Minutes per Week of Summer School
minutes
Length of Session (# of Weeks)
weeks
School’s Students Enrolled in Summer School

All Students in Summer School

165

Appendix G continued

Summer School Teachers

Summer School Classified Staff

NOTES:

Other Instructional Staff FTEs and Dollars ($)
Consultants
(other than pd contracted services)
$
Building substitutes and other substitutes

Other Teachers

Other Instructional Aides

Funds for Daily Subs

$
NOTES:

Professional Development Dollars ($) and FTEs
Number of Prof. Dev. Days in Teacher Contract

Substitutes and Stipends (teacher time)

$
Instructional Facilitators/Coaches

Trainers/Consultants

$
Administration

Travel

$
Materials, Equipment and Facilities

$
Tuition & Conference Fees

$
Other Professional Development

$

166

Appendix G continued

Other Professional Development Staff Funded
with Federal Dollars:

NOTES:

Student Services FTEs
Guidance

Attendance/Dropout

Social Workers

Nurse

Parent advocate/community liaison

Psychologist

Speech/O.T./P.T.

Health Asst.

Non-teaching aides

Other Student Services

Description Of Other Student Services Staff:

NOTES:

Administration FTEs
Principal

Assistant principal

Other Administrator

Description of Other Administrator:

Secretary

167

Appendix G continued

Clerical staff

Technology Coordinator/ I.T.

Security

Custodians

NOTES:

Elementary School Class Sizes
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4
Special
Education

Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8

168

APPENDIX H
AA Elementary School
AA Elementary School is a Title I, kindergarten through fifth grade school in a
district located in a primarily rural area in the southern tip of Riverside County. This
school of more than 580 students opened in 1998. AA Elementary is part of a district
which is one of oldest public school systems in Southern California with roots going back
to schools that opened in the late 1800s. The District serves a 140 square mile area that
includes three cities and several unincorporated communities. The District has a
population of nearly 22,000 students, which it serves at fourteen elementary schools, five
middle schools, three comprehensive high schools and four alternative schools. With
more than 3,000 permanent and substitute employees, the district is one of the biggest
employers in the region. For the 2009-10 school year, the district's adopted operating
budget is $164.5 million.

AA Elementary School serves students from a diverse ethnic background, socio-
economic status and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are Hispanic (58%)
and White (35%). Sixty-two percent of the students are classified as Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged (SED). The percentage of English Learners (EL) at AA is 29% and 9%
are classified as Special Education students. Figure AA.1 shows the ethnic breakdown of
all students at AA Elementary.

Since 2006, the school has used a program called FOCUS that accommodates and
supports students at the Far Below Basic (FBB) performance level to the gifted
performance level – through strong enrichment and interventions. The program has
yielded impressive dividends in terms of student achievement. The purpose of this case
study is to identify effective resource allocation and instructional strategies at AA
Elementary School.
Starting 2006, AA Elementary School has demonstrated impressive growth in
student performance. From 2006 to 2009, AA Elementary has shown a growth of 80

Figure AA.1 Ethnic Breakdown of AA School
Hispanic
White
Asian
African-American
Other
169

Appendix H continued

points on its API. Figure AA. 2 shows AA Elementary School‘s API over the last five
years.

Figure AA.2 AA Elementary School’s API

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports shows a similar trend of progress.
AA Elementary has demonstrated growth for all groups in the last 5 years. One of the
key trends is that the Hispanic, EL and SED subgroups have demonstrated a stronger
growth than the White students. This is an extremely important step towards closing the
achievement gap that plagues many schools in the United States, especially California.
Since 2005, the English Language Arts AYP increased 11.9% for White students. For
Hispanic students, the increase was almost three times more during the same time period.
There was similar increase among the students classified as SED. The highest increase
was for EL students who registered a 40% growth in the last 5 years. Figure AA.3 shows
AA Elementary School‘s language arts AYP for different subgroups since 2005.

600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
749
735
784
809
829
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure AA.3 Language Arts AYP for AA Elementary
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED
170

Appendix H continued

Figure AA.4 displays the math AYP for AA Elementary. A similar pattern of
growth is seen in math as in language arts. The Hispanic, EL and SED student
subgroups have demonstrated a more pronounced growth compared to the White
students. Hispanic students achieved a growth of 21.8% since 2005. The growth was
approximately the same for EL and SED students. Although White students
demonstrated growth in the last four years, their performance declined from 2008 to
2009. Figure 4 displays the performance of significant subgroups in math since 2005.

Instructional Improvement Process

In 2005-2006, AA Elementary School‘s API was below 750. The achievement
gap among White students and Hispanic students was pronounced. There was a 30% gap
in language arts between the two groups and in math there was a similar spread. The EL
and SED subgroups also demonstrated a significant achievement gap. The current
principal started his tenure around this time. He noticed that the school had highly
qualified teachers, excellent support staff and some good programs in place. However,
implementation of the programs was extremely weak. Over the next four years, the
school under the leadership of the current principal took numerous steps that played a
significant role in lowering the achievement gap and improving overall student
performance.

Consistent Curriculum
AA Elementary uses District adopted Houghton Mifflin curriculum for teaching
English language arts and the Envision Math curriculum for teaching math. All teaching
staff follow the content standard aligned pacing guide and fully implement the adopted
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure AA.4 Math AYP for AA Elementary
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED
171

Appendix H continued

curriculum. Teachers at AA use standard-based instruction to ensure students are
learning all the grade level standards. Specific time is allocated for language arts and
math instruction. The District has provided schools with pacing guides that focus on key
standards that are aligned to the benchmark exams. Students take benchmark exams 4
times a year that help teachers guide instruction. Prior to the benchmark exam, the focus
is on the standards that will be tested on the upcoming exam. The standards are color
coded, orange, green, pink and yellow to correspond with the standards covered on the
four benchmark exams. This color-coding makes it easier for teachers to indentify the
standards and for the principal to ensure that the correct standards are being taught.
For EL students, Hampton Brown‘s ―Avenues‖ is used for all students in grades
K-5. EL students receive a 30 minute intervention during FOCUS Time to assist them
with their English language development.

Assessments
The standard-based curriculum is nicely aligned with the benchmark assessments
discussed above. Inspect is the benchmark assessment that is administered four times a
year. Instruction is geared around these assessments. In 2009, the District introduced a
preliminary small-scale Inspect to help teachers guide instruction prior to the major
benchmark exams. In addition to the benchmark exam, AA Elementary uses curriculum-
embedded assessments to guide instruction and monitor student progress. Another type
of assessment used at AA is called MAPS (Measures of Academic Progress). The MAPS
is a software based assessment and the test questions adjust to the student's instructional
level. Teachers use the information received from the assessment to guide classroom
instruction that meets the needs of each individual student level.

FOCUS Time
FOCUS Time at AA Elementary is a schoolwide intervention that involves all
students and teachers, including additional support staff. This intervention started as a 30
minute block to support English Language Development (ELD) for identified English
Learners. This intervention takes place throughout the day for different grade levels and
is supported by two roving subs and several instructional aides. During this block,
students are grouped according to their CELDT levels and their academic performance
levels. GATE students are also grouped and they receive differentiated instruction. Use
of two roving substitute teachers and 3-5 aides during focus time significantly lowers the
number of students in each intervention group. Teachers use state approved curriculum
to work with the EL students in small groups. Other forms of intervention that require
student pull out, such as speech therapy and counseling also occur during the FOCUS
Time. This block of time allows teachers to focus on a small number of students and
specific standards in which they need help.

172

Appendix H continued

Professional Learning Communities
Teachers at AA Elementary, collaborate on a weekly basis to discuss instructional
strategies, analyze data and plan intervention strategies. Each grade level has a 40 minute
release time during which teachers collaborate on a variety of topics. During the teacher
release time students receive Arts and PE instruction. The instruction is provided in
collaboration by a long term substitute teacher, a kindergarten teacher and some
instructional assistants.

Response to Intervention (RtI) & Special Education
AA Elementary effectively implements the RtI model to assess students in a
timely manner and provide the appropriate intervention. All students are assessed at the
beginning of the year with the MAPS assessment software. Appropriate intervention is
designed for all students even before they qualify or need special education services. The
resource teacher provides service for students both with and without an IEP.
Intermediate level students are supported by the Read 180 program. A variety of
programs are used to supports all students. The principal and the support staff work
together to ensure that students receive the services they need and that they take the state
test (California Standards Test, California Modified Assessment or California Alternative
Performance Assessment) that is at their level. This strategy has contributed significantly
to boost the schools AYP.

Help for Struggling Student
AA Elementary uses several strategies to assist struggling students beyond the
school day. ―Think Together‖ is an after school program that emphasizes homework
completion, academic enrichment, crafts, art and PE. This program is offered by an
outside group but is run in coordination with the school staff and focuses on the
curriculum. There are two separate summer programs for Kindergarten and EL students.
―Kindergarten Camp‖ is for students who are getting ready to start school. They get a
head-start on the skills that are essential for success in school. The ―ELD Boot Camp‖ is
designed to frontload students on essential skills for them to be successful in school.

Parent and Community Involvement
Parent and community involvement is encouraged by the principal and staff.
Parents are offered a variety of programs that ultimately help their children. Many
parents participate in the ESL program offered twice a week. There is a program for
parents that offer tips for effective child rearing. Each year, there are six parent evenings
that encourage parent participation with school activities. Community volunteers are
invited to read with students and help the school with other clerical activities.

173

Appendix H continued

Leadership
The principal of AA Elementary plays a huge role in all aspects of the school. He
is the driving force behind all the reform and changes that has taken place in the last four
years. He has managed to create a culture where all staff members have high
expectations and set ambitious goals for themselves and their students. His enthusiasm
and energy drives the staff to work even harder. The principal is also trying to create a
distributive model of leadership. He welcomes teachers taking leadership roles and
nurtures his staff so that they can excel.

Table AA.1 shows how AA Elementary implements the 10 steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance. It also lists other research-based
strategies employed by AA Elementary.

Table AA.1 Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and other research-based strategies at AA
Elementary
Odden‘s Strategies
Implementation
Notes
Strong Avg. Weak N/A
1) analyzing student
achievement data
√ Teachers meet regularly to analyze benchmark
and formative assessment data.
2) setting ambitious goals √ The principal has created a culture that
promotes high expectations. The school
regularly sets ambitious schoolwide goals as
well as individual goals for students.
3) implementing effective
curriculum and
instructional program
√ All teachers follow the District adopted
curriculum. The District prepared pacing guide
helps teachers teach an appropriate standard-
based curriculum.
4) using benchmark and
formative assessments
√ The school effectively uses a variety of
assessments to monitor student progress and
guide instruction.
5) employing ongoing
professional development
√ Teachers collaborate on a regular basis.
However, there is no clear plan for professional
development on instructional strategies or
content material.
6) using instructional time
more efficiently
√ Instructional time is used optimally at AA.
7) providing extra help for
struggling students
√ The school has a variety of programs to provide
help for struggling students outside the school
hours. However, they are limited in duration.
The school uses a significant number of
teaching assistants, a strategy that is not
recommended by Odden.

174

Appendix H continued

Continued Table AA.1
8) creating professional
and collaborative school
cultures
√ Teachers meet regularly to collaborate on
instructional strategies, data analysis and
student achievement.
9) using research-based
and proven strategies
√ Teachers employ a variety of instructional
strategies to instruct student.
10) investing on human
capital management
√ The principal nurtures teacher leaders and other
staff.
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community Involvement
√ AA Elementary School involves families by
various modes of communication, events and
activities. Some examples include, family
nights, volunteer tutors, community-based after
school tutoring, etc.
12) Effective Leadership √ The principal uses effective leadership skills to
motivate and guide the staff. He also follows
the distributed leadership model to let teachers
take the leadership role.

Although AA Elementary employs most of Odden‘s (2009) effective strategies,
the amount of resource allocated for the students is significantly lower than the Evidence
Based Model (EBM). In all areas, from the enrollment number to class size and effective
instructional strategies, the amount of resource budgeted is considerably less than the
EBM model. Table AA.2 shows a comparison of resource allocation between AA
Elementary and an EBM prototype school.
Table AA.2 School Profile Comparison: AA Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) School

School Element
EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools

BB Elementary
School

BBES – EBM Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K-5
K-5 Same
Enrollment 432 587 35% larger than EBM
Class Size
K-3 15
4-5 25
K-3 20
4-5 33

~33% greater than EBM
Full Day Kindergarten Yes No Not offered at AA

175

Appendix H continued

Continued Table AA.2
Number of Teacher work
days
190 +
10 days of PD
180 +
2 days of PD +
3 days of work day

7.5% less than EBM
Students with Disability 12% 10% 2% less than EBM
Students in poverty 50%
62% 12% greater than EBM
EL students 10% 29% 19% greater than EBM
Minority students 30%
65% 35% greater than EBM

Table AA.3 Resource Comparison: AA Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element

EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools

EBM School
with AA Characteristics
(587 Students)

AA
Elementary
School

AAES – EBM
Comparison
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 37 24 ~50% less at AA
Specialist
teachers
20% more; 4.8 7.4 2** ** AA employs two
long term substitutes
to assist with
intervention during
Focus time and teacher
collaboration time. In
addition, it employs 20
aides who work
approximately 3
hours/day to help with
Focus Time, teacher
collaboration,
Resource program, etc.
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 3 0
Tutors 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
3.6
(364 poverty students)
0
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100: 0.43
1.7
(170 EL students)
0
Extended Day
Teacher
1.8 2.3 0*** *** AA hosts a
program called Think
Together that is paid
for by the County
Summer School
Teacher
1.8 2.3 10 days of
ELD Boot
Camp
10 days of
kindergarten
Summer
Camp
Significantly less at
AA

176

Appendix H continued

Continued Table AA.3
Learning
Disabled
students‘ Teacher
3
4
2 50% less than EBM
GATE student $25/student $25/student $7/student 70% less at AA
Substitutes 5% of all of the above 5% of all of the above 0 None at AA
Pupil Support 1 for every 100 poverty
students: 2.16
3.6
(364 poverty students)
0 None at AA
Non-instructional
aides
2 3 0 None at AA
Librarian/Media
specialists
1 1.5 0* AA has a
Library Technician
Principal 1 1.5 1 50% less
School site
Secretary
2 3 2 33% less
Professional
Development
instructional facilitators,
Planning & prep time,
10 summer days,
$100/pupil for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel, etc
Same as prototype ~ $16,300 is
allotted
AA employs
significantly less on
PD
Technology $250/pupil
$250/pupil $17/pupil Significantly less than
EBM
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil $140/ pupil $25/pupil Significantly less than
EBM
Student activities $200/pupil $200/pupil $20/pupil Significantly less than
EBM

177

Appendix H continued

Lessons Learned

AA Elementary School has made enormous improvement in lowering the
achievement gap and improving overall student performance in the last five years.
 The school set specific school wide goals and goals for all students. The
culture of excuses has given way to a ―can do‖ attitude.
 By analyzing data, the school set specific goals for all students including
subgroups. Specific strategies were designed to address the achievement gap.
Regular data analysis guides instruction at AA Elementary.
 AA Elementary effectively uses state adopted curriculum and a pacing guide
that is clearly aligned to the standards.
 Extra support for students is provided by interventions during Focus time, and
some extended day and summer programs.
 AA Elementary employs the PLC model for weekly collaboration among
teachers.
 The principal provides focused and effective leadership that promotes a
culture of learning.
By implementing these programs AA Elementary has more than doubled the
student achievement of the major subgroups and successfully lowered the achievement
gap.
Future Considerations

Additional resources would be helpful to build on AA Elementary School‘s
success. AA elementary schools intervention model is heavily dependent on substitute
teachers and instructional aides. It may be more effective to use regular certificated
teachers for all interventions. Additional resources can also be used to operate a more
effective after school and summer school program.
Professional development is one of the weaker areas at AA. Proper resource
allocation and planning for this piece will likely broaden teachers‘ instructional skills and
knowledge and translate into even more impressive student performance.

178

APPENDIX I

BB Elementary School

BB Elementary is a Title I, pre-kindergarten through fifth grade school in an
urban area of the San Bernardino County. This school of more than 630 students has a
single-track, year round schedule. BB Elementary opened its doors in 2004 and is part of
a district that was established in 1920. During that time, the parent city transformed from
an agricultural center in the 1920s to a leader in steel production in the 1950s. Today, the
city hosts a mix of businesses that include technology, industry, and commerce. In the
past decade, the city has experienced a significant population growth because of its
relatively short distance (50 miles) from Los Angeles and lower home prices. However,
starting in 2008, this city was at the center of the huge home foreclosure crisis that has
had a devastating impact in Southern California. Due to the significant population growth
in the early 2000s, the District had to grow considerably to accommodate the children of
the community. The District now has 29 elementary schools, 1 sixth grade school, 7
middle schools, 4 high schools, 2 continuation high schools, 1 School of Language
Development, and 1 adult school. The District serves students in preschool through adult
education in a diverse urban/suburban environment.
BB Elementary School serves students from a diverse ethnic backgrounds, socio-
economic status and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are Hispanic (72%),
African-American (14%) and White (8%). Sixty-six percent of the students are classified
as Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED). The percentage of English Learners (EL) at
this school is 36% and 9% are classified as Special Education students. Figure BB.1
shows the ethnic breakdown of all students at BB Elementary.

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at BB Elementary School.
Starting 2006, BB Elementary School has demonstrated impressive growth in
student performance. From 2006 to 2009, BB Elementary has shown a growth of 76
points on its API. Figure BB.2 shows BB Elementary School‘s API over the last five
years.
Figure BB.1 Ethnic Breakdown of BB School
Hispanic
White
Asian
African-American
Other
179

Appendix I continued

Figure BB.2 BB Elementary School’s API

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show a similar trend of progress. BB
Elementary has demonstrated growth for all groups in the last 5 years. One of the key
trends is that the Hispanic, African-American, EL and SED subgroups have demonstrated
a stronger growth than the White students. This is an extremely important step towards
closing the achievement gap that plagues many schools in the United States, especially
California. Since 2005, the English language arts AYP increased about 15% for White
students. For Hispanic students, the increase was 5% more and for African-American
students 10% more during the same time period. There was similar increase among the
students classified as SED and EL. The White subgroups AYP showed a very small
decline from 2008 to 2009. However, an important point to note is that the number of
White students at BB is extremely small; hence, their scores is cannot be classified as a
trend that accurately reflects the school‘s performance. Figure BB.3 shows BB
Elementary School‘s language arts AYP for different subgroups since 2005.

739 735
754
800
811
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure BB.3 Language Arts AYP for BB Elementary
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED
African-American
180

Appendix I continued

Figure BB.4 displays the math AYP for BB Elementary. A similar pattern of
growth is seen in math as in language arts. All major student subgroups, Hispanic,
African-American, EL and SED student subgroups have demonstrated growth. Hispanic
students achieved a growth of 15% since 2005. The growth was approximately the same
for all the other major subgroups. The major growth in the past 4 years took place in
2008 and 2009. From 2005 to 2007, BB Elementary scores declined for some subgroups
and registered a very moderate increase for other subgroups. Although the number of
White students are extremely low at BB Elementary, it should be noted that the
achievement gap among white students and other minority subgroups in math is almost
insignificant. This of course can also be attributed to almost insignificant cumulative
growth in the performance of White students since 2005. Figure 4 displays the
performance of significant subgroups in math since 2005.

Instructional Improvement Process

BB Elementary School opened its doors in 2004. During its first two years of
inception the school had two different principals. The school went through a series of
upheavals and these events were reflected in the overall student achievement, or lack
thereof, during that turbulent period. In 2005, BB Elementary School‘s API was below
750. The achievement gap among White students and Hispanic students was
pronounced. There was a 13% gap in language arts between the two groups and in math
the gap was even greater. The EL and SED subgroups also demonstrated a significant
achievement gap.
The current principal assumed his position in 2006 and since then the school has
registered a remarkable increase in student achievement. He promoted a vision that
required the school to meet the needs of all students at different ability levels. He made a
concerted effort to focus on instructional practices and urged staff to ignore factors that
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure BB.4 Math AYP for BB Elementary
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED
African-American
181

Appendix I continued

the school had no control over, for example, poverty, parental involvement and language
ability, among others. Over the next four years, the school under the leadership of the
current principal took numerous steps that played a significant role in lowering the
achievement gap and improving overall student performance.

Consistent Curriculum& Intervention
BB Elementary uses District adopted Open Court curriculum for teaching English
language arts and Houghton Mifflin curriculum for teaching math. All teaching staff
follow the content standard aligned pacing guide and fully implement the adopted
curriculum. Teachers at BB use standard-based instruction to ensure students are
learning all the grade level standards. Specific time is allocated for language arts and
math instruction.
The language arts block of the core curriculum is divided into three parts. First
hour follows some key components of the core curriculum. In the second hour students
are divided according to their ability level and also their language ability. During this
segment EL students receive specific targeted instruction. GATE students also receive
instruction that meet their needs. Grade 4 and 5, at-risk students use the Read 180
curriculum to bridge the gaps in their reading skills. The Instructional Support Teacher
provides direct services to struggling students with focus on narrowing the achievement
gap. Two bilingual aides provide direct support in the classroom to struggling students in
small group settings. Priority support is given to low-performing subgroups. There is a
separate intervention time for EL students to work on English Language Development
(ELD) with specific state-approved curriculum.
In 2009, BB Elementary demonstrated a moderate increase in their math scores
compared to the significant increase in language arts. Part of the reason for this
discrepancy is that the school emphasizes language arts a lot more than math. This is
primarily due to the high percentage of second language learners at BB. However,
another reason for the nominal improvement in the math scores is likely because the math
curriculum was just adopted in 2008 and the teachers have not received the proper
professional development on teaching the new curriculum.

Assessments & Data Analysis
The standard-based curriculum used at BB is nicely aligned with the benchmark
assessments. The school uses District mandated benchmark assessments. These
assessments are administered 3-6 times a year to monitor student learning in relation to
key concepts. In addition, BB Elementary uses a variety of assessments to evaluate
student progress and tailor instruction according to student needs. These standards-based
assessments are formative in the sense that teachers use them to plan their instructional
approach for the class or individual students. Teachers also use the results of local
assessments to set grade level SMART goals for student achievement. In addition, the
school uses systematic progress monitoring Language Arts assessments (General
Outcome Measures) that measure individual student progress in critical areas such as

182

Appendix I continued

Continued Table BB.1phonemic awareness, fluency and reading comprehension. For
students in kindergarten through second grade the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS) are administered as a formative assessment. These assessments
measure the acquisition of early literacy skills. For students in grades three through five a
web-based, AIMSweb progress monitoring system is employed. This assessment is
based on direct, frequent and continuous measurement. The results are reported to
students, parents, teachers and administrators via a web-based data management and
reporting system to determine response to intervention.

BB Elementary also uses state assessments from the STAR program to monitor
student progress toward accountability goals and to measure progress toward closing the
achievement gap between disadvantaged subgroup populations and schoolwide
performance. The results of STAR assessments are reviewed with staff and community to
determine areas of focus and to adjust priorities as indicated. Teachers use the results of
the state assessments to plan their instructional focus and to monitor their progress
toward meeting state goals in achievement. Throughout the year, the assessment data is
analyzed in variety of collaborative meetings. The school has a minimum day schedule
on Tuesdays and there are 2 two- hour long staff meetings every month. A significant
part of these staff meetings is devoted to data analysis. Some of these meetings are
facilitated by an outside consultant (more in the section on Professional Development).
In addition, teachers meet with the consultants throughout the year to discuss student
performance in small groups in more detail.

Professional Development & Coaching
Professional development is based upon identified deficiencies within student
performance, particularly subgroup populations. At BB Elementary, all Professional
Development is first and foremost created to support the teacher in the delivery of
California Content Standards via the adopted curricular materials. Ninety-six percent of
current staff has completed beginning training for Language Arts via AB466/SB472.
Eighty-two percent of teachers have completed year one of the Advanced training. The
site's principal has completed all AB75/AB430 modules. As mentioned earlier, the staff
has not been trained on the new math curriculum.
In 2008, BB Elementary started a pilot program with Special Education Local
Plan Area (SELPA) of the San Bernardino County. This program allowed the site to
work with a consultant partner, who provides one-on-one teacher coaching sessions. The
consultant partners also meet regularly with teachers in a Professional Learning
Community format at bi-monthly staff meetings to participate in the Cycle of Effective
Instruction Planning Process. In addition, throughout the year the consultants work with
teachers during school hours on series of topics that involve lesson delivery, planning and
data analysis.
Teachers are supported with an Instructional Support Teacher who provides
coaching with model lessons and co-teaching. The Instructional Support Teacher also
provides staff development aligned to content standards and effective teaching strategies.
183

Appendix I continued

A Technology Coach provides staff development in regard to site and district goals that
are always aligned to support student learning. Teachers attend conferences yearly in line
with grade level and site goals as identified in school plan or via grade level SMART
goals.

Response to Intervention (RtI)
Beginning in 2007, BB Elementary School began implementation of a Response
to Instruction (RtI) model to meet the needs of all students through differentiation. BB
Elementary utilizes a Response to Intervention (RtI) model that they prefer to call
Response to Instruction, whose focus is the effectiveness of "frontline" instruction that
happens during the day. The heart of the system involves a collaborative process that
monitors student progress and responds when students are struggling. Teachers meet
regularly to plan instruction together and to design lessons to meet the needs of students
at all levels. The school uses a system of progress monitoring (in addition to the required
curriculum-based measures) to evaluate student performance over time. Students are
targeted based upon benchmark screening and monitored throughout the year. The
school's Student Intervention Team serves as a resource to bring teachers together to
collaboratively explore alternatives and differentiated support. The RtI model also allows
the school to maximize the use of support staff, including instructional aides and Special
Education staff, to bring support to under-performing students for a dedicated block of
time every school day.

Help for Struggling Student
Most of the support offered to struggling students at BB are during the regular
school day. Although, the school‘s 2008-2009 Single Plan for Student Achievement
(SPSA) included several plans for after school and intersession interventions, these
programs were shelved due the budgetary crisis. The school has an after school program
that is run by the city. This program, ―Think Together‖ emphasizes homework
completion, academic enrichment, crafts, art and PE.

Parent and Community Involvement
Parent and community involvement is encouraged by the principal and staff. The
school has a six hour community liaison that works with parents and teachers on a variety
of issues. The liaison works on attendance, translation, and provides parents with tips
and strategies for success. Each year, there are three parent evenings that encourage
parent participation with school activities.

Leadership
The principal of BB Elementary plays a huge role in all aspects of the school. He
is the driving force behind all the reform and changes that has taken place in the last four
years. He has managed to create a culture where most staff members have high
expectations and set ambitious goals for themselves and their students. However, a

184

Appendix I continued

Continued Table BB.1significant segment of the staff still appears to have allegiance to
the first principal who was removed by the School Board. Although these teachers are
involved in all the reform, their participation is mixed with some hesitation and
apprehension. This situation drains some of the principal‘s energy that could be used
more efficiently somewhere else.

Table BB.1 shows how BB Elementary implements the 10 steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance. It also lists other research-based
strategies employed by BB Elementary.

Table BB.1 Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and other research-based strategies
at BB Elementary
Odden‘s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak Not
observed
1) analyzing
student
achievement
data
√ Teachers meet regularly to analyze
benchmark and formative assessment
data. An outside consultant also helps
with this process.
2) setting
ambitious
goals
√ The principal has refocused the school
goal on instruction and student
achievement. Teachers are gradually
coming on board.
3)
implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√ All teachers follow the District adopted
curriculum. Struggling students use a
specific curriculum designed to address
their needs.
4) using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√ The school effectively uses a variety of
assessments to monitor student progress
and guide instruction. They use both
District benchmark and formative
assessments to guide instruction.
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ Teachers collaborate on a regular basis.
An outside consultant assists teachers on
a regular basis on instructional practices
and data analysis.
6) using
instructional
time more
efficiently
√ Instructional time is used optimally at
BB. Specific time is devoted for
language arts and math.

185

Appendix I continued

Continued Table BB.1
7) providing
extra help for
struggling
students
√ Due to budget cuts, BB Elementary has
very limited programs to provide help
for struggling students outside the
school hours.
8) creating
professional
and
collaborative
school cultures
√ Teachers meet regularly to collaborate
on instructional strategies, data analysis
and student achievement.
9) using
research-based
and proven
strategies
√ Teachers employ a variety of research-
based instructional strategies to instruct
student.
10) investing
on human
capital
management
√ This strategy was not clear from the
research that was conducted.
Other
Strategies

11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ BB Elementary School involves families
by various modes of communication,
events and activities. These include
three family nights per year and a
community liaison to assist parents.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ The principal uses effective leadership
skills to motivate and guide the staff.

Although BB Elementary employs most of Odden‘s (2009) effective strategies,
the amount of resource allocated for the students is significantly lower than the Evidence
Based Model (EBM). In all areas, from the enrollment number to class size and effective
instructional strategies, the amount of resource budgeted is considerably less than the
EBM model. Table BB.2 and BB.3 shows a comparison of school profile and resource
allocation between BB Elementary and an EBM prototype school.

186

Appendix I continued

Table BB.2 School Profile Comparison: BB Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) School

School Element
EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools

BB Elementary
School

BBES – EBM Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K - 5
Pre-K - 5 BB has pre-school class that
EBM does not
Enrollment 432 656 50% larger than EBM
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K 25
1-3 20
4-5 33

~33% greater than EBM
Full Day Kindergarten Yes No Not offered at BB
Number of Teacher
work days
190 +
10 days of PD
180 +
2 days of PD +
3 work day

7.5% less than EBM
Students with
Disability
12% 9% 3% less than EBM
Students in poverty 50%
66% 16% greater than EBM
EL students 10% 36% 26% greater than EBM
Minority students 30%
92% 62% greater than EBM

187

Appendix I continued

Table BB.3 Resource Comparison: BB Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element

EBM Prototypical
Elementary Schools

EBM School
with BB
Characteristics
(656 Students)

BB Elementary
School

BBES – EBM
Comparison
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 36 26 BB needs 10 more
core teachers
Specialist
teachers
20% more; 4.8 7 0.2%** Percentage of support
teachers at BB is
significantly less.
**1. Several Music &
Art Teachers provide
4
th
and 5
th
grade
teachers about 90 min
release time every
week.
2. An Instructional
Support Teacher
provides help with
reading intervention
and coaching for
teachers.
3. 3 EL aides provide
small group
intervention daily.
Instructional
Facilitators/
mentors
2.2 3.3 1
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16

4.3
(433 students)
0
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100: 0.43

2.36
(236 students)
0
Extended day 1.8 2.7 0*** *** BB hosts a
program called Think
Together that is paid
for by the County
Summer School 1.8 2.7 0 BB does not offer any
summer school
Learning
Disabled
student
3
3
(9% or 59
students)
2 1 less teacher than
EBM
GATE student $25/student ------ $7/student 66% less at BB

188

Appendix I continued

Continued Table BB.3
Substitutes 5% of all of the
above
-------- 0 None at BB
Pupil Support 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
4.3
(432 students)
0 None at BB
Non-
instructional
aides
2 3 0 None at BB
Librarian/Media
specialists
1 1.5 0**** ****BB has a
Library Technician
Principal 1 1.5 1 Same
School site
Secretary
2 3 2 Same (but BB has
more students)
Professional
Development
instructional
facilitators, Planning
& prep time, 10
summer days,
$100/pupil for other
PD expenses –
trainers, conferences,
travel, etc

------------
~ $20,000 is
allotted
BB uses money
provided by an outside
agency for PD. There
is significant
investment in this
area.
Technology $250/pupil
----------- $15/pupil Significantly less than
EBM
Instructional
materials
$140/ pupil --------- $50/pupil Significantly less than
EBM
Student
activities
$200/pupil --------- $35/pupil Significantly less than
EBM

189

Appendix I continued

Lessons Learned

BB Elementary School has made enormous improvement in lowering the
achievement gap and improving overall student performance in the last five years.
 The school sets specific goals that focus on instruction and has made a
concerted effort to meet the needs of all students.
 By analyzing data, the school set specific goals for all students including
subgroups. Specific strategies were designed to address achievement gap.
Regular data analysis guides instruction at BB Elementary.
 BB Elementary effectively uses state adopted curriculum and a pacing guide
that is clearly aligned to the standards.
 The school has an strong professional development plan. Outside consultants
provide teachers support with instructional strategies and data analysis. This
support is offered to the whole staff during meetings and also one-on-one to
teachers in their classrooms. The consultants offer support for 60 days during
a year.
 BB Elementary employs the PLC model for bi-weekly collaboration among
teachers.
 The principal provides focused and effective leadership that promotes a
culture of learning.
By implementing these programs BB Elementary has significantly increased the
student achievement of the major subgroups and successfully lowered the achievement
gap.
Future Considerations

Additional resources would be helpful to build on BB Elementary School‘s
success. BB elementary schools intervention model is heavily dependent on instructional
aides. It may be more effective to use regular certificated teachers for all interventions.
Additional resources are also needed to offer an extended day program and summer
school program for struggling students.

190

APPENDIX J

CC Elementary School
CC Elementary is a Title I, kindergarten through fifth grade school in a residential
neighborhood in San Bernardino County. This school of 430 students originally opened
in 1904 and has been in continuous operation since 1938. The school went a complete
modernization in 2008. With the exception of students enrolled in the Special Day Class
and a few transfer students, all the students at CC Elementary live within walking
distance of the school. The neighborhood consists of small and medium sized single-
family homes and a number of apartment complexes. CC Elementary is part of a District
that encompasses 147 square miles and serves several communities of the San Bernardino
County. The District has an enrollment of 21,170 students in fifteen elementary schools,
four middle schools, three comprehensive high schools and an alternative high school.
The major student subgroups in the District are White (41%) and Hispanic (36%). The
District serves 2,140 English-language learners who speak forty-two different languages
at home.
CC Elementary School serves students from a diverse ethnic background, socio-
economic status and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are White (43%),
Hispanic (35%), and African-American (7%). Fifty-three percent of the students are
classified as Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED). The school has a small number
of English Learners (11%) and 13% of the students are classified as Special Education
students. Table CC.1 shows the ethnic breakdown of all students at CC Elementary.

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at CC Elementary School.
Starting 2005, CC Elementary School has demonstrated impressive growth in
student performance. Although the growth has been uneven from 2005 to 2009, the
school has shown an increase of 64 points in its API. Figure CC.2 shows CC Elementary
School‘s API over the last five years.

Figure CC.1 Ethnic Breakdown of CC School
Hispanic
White
Asian
African-American
Other
Multiple
191

Appendix J continued

Figure CC.2 CC Elementary School’s API

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show a similar trend of progress.
Although uneven, CC Elementary has demonstrated a significant cumulative growth for
all groups in the last 5 years. All the major subgroups have met the AYP each year. The
most significant growth has been for the African-American subgroup that made more
than 30% growth in its AYP. During the same period, the growth for White students was
only 10%. The increase of African-American AYP played a huge role in lowering the
achievement gap at CC Elementary. The SED students also made close to 20% growth
since 2005. The Hispanic subgroup made the same growth as the White students.
Figure CC.3 shows CC Elementary School‘s language arts AYP for different subgroups
since 2005.

782
819
808
852
846
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure CC.3 Language Arts AYP for CC Elementary
School Wide
Hispanic
White
SED
African-American
192

Appendix J continued

Figure CC.4 displays the math AYP for CC Elementary. Besides the drop in
2007, CC Elementary has shown an extremely impressive growth each year. All major
student subgroups, Hispanic, African-American, and SED have demonstrated growth.
Hispanic students achieved a growth of 17% since 2005. For African-American
students, the growth has close to 50% and for the SED students it was almost 25%. The
achievement gap among white students and other major subgroups at CC Elementary has
almost been eliminated in math. The achievement in math is markedly higher than
language arts. Figure CC.4 displays the performance of significant subgroups in math
since 2005.

Instructional Improvement Process

The current principal started at CC Elementary School in 2001. He quickly noted
that the school had purchased many programs that were not being implemented properly.
There was little or no teacher buy-in for many of the programs initiated by the previous
principal. The new principal decided to work in a collaborative manner and involved the
leadership team in all major decision-making. The school also received support from the
District in form of consistent curriculum, standard-based pacing guide and effective
professional development.
Focused instructional approach at CC Elementary and District support has helped
the school raise its API and lower the achievement gap

Consistent Curriculum& Intervention
CC Elementary uses District adopted Houghton-Mifflin curriculum for teaching
English language arts and math. The District prepares and distributes an annual Scope &
Sequence Pacing Guide for each grade level for language arts, math and science. The
Pacing Guide helps teachers to know when and in what sequence each lesson is expected
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure CC.4 Math AYP for CC Elementary
School Wide
Hispanic
White
Column1
SED
African-American
193

Appendix J continued

to be taught to ensure content coverage. Additional instructional materials are used to
meet the learning needs of all students who need extra help. These materials are selected
by the CC teachers and are strongly aligned to the state standards. Fourth and fifth grade
students who are about two years behind get an alternative core curriculum called
REACH. EL students receive direct instruction on English language development from
the Hampton Brown Into English Curriculum.

Assessments & Data Analysis
CC Elementary regularly uses a variety of formal and informal assessments to
monitor and assess student achievement. Some of these assessments include the CST, the
District‘s Multiple assessments, Running Records and teacher-developed assessments.
The District multiple assessment program evaluates students‘ progress towards the
standards three times per year in the areas of language arts and mathematics. These
assessments are tied to the District prepared scope and sequence that acts as a pacing
guide. The assessments allow teachers to identify reteaching and intervention resources.
CC Elementary uses a web-based software, Data Director for schoolwide, grade level and
classroom reports for analysis. CC Elementary also uses the online program, Study
Island to assess and analyze student progress towards the state standards.
Throughout the year, the assessment data is analyzed in variety of collaborative
meetings. Each month there is a grade level meeting that is devoted to analyzing data
and modifying instruction as necessary.

Professional Development & Coaching
Professional Development at CC Elementary is primarily guided by the District.
Some of the training offered by the District includes sensory integration strategies, test-
taking strategies, and center-based instruction. All the District training is aligned with
the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. However, teachers only have one
day of training at the District level. The rest of the training days are optional and
attendance is only around 20%.
CC Elementary also offers some on-site professional development for teachers.
These training are held during the four designated minimum days distributed throughout
the year. The content of these trainings are decided by the leadership team. Teachers are
also able to attend conferences that are pertinent to the school‘s needs.
The teachers at CC elementary are also assisted by a coach. The coach is paid-for
by District funds and works at the school once a week. The coach assists teachers with
instructional strategies, data analysis and planning.

Response to Intervention (RtI)
CC Elementary uses a variety of intervention strategies to assist students are
struggling. Students who are academically at risk are identified early in the school year.
Students are given the DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills)
assessment to determine their needs. Once identified, these students are provided
additional and differentiated instruction by their teachers in the regular education
194

Appendix J continued

classroom. The school's IST (Intervention Student Team) serves as a resource to bring
teachers together to collaboratively explore alternatives and differentiated support. The
RtI model also allows the school to maximize the use of support staff, including
instructional aides and Special Education staff, to bring support to under-performing
students for a dedicated block of time every school day.
Students in grades one through three who score below a certain benchmark level
receive assistance from 3 retired, part-time teachers on a daily basis. Two of these
teachers work with the SRA Reading Laboratory program that provides struggling
readers with strategies necessary to become proficient readers. The third teachers work
directly with classroom teachers to support struggling students in the classroom.
Students in fourth and fifth grade who are two year behind take part in a reading
intervention curriculum called REACH. Some students also receive tutoring from adult
volunteers or by college students.

Additional Help for Struggling Student
CC Elementary offers both longer instructional days and additional days to help
its struggling students. During winter and spring breaks, the school offers intensive
instruction for students who needs assistance. Instruction is offered for 4 hours for 5
days. Students are offered a variety of curriculum that focus on the key standards that
students need to learn. Struggling students are also invited to attend an additional hour of
instruction. BB and FBB students in grades two through five are invited for extended
after school instruction once a week. The school uses a variety of software programs and
websites to help students. These include: Study Island, BetterTeacher.com and Education
City. About 40 students participate in these programs daily and it is run by a certificated
teacher and a computer lab technician.

Parent and Community Involvement
Parent and community are encouraged to participate in the school activities in
variety of manner. Parents are encouraged to be part of different parents groups
including the PTA, SSC or ELAC. Each year, there are several Family Literacy Nights
where parents can learn strategies to help their students with reading. In addition there
are several social events and clubs, such as CC Gardening Club and CC Fall Festival that
encourages parent participation with school activities. Parents also receive medical and
dental services courtesy of various local community organizations such as YMCA.
Students also attend field trips to learn about the local library, police station and fire
station, among others. The school communicates regularly with parents via newsletters
and flyers that are sent home with students.

Leadership
The principal of CC Elementary started in 2001. Since than to used a low-key yet
persistent leadership style to push academic achievement at CC. He eliminated many of

195

Appendix J continued

the programs instituted by the previous principal that was not embraced by the teachers.
When he started he asked teachers to write down 3 things that they wanted to get rid of
and 3 things that should not be touched. He used that information and guidance from the
leadership team to put CC towards a new direction of success. The principal make
decisions in a collaborative manner by taking input from the teachers on all instructional
and curricular issues.

Table CC.1 shows how CC Elementary implements the 10 steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance. It also lists other research-based
strategies employed by CC Elementary.

Table CC.1 Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and other research-based
strategies at CC Elementary
Odden’s Strategies Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak Not
observed
1) analyzing student
achievement data
√ Teachers meet regularly to analyze
benchmark and formative assessment
data. .
2) setting ambitious
goals
√ The principal has refocused the school
goal on instruction and student
achievement.
3) implementing
effective curriculum
and instructional
program
√ All teachers follow the District adopted
curriculum. Struggling students use a
specific curriculum designed to address
their needs.
4) using benchmark
and formative
assessments
√ The school effectively uses a variety of
assessments to monitor student progress
and guide instruction. They use District
benchmark, DIBELS and a variety of
web-based formative assessments to
guide instruction.
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ Teachers collaborate on a regular basis.
A District coach assists teachers once a
week. There are optional PD days
organized by the District. However,
there is no specific plan for teachers to
consistently learn new strategies and
improve instruction based on their
needs.
6) using
instructional time
more efficiently
√ Instructional time is used optimally at
CC. Specific block of time is devoted
for language arts and math.

196

Appendix J continued

Continued Table CC.1
7) providing extra
help for struggling
students
√ CC Elementary offers 2 extra weeks of
instruction for struggling students
during the winter and spring breaks. It
also has an hour of extended day per
week for each grade level (2-5) where
students learn targeted key standards by
using a variety of computer based
programs.
8) creating
professional and
collaborative school
cultures
√ Teachers meet regularly to collaborate
on instructional strategies, data analysis
and student achievement.
9) using research-
based and proven
strategies
√ Teachers employ a variety of research-
based instructional strategies to instruct
student.
10) investing on
human capital
management
√ This strategy was not clear from the
research that was conducted.
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ CC Elementary School involves
families by various modes of
communication, events and activities.
These include family literacy nights that
teach parents on how to help their
children with reading.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ The principal uses distributive
leadership skills to motivate and guide
the staff.
Although CC Elementary employs most of Odden‘s (2009) effective strategies,
the amount of resource allocated for the students is significantly lower than the Evidence
Based Model (EBM). In all areas, from the enrollment number to class size and effective
instructional strategies, the amount of resource budgeted is considerably less than the
EBM model. Table CC.2 shows a comparison of resource allocation between CC
Elementary and an EBM prototype school.
Table CC.2. Resource Comparison: CC Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary
Schools

CC Elementary
School

CCES – EBM Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K - 5
K - 5 Same
Enrollment 432 430 Same
197

Appendix J continued

Continued Table CC.2
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K 20
1-3 20
4-5 33-35

~35% greater than EBM
Full Day Kindergarten Yes No Not offered at CC
Number of Teacher work
days
190 +
10 days of PD
180 +
1 days of PD +
4 work day

7.5% less than EBM
Students with Disability 12% 12% Same
Students in poverty 50%
50% Same
EL students 10% 9% Similar
Minority students 30%
57% 27% greater than EBM
RESOURCES
Core Teachers 24 17 30% less than EBM
Specialist teachers 20% more; 4.8 1* Percentage of support teachers
at CC is significantly less.
*1. One Music/Art/PE
teachers provide planning
time for teachers4
th
and 5
th

grade teachers about 90 min
release time every week.
**2. An Instructional Support
Teacher provides coaching
and support one day a week.
3. Three retired teachers work
with struggling students for 2
hours daily.
Instructional
Facilitators/mentors
2.2 0.2**
Tutors 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
0
Teachers for EL 1 for every 100:
0.43
0
Extended day 1.8 0.75 CC offers one hour/wk of
after-school instruction for all
struggling students
Summer School 1.8 0.25 CC offers 2 weeks of
additional instructional
periods
Learning Disabled student 3 2 33% less than EBM

198

Appendix J continued

Continued Table CC.2
GATE student $25/student $12/student 50% less at CC
Substitutes 5% of all of the
above
0 None at CC
Pupil Support 1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
0 None at CC
Non-instructional aides 2 0 None at CC
Librarian/Media specialists 1 0.8 CC has a
Library Technician
Principal 1 1 Same
School site Secretary 2 2 Same
Professional Development instructional
facilitators,
Planning & prep
time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil
for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc
~ $15,000 is
allotted
CC uses money provided by
an outside agency for PD.
There is significant
investment in this area.
Technology $250/pupil
$90/pupil Significantly less than EBM
Instructional materials $140/ pupil $50/pupil Significantly less than EBM
Student activities $200/pupil $50/pupil Significantly less than EBM

199

Appendix J continued

Lessons Learned

CC Elementary School has made enormous improvement in lowering
achievement gap and improving overall student performance in the last five years.
 The principal and the staff has worked collaboratively to focus on curriculum
and instruction that focus on student achievement.
 By analyzing data, the school set specific goals for all students including
subgroups. Specific strategies were designed to address achievement gap.
Regular data analysis guides instruction at CC Elementary.
 CC Elementary effectively uses state adopted curriculum and a pacing guide
that is clearly aligned to the standards.
 CC Elementary employs the PLC model for monthly collaboration among
teachers.
 The school uses the RtI model to intervene early and help struggling students
with modified curriculum.
 CC Elementary offers extra support for struggling students by extending the
school day and adding extra instructional days.
 The principal employs distributed leadership model to guide and motivate the
staff.
By implementing these programs CC Elementary has significantly increased the
student achievement of the major subgroups and successfully lowered the achievement
gap.
Future Considerations

Additional resources would be helpful to build on CC Elementary School‘s
success. CC elementary schools intervention model is heavily dependent on retired
teachers. It may be more effective to use regular certificated teachers who are more
current on effective instructional strategies for all interventions.
The professional develop plan at CC Elementary is relatively weak. Proper
resource allocation and planning for this piece will likely broaden teachers‘ instructional
skills and knowledge and translate into even more impressive student performance.

200

APPENDIX K

DD Elementary School

DD Elementary School is a Title I, kindergarten through fifth grade school in a
district located in a southern suburbs of the Riverside County. This school of 688
students opened in 1990. DD Elementary is part of a district which is one of oldest
public school systems in Southern California with roots going back to schools that
opened in the late 1800s. The District serves a 140 square mile area that includes three
cities and several unincorporated communities. The District has a population of nearly
22,000 students, which it serves at fourteen elementary schools, five middle schools,
three comprehensive high schools and four alternative schools. With more than 3,000
permanent and substitute employees, the district is one of the biggest employers in the
region. For the 2009-10 school year, the district's adopted operating budget is $164.5
million.

DD Elementary School serves students from a diverse ethnic background, socio-
economic status and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are Hispanic (65%)
and White (24%). Fifty eight percent of the students are classified as Socioeconomically
Disadvantaged (SED). The percentage of English Learners (EL) at DD is 35% and 11%
are classified as Special Education students. Table DD.1 shows the ethnic breakdown of
all students at DD Elementary.

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at DD Elementary School.
Starting 2006, DD Elementary School has demonstrated impressive growth in
student performance. From 2006 to 2009, DD Elementary has shown a growth of 71
points on its API. Figure DD.2 shows DD Elementary School‘s API over the last five
years.

Figure DD.1 Ethnic Breakdown of DD School
Hispanic
White
Asian
African-American
Other
201

Appendix K continued

Figure DD.2 DD Elementary School’s API

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show a similar trend of progress. DD
Elementary has demonstrated growth for all groups in the last 5 years. One of the key
trends is that the Hispanic, EL and SED subgroups have demonstrated a stronger growth
than the White students. This is an extremely important step towards closing the
achievement gap that plagues many schools in the United States, especially California.
Since 2005, the English Language Arts AYP increased 16% for White students. For
Hispanic and SED students the increase was more than 20%. EL students registered the
highest increase, more than 30% during the same time period. In fact, the EL student
performance more than doubled in the last five years. In 2005, the difference between the
AYP of White students and EL students was close to 40 percentage points. In the past 5
years, this gap decreased to only 8 points. The gap between other subgroups and the
White students also decreased considerably. Figure DD.3 shows DD Elementary
School‘s language arts AYP for different subgroups since 2005.

600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
804
790
817
855
861
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure DD.3 Language Arts AYP for AA Elementary
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED
202

Appendix K continued

Figure DD.4 displays the math AYP for DD Elementary. A similar pattern of
growth is seen in math as in language arts. The Hispanic, EL and SED student
subgroups have demonstrated a more pronounced growth compared to the White
students. In 2005, the gap between Hispanic and White students was about 20 percentage
points and by 2009 the gap went down to only 10 points. The achievement gap decreased
impressively for other subgroups as well. In 2008, achievement gap among different
subgroups and White students was almost eliminated. Although the AYP for certain
subgroups decreased in 2009, the AYP for all students at DD Elementary is quiet
exemplary and is well above the NCLB benchmark requirements. Figure DD.4 displays
the performance of significant subgroups in math since 2005.

Instructional Improvement Process

For a considerable period of time, DD Elementary School‘s student performance
has demonstrated an upward trend. Even though there have been minor fluctuations in
their API, it has shown significant growth throughout this decade. From 2006 to 2009,
the school‘s API increased by 71 points. During this same period the school did an
admirable job of lowering the achievement gap among the White students and other
minority students. All major subgroups, Hispanic, EL and SED students demonstrated a
significantly stronger growth than the White students. This growth has helped lower the
achievement gap to almost an insignificant level.
A variety of factors have facilitated DD Elementary School‘s academic
achievement. The new principal of DD Elementary feels that the dedicated teachers of the
school have played a huge role in the school‘s continued progress. DD Elementary has
seen a significant demographic shift throughout this decade. In addition, rezoning of the
school boundary has had immense impact on the makeup of the student population. A
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure DD.4 Math AYP for AA Elementary
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED
203

Appendix K continued

large number of students from middle class homes have been replaced by EL students
and also students in poverty. Despite these changes the teachers did not waver from their
focus on student achievement. Moreover, they made a pledge to not lower their
expectations even if the student population was different. DD Elementary has a group of
caring staff that work relentlessly to meet the needs of all students at their ability level.
At DD Elementary, a caring staff with ambitious goals has been matched with an
effective instructional approach. The school also receives excellent support from the
District. The District has been at the forefront of effective curricular reforms and has
made an excellent effort to ensure that the schools are supported properly. A focused
approach that supports the need of all students has been the most effective strategy at DD.

Consistent Curriculum
The school District has provided critical support to DD Elementary in a variety of
areas including curriculum, standard-aligned pacing guide and benchmark assessments.
The school uses District adopted Houghton Mifflin curriculum for teaching English
language arts and the Envision Math curriculum for teaching math. All teaching staff
follows the content standard aligned pacing guide and fully implement the adopted
curriculum. Teachers at DD use standard-based instruction to ensure students are
learning all the grade level standards. Specific time is allocated for language arts and
math instruction. The District has provided schools with pacing guides that focus on key
standards that are aligned to the benchmark exams. Students take benchmark exams 4
times a year that help teachers guide instruction. Prior to the benchmark exam, the focus
is on the standards that will be tested on the upcoming exam. The standards are color
coded, orange, green, pink and yellow to correspond with the standards covered on the
four benchmark exams. This color-coding makes it easier for teachers to identify the
standards.
For EL students, Hampton Brown‘s ―Avenues‖ is used in all grade levels. EL
students receive a 30 minute intervention in addition to the language arts core instruction
to assist them with their English language development.

Assessments
The standard-based curriculum is nicely aligned with the benchmark assessments.
Inspect is the benchmark assessment that is administered four times a year. Instruction is
geared around these assessments. In 2009, the District introduced a preliminary small-
scale Inspect to help teachers guide instruction prior to the major benchmark exams. In
addition to the benchmark exam, DD Elementary uses curriculum-embedded assessments
to guide instruction and monitor student progress. Another type of assessment used at
DD is called MAPS (Measures of Academic Progress). The MAPS is a software based
assessment and the test questions adjust to the student's instructional level. Teachers use
the information received from the assessment to guide classroom instruction that meets
the needs of each individual student level.

204

Appendix K continued

Focused intervention
DD Elementary spends the majority of its Title I funding on personnel. DD
employs a Title I teacher who works with students in kindergarten through first grade. In
addition, DD employs 10 instructional aides who work three hours daily. The core
instructional time at DD is termed the ―sacred hour‖ and it is during this time when the
Title I teacher and the aides provide support to the classroom teacher. Students are
grouped according to their ability level for language arts and math instruction. Grade
levels decide in which class and at what hour most of the support is necessary. The aides
help the classroom teacher in instructing the struggling students. The Title I teacher pulls
students and works with the intensive group.

Professional Learning Communities
Teachers at DD Elementary, collaborate bi-weekly for an hour to discuss
instructional strategies, analyze data and plan intervention strategies. This collaboration
time is allotted during the staff meeting time every other week. Previously teachers were
given release time once a week during PE instruction. However, this release time has
been eliminated due to budget cuts.

Response to Intervention (RtI)
DD Elementary effectively implements the RtI model to assess students in a
timely manner and provide the appropriate intervention. All students are assessed at the
beginning of the year with the MAPS assessment software. Appropriate intervention is
designed for all students even before they qualify or need special education services. The
resource teacher provides service for students both with and without an IEP.
Intermediate level students are supported by the ―Reach‖ reading intervention
curriculum. A variety of programs are used to supports all students. In addition to the
core curriculum, the school uses supplementary curriculum to help teach the essential
skills to the students.

Help for Struggling Student
DD Elementary does not have any significant programs to assist struggling
students beyond the school day. ―Think Together‖ is an after school program that
emphasizes homework completion, academic enrichment, crafts, art and PE. This
program is offered by an outside group but is run in coordination with the school staff
and focuses on the curriculum.

Parent and Community Involvement
DD Elementary offers a variety of programs to encourage parent and community
involvement. Parents are invited to various events including Parent Information Reading
Night, Back to School Night, Open House and Book Fair, among others. Parents can also
participate in ESL classes that her held weekly.

205

Appendix K continued

Parents are also encouraged to volunteer in the classroom and in other school
activities. Parents receive communication via flyers and monthly newsletter. An
automated telephone calling system ConnectEd is also used to keep parents informed.

Leadership
The principal of DD Elementary started at the beginning of 2009. It can be
assumed that the previous principal played a significant role in the school continued
progress. However, enough information is not available to determine how significant a
role her leadership played in the schools success.
Table DD.1 shows how DD Elementary implements the 10 steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance. It also lists other research-based
strategies employed by DD Elementary.
Table DD.1 Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and other research-based
strategies
at DD Elementary
Odden’s
Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak Not*
Observed
1) analyzing
student
achievement data
√ Teachers meet regularly to analyze
benchmark and formative assessment data.
2) setting
ambitious goals
√ The school has a culture that promotes high
expectations. The school regularly sets
ambitious schoolwide goals as well as
individual goals for students.
3) implementing
effective
curriculum and
instructional
program
√ All teachers follow the District adopted
curriculum. The District prepared pacing
guide helps teachers teach an appropriate
standard-based curriculum.
4) using
benchmark and
formative
assessments
√ The school effectively uses a variety of
assessments to monitor student progress and
guide instruction.
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ Teachers collaborate on a regular basis.
However, there is no clear plan for
professional development on instructional
strategies or content material.
6) using
instructional time
more efficiently
√ Instructional time is used optimally at DD.

206

Appendix K continued

Continued Table DD.1
7) providing extra
help for struggling
students

√ The school no programs to provide help for
struggling students outside the school hours.
The school uses a significant number of
teaching assistants, a strategy that is not
recommended by Odden.
8) creating
professional and
collaborative
school cultures
√ Teachers meet regularly to collaborate on
instructional strategies, data analysis and
student achievement.
9) using research-
based and proven
strategies
√ Teachers employ a variety of instructional
strategies to instruct student.
10) investing on
human capital
management

√
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ DD Elementary School involves families by
various modes of communication, events and
activities. Some examples include, Parent
Information Night, ESL classes.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ The school has a new principal.
*This strategy may be employed at the school but was not observed as part of this
research.

Although DD Elementary employs most of Odden‘s (2009) effective strategies,
the amount of resource allocated for the students is significantly lower than the Evidence
Based Model (EBM). In all areas, starting from to class size and effective instructional
strategies, the amount of resource budgeted is considerably less than the EBM model.
Table DD.2 shows a comparison of resource allocation between DD Elementary and an
EBM prototype school.
Table DD.2 School Profile Comparison: BB Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) School

School Element
EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools

DD Elementary
School

DDES – EBM
Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS
School Configuration
K-5
K-5 same
Enrollment
432
688 60% larger than EBM

207

Appendix K continued

Continued Table DD.2
Class Size
K-3 15
4-5 25
K-3 21
4-5 33
~33% greater than
EBM
Full Day Kindergarten
Yes
No Not offered at DD
Number of Teacher work
days
190 +
10 days of PD
180 +
4 days of work
day
8% less than EBM
(the District offers 3
days of optional PD
before the school year
begins)
Students with Disability
12%
4% 8% less than EBM
Students in poverty
50%
58% 8% greater than EBM
EL students
10%
35%
25% greater than
EBM
Minority students
30%
76%
46% greater than
EBM

208

Appendix K continued

Table DD.3 Resource Comparison: BB Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element

EBM
Prototypical
Elementary
Schools

EBM School
with DD
Characteristics
(688 Students)

DD
Elementary
School

BBES – EBM
Comparison
Core Teachers

24

38 29* 25% less
Specialist teachers
20% more; 4.8
7.6 1**
** DD employs 1
Title I teacher. In
addition, it
employs 10 aides
who work
approximately 3
hours/day to help
with intervention
for struggling
students.
Instructional
Facilitators/mentors
2.2
3.3 0
Tutors
1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
4 (for 399
students in
poverty) 0
Teachers for EL
1 for every 100:
0.43
2.4 0
Extended day
1.8
1.9 0***
*** DD hosts a
program called
Think Together
that is paid for by
the County
Summer School
1.8
1.9 0 None at DD
Learning Disabled
student
3
5 2 60% less at DD
GATE student
$25/student
$25/student $8/student 65% less at DD
Substitutes
5% of all of the
above
5% of all of the
above 0 None at DD
Pupil Support
1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
4 0 None at DD
Non-instructional aides
2
3.2 0 None at DD

209

Appendix K continued

Continued Table DD.3

Librarian/Media
specialists
1
1.6 0*
DD has a
Library
Technician
Principal
1
1.5 1 Same
School site Secretary
2
3 2 33% less
Professional
Development
instructional
facilitators,
Planning & prep
time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil
for other PD
expenses –
trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc
same 0
The school does
not have any
specific PD plan.
The district offers
3 days of training
that is optional.
Teachers do meet
for collaboration
every other week
for 1 hour.
Technology $250/pupil
$250/pupil
$50/pupil
Significantly less
than EBM
Instructional materials $140/ pupil
$140/ pupil
$20/pupil
Significantly less
than IBM
Student activities $200/pupil
$200/pupil
$15 /pupil
Significantly less
than IBM

210

Appendix K continued

Lessons Learned

DD Elementary School has made enormous improvement in lowering the
achievement gap and improving overall student performance in the last five years.
 The school set specific school wide goals and goals for all students. The
school focused on student achievement even after a significant shift in the
student demographics
 By analyzing data, the school set specific goals for all students including
subgroups. Specific strategies were designed to address the achievement gap.
Regular data analysis guides instruction at DD Elementary.
 DD Elementary effectively uses state adopted curriculum and a pacing guide
that is clearly aligned to the standards.
 Extra support for students is provided by small group instruction for the
struggling students.
 DD Elementary employs the PLC model for bi-weekly collaboration among
teachers.
By implementing these programs DD Elementary has increased the achievement
of the major student subgroups and successfully lowered the achievement gap.

Future Considerations

Additional resources would be helpful to build on DD Elementary School‘s
success. DD elementary schools intervention model is heavily dependent on instructional
aides. It may be more effective to use teacher tutors for all interventions. Additional
resources is also necessary to operate an effective after school and summer school
program.
Professional development is one of the weaker areas at DD. Proper resource
allocation and planning for this piece will likely broaden teachers‘ instructional skills and
knowledge and translate into even more impressive student performance.

211

APPENDIX L

EE Elementary School

EE Elementary is a Title I, kindergarten through fifth grade school in an urban
area in the San Bernardino County. This school of more than 750 students has a
traditional calendar. The School District is located in the heart of the Inland Empire,
approximately 72 miles east of Los Angeles. Neighboring the district and its communities
are an Air Force Base and a recreational area. During the 2007-08 school year, the
district‘s schools served more than 19,000 students residing in the rural and suburban
communities of the Riverside County and portions of unincorporated Riverside County.
The district currently operates a preschool, 14 elementary schools, 4 middle schools, 2
comprehensive high schools, a student success academy, and a continuation high school.
To meet the demands of rapid growth in the industrial, professional, and housing
development industries, the District opened six new schools in the middle of this decade.
However starting 2008, this city was at the center of the huge home foreclosure crisis that
has had a devastating impact in Southern California. This crisis has led to the closure of
one elementary school.
EE Elementary School serves students from a varied ethnic background, socio-
economic status and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are Hispanic (84%),
African-American (7%) and White (5%). Seventy-eight percent of the students are
classified as Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED). The percentage of English
Learners (EL) at this school is 53% and 9% are classified as Special Education students.
Table EE.1 shows the ethnic breakdown of all students at EE Elementary.

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at EE Elementary School.
Starting 2005, EE Elementary School has demonstrated impressive growth in
student performance. From 2005 to 2009, EE Elementary has shown a growth of 98
points on its API. Figure EE.2 shows EE Elementary School‘s API over the last five
years.

Figure EE.1 Ethnic Breakdown of EE School
Hispanic
White
African-American
Other
212

Appendix L continued

Figure EE.2 EE Elementary School’s API

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show a similar trend of progress. EE
Elementary has demonstrated growth for all groups in the last 5 years. All of the
subgroups have shown a growth of approximately 20% during this period. However, a
significant achievement gap exists between the White students and other student groups,
specially the African-American students. Also the growth of African-American students
has been inconsistent and has decreased since 2006. A deeper analysis of the student data
shows that the number of African-American students has fluctuated significantly in the
past five years. In 2005, 68 students took the CST whereas in 2007 only 24 students took
the test. This fluctuation in the student population may be partly responsible for the
inconsistent performance of this student group. Moreover, the number of White students
who took the test in the last five years has also varied between 20 to 30. Such a small
number of students is not a good indicator of a school‘s overall trend. Figure EE.3 shows
EE Elementary School‘s language arts AYP for different subgroups since 2005.

715
739
776
803
813
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure EE.3 Language Arts AYP for EE Elementary
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED
African-American
213

Appendix L continued

Figure EE.4 displays the math AYP for EE Elementary. The school AYP shows
an impressive growth in the last 5 years. All student subgroups, Hispanic, African-
American, White, EL and SED student subgroups have demonstrated growth. Hispanic
students achieved almost 30% increase in AYP since 2005. The growth was
approximately the same for all the other major subgroups except the African-American
students. Although the number of White students are extremely low at EE Elementary, it
should be noted that the achievement gap among White students and other minority
subgroups in math is almost insignificant. This of course can also be attributed to the
small number of White students and a decrease in their performance in 2009. As
observed earlier in Figure EE.3, the African-American students‘ performance has been
inconsistent and their student population has varied significantly in the last 5 years.
Figure EE.4 displays the performance of significant subgroups in math since 2005.

Instructional Improvement Process

The current principal started at EE Elementary in 2003. At that time the school
had almost 1,300 students and the school‘s API was in the low 700s. The departing
principal who had worked at EE for nine years took 20 of the most effective, veteran
teachers with him to start a new school. The new principal had to hire 16 new teachers.
With a large mix of new teachers and veteran teachers used to doing things their own
way, the principal struggled to set a common vision and goals for the school. Each
teacher was doing things his or her on way; from lesson delivery to assessments, there
was a serious lack of consistency and focus. The principal spent the first few years to
focus teachers on working as a team and collaborating. After some resistance, all teachers
ultimately came on board and realized the value of working as a team with common
focus.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure EE.4 Math AYP for EE Elementary
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED
African-American
214

Appendix L continued

Over the next five years, EE Elementary implemented a variety of reform
measures that transformed the school from a mediocre one to a high achieving school. Its
API increased from 713 to 813 in only five years and all major subgroups have
maintained a consistent growth throughout this time. Following are some strategies
employed by EE to promote student achievement.

Consistent Curriculum& Intervention
EE Elementary uses District adopted Houghton Mifflin curriculum for teaching
English language arts (ELA) and Envision curriculum for teaching math. Although the
school follows the District adopted curriculum it has made some significant changes in
how the curriculum is delivered. Early on the principal had decided that the focus needs
to be the state standards instead of the textbook pacing guide. The principal worked with
the leadership team and planned the ―rituals & routines‖ for teaching language arts and
math. During the planning process the team kept in mind that the El students at EE
Elementary were not ―IQ deficient‖ but rather they are ―language deficient‖. That
language deficiency could be bridged with repetition of ideas and key skills. The team
developed a guide that laid out each 5-7 day language arts lesson in a set format. This
format paid attention to the key standards that students needed to master in each grade
level. The weekly story, vocabulary words, and spelling, etc. were all laid out in a format
that allowed the necessary skills to be repeated and reviewed regularly.
Students at EE Elementary are placed in classes by their language ability level.
This method of placement allows teachers to focus on students with similar ability levels
during ELA instruction. Stronger teachers with Spanish language skills are placed in
classes with struggling and EL Students. Students in grades one through three receive 2.5
hours of ELA instruction and for fourth and fifth grade students it is 2 hours daily. There
are 6 part-time aides who assist teachers during instruction. The aides mostly work with
struggling students and focus on ELA. The parent school District of EE Elementary has
been badly affected by the state fiscal crisis. Due to this crisis, the District had to cut
student instructional days from 180 to 175. Non-student, teacher work day was also cut
by 1 day to only 3 days each school year.
In addition to the core program, EE uses a variety of grade level specific
supplemental programs. The K-1 teachers uses a supplemental phonics program and the
EL students in second grade also may use the phonics program if necessary. Students in
grades 2-5 use the Accelerated Reader program to increase comprehension.

Assessments & Data Analysis
EE Elementary uses a variety of assessments and data to set goals and guide
instruction. At the beginning of each school year the principal meets with the leadership
team to analyze the state test results that were taken during the spring of previous school
year. The information gathered at this meeting is used to set goals, plan student
placement and guide instructional plan. The school also uses benchmark assessments
that are aligned to the standard-based curriculum. The school uses District mandated

215

Appendix L continued

benchmark assessments. These assessments are administered 3 times a year to monitor
student learning in relation to key concepts. In addition, EE Elementary uses a variety of
assessments to evaluate student progress and tailor instruction according to student needs.
These standards-based assessments are formative in the sense that teachers use them to
plan their instructional approach for the class or individual students. Teachers also use the
results of local assessments to set grade level SMART goals for student achievement.
In addition to the benchmark and formative assessments, a variety of fluency
assessments are also administered to students throughout the year. These assessments are
used to monitor at-risk students and provide intervention as necessary.
Throughout the year, the assessment data is analyzed in variety of collaborative
meetings. Teachers meet monthly and each trimester to develop lessons, analyze data, set
goals, benchmarks for all subgroups and improve performance between bands.

Professional Development & Coaching
EE Elementary has only one assigned professional development day. Part of this
day accounts for welcome back messages from the superintendent and the principal.
Although there is only one assigned professional development day, teachers are
supported by a Literacy Coach who provides coaching and variety of other support. The
coach helps with instruction of at-risk students. In addition, she helps the teachers
analyze and interpret data. The teachers also meet every month to analyze data and make
instructional plans. They also get a release day each trimester to plan and analyze data.

Help for Struggling Student
Most of the support offered to struggling students at EE is during regular school
day. However, before school the Literacy coach works with at-risk students from grades
3-5 on reading fluency and comprehension. The District and EE Elementary had a plan
in place to provide for after school instruction and summer classes. However, recent
budget cuts in California have forced the District to eliminate all funding for any
intensive instruction programs.

Parent and Community Involvement
Parent and community involvement is encouraged by the principal and staff. The
school has a variety of parent groups, including SSC, ELAC and PTO that are involved
with a variety of school activities. The school holds fall carnival, back to school night,
winter program and other family nights to increase parent participation. The school
communicates with newsletters, flyers and automated phone system to reach parents.

Leadership
The principal of EE Elementary has played a huge role in all aspects of the
school. She was the driving force behind getting the teachers to work in a focused
collaborative manner. She has managed to create a culture where most staff members
work in focused manner in all aspects of teaching from lesson delivery to assessments.
The principal guided the teachers to work under an A to F Umbrella Model:
216

Appendix L continued

Figure EE.4 EE Elementary School’s Instructional Model

A = Access D = Designing Rituals
B = Best Practices E = Explicit Instruction
C = Collaboration F = Feedback

The A-F Umbrella model (Figure EE.4) requires EE staff to ensure all students have
access the curriculum, teachers use best practices in the classroom, teachers collaborate
and plan on a regular basis, teachers design ritual strategies for lesson delivery, they
provide explicit instruction and adequate and timely feedback. The focuses approach of
instruction led by the principal has generated great dividends for EE Elementary School.

Table EE.1 shows how EE Elementary implements the 10 steps that Odden
(2009) recommends for doubling student performance. It also lists other research-based
strategies employed by EE Elementary.

Table EE.1 Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and other research-based strategies
at EE Elementary
Odden’s Strategies Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak Not
observe
d
1) analyzing student
achievement data
√ Teachers meet regularly in leadership and grade
level teams to analyze benchmark and
formative assessment data.
2) setting ambitious
goals
√ The principal has refocused the school goal on
instruction and student achievement.
3) implementing
effective curriculum
and instructional
program
√ All teachers follow the District adopted
curriculum. The curriculum is delivered in a
consistent manner throughout the school.
4) using benchmark
and formative
assessments
√ The school effectively uses a variety of
assessments to monitor student progress and
guide instruction. They use both District
benchmark and formative assessments to guide
instruction.
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ Teachers collaborate on a regular basis. Grade
level collaboration is planned at least once a
month and also one day per trimester.

217

Appendix L continued

Continued Table EE.1
6) using
instructional time
more efficiently
√ Instructional time is used optimally at EE.
Specific time is devoted for language arts and
math. However, in 2009-2010 the number of
school days have been reduced by 5 to 175
days.
7) providing extra
help for struggling
students
√ Due to budget cuts, EE Elementary has very
limited programs to provide help for struggling
students outside the school hours.
8) creating
professional and
collaborative school
cultures
√ Teachers meet regularly to collaborate on
instructional strategies, data analysis and
student achievement.
9) using research-
based and proven
strategies
√ Teachers employ a variety of research-based
instructional strategies to instruct student.
10) investing on
human capital
management
√ Principal works with teachers and allows
teachers to take leadership roles.
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ EE Elementary School involves families by
various modes of communication, events and
activities.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ The principal uses effective leadership skills to
motivate and guide the staff.

Although EE Elementary employs most of Odden‘s (2009) effective strategies,
the amount of resource allocated for the students is significantly lower than the Evidence
Based Model (EBM). In all areas, from the enrollment number to class size and effective
instructional strategies, the amount of resource budgeted is considerably less than the
EBM model. Table EE.2 shows a comparison of resource allocation between EE
Elementary and an EBM prototype school.

218

Appendix L continued

Table EE.2 School Profile Comparison: BB Elementary School and
Evidence Based Model (EBM) School

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary
Schools

EE Elementary
School

EEES – EBM Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS

School Configuration K - 5
K - 5 EE has pre-school class that
EBM does not
Enrollment 432 752 74% larger than EBM
Class Size K-3 15
4-5 25
K 30
1-3 30
4-5 33

~77% greater than EBM
Full Day Kindergarten Yes No Not offered at EE
Number of Teacher work
days
190 +
10 days of PD
175 +
+
3 work day

11% less than EBM
Students with Disability 12% 9% 3% less than EBM
Students in poverty 50%
78% 28% greater than EBM
EL students 10% 53% 43% greater than EBM
Minority students 30%
95% 65% greater than EBM

219

Appendix L continued

Table EE.3 Resource Comparison: EE Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element

EBM Prototypical
Elementary
Schools
EBM School
with EE
Characteristics
(752 Students)

EE Elementary
School

EEES – EBM
Comparison
Core Teachers
24
42 27 36% less
Specialist teachers
20% more; 4.8
8.2 1**
Percentage of support
teachers at EE is
significantly less.
2. A Literacy Coach
provides help with
reading intervention
and coaching for
teachers.
3. 3 Title I and 3 EL
aides provide small
group intervention
daily for 3-3.5 hours.
Instructional
Facilitators/mentors
2.2
3.4 1
Tutors
1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
5.9
(for 586 poverty
students) 0
Teachers for EL
1 for every 100:
0.43
4 (399 EL
students) 0

FTE for
Extended day
1.8
3.1 0*** None at EE
FTE for
Summer School
1.8
3.1 0 None at EE
FTE for
Learning Disabled student
3
5 2 60% less than EBM
GATE student $25/student
$25/student
$9/student 60% less at EE
Substitutes
5% of all of the
above
5% of all of the
above
0 None at EE
Pupil Support
1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
5.9 0 None at EE
Non-instructional aides
2
3.2 0 None at EE
Librarian/Media specialists
1
1.6 0****
****EE has a
Library Technician
Principal
1
1.5 1 50% less

220

Appendix L continued

Continued Table EE.3
School site Secretary
2
3 2 33% less at EE )
Professional Development
instructional
facilitators,
Planning & prep
time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil
for other PD
expenses –
trainers,
conferences,
travel, etc
……..
~ $20,000 is
allotted
There is some
investment but not
adequate.
Technology $250/pupil
$250/pupil
$15/pupil
Significantly less than
EBM
Instructional materials $140/ pupil
$140/ pupil
$50/pupil
Significantly less than
EBM
Student activities
$200/pupil
$200/pupil $35/pupil
Significantly less than
EBM

Lessons Learned

EE Elementary School has made enormous improvement in lowering
achievement gap and improving overall student performance in the last five years.
 The school sets specific goals that ensures all students can access the
curriculum and instruction is delivered in a consistent and focused manner.
 By analyzing data, the school set specific goals for all students including
subgroups. Specific strategies were designed to address achievement gap.
Regular data analysis guides instruction at EE Elementary.
 EE Elementary effectively uses state adopted curriculum and a pacing guide
that is clearly aligned to the standards.
 EE Elementary employs the PLC model for monthly grade level collaboration
among teachers. Teachers also get release day to meet all day, once each
trimester to analyze student performance and guide instruction.
 The principal provides focused and effective leadership that promotes a
culture of learning.
By implementing these programs EE Elementary has significantly increased the
student achievement of the major subgroups and successfully improved student
performance.

221

Appendix L continued

Future Considerations

Additional resources would be helpful to build on EE Elementary School‘s
success. EE elementary schools intervention model is heavily dependent on instructional
aides. It may be more effective to use regular certificated teachers for all interventions.
Additional resources are also needed to offer extended day program and summer school
program for struggling students. The professional development at EE is also weak. The
teachers can benefit by learning newer strategies for teaching at-risk and EL students.

222

APPENDIX M

FF Elementary School

FF Elementary is a Title I, kindergarten through fifth grade school in the eastern
fringe of the Los Angeles County. This school of 445 students has a single-track, year
round schedule. FF Elementary is part of a District whose history dates back to the gold
rush era. The area was developed as a ranch in the early 1900s. The first school in the
District was built in 1909. FF Elementary, the fifth school in this District was built in
1954. The school opened its door with 435 students and 16 teachers. In the years that
followed, the District added more schools through construction and annexation.
Presently, there are eight elementary, two middle and two high schools with a district
student enrollment of 10,285 and 490 teachers. FF School serves an ethnically,
economically and culturally diverse student population. The students at FF Elementary
speak 11 different languages with 20% of the students being classified as English
Learners (EL).

FF Elementary School serves students from a varied ethnic background, socio-
economic status and language abilities. The primary ethnic groups are Hispanic (74%),
White (8%), and Asian (7%). Sixty-Six percent of the students are classified as
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged (SED). The percentage of English Learners (EL) at
this school is 22% and 8% are classified as Special Education students. Table FF.1
shows the ethnic breakdown of all students at FF Elementary.

The purpose of this case study is to identify effective resource allocation and
instructional strategies at FF Elementary School.
Starting 2006, FF Elementary School has demonstrated impressive growth in
student performance. From 2006 to 2009, FF Elementary has shown a growth of 78
points on its API. Figure FF.2 shows FF Elementary School‘s API over the last five
years.
Figure FF.1 Ethnic Breakdown of FF School
Hispanic
White
Asian
African-American
Other
223

Appendix M continued

Figure FF.2 FF Elementary School’s API

The Average Yearly Progress (AYP) reports show a similar trend of progress. FF
Elementary has demonstrated growth for all student subgroups in the last 5 years. For
Hispanic and SED subgroup the growth in AYP was more than 20%. For EL students the
growth was almost 40%. Although, the White and Asian subgroups continue to perform
well, their growth has been much less than 20%. This trend has contributed significantly
to lowering of the achievement gap between the Hispanic, SED and EL students and the
high performing White and Asian students. In fact, except the Asian subgroup, all
students at FF Elementary are demonstrating almost similar achievement level in
language arts. Figure FF.3 shows FF Elementary School‘s language arts AYP for
different subgroups since 2005.

797
784
815
837
866
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure FF.3 Language Arts AYP for FF Elementary
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED
224

Appendix M continued

Figure FF.4 displays the math AYP for FF Elementary. A similar trend as
language arts is also noticed in the math AYP. All subgroups except the Asian students
have demonstrated close to 20% growth. Not much achievement gap exists among the
different subgroups. Figure FF.4 displays the performance of significant subgroups in
math since 2005.

Instructional Improvement Process

The current principal started at FF Elementary in 2005. Even during that time the
school had high API scores. However, there was significant achievement gap among the
different subgroups. The Asian and White students were performing significantly better
than other subgroups, especially in English language arts. Being new to the job, the
principal spent the first year observing and learning the rituals of the school. The schools
test scores dropped during his first year. After the first year, the principal focused on
ensuring that needs of all different students were being met at their ability levels. The
refocused strategies led to continued high achievement and a reduction in achievement
gap.

Consistent Curriculum& Intervention
At FF Elementary specific block schedule, as required by the Essential Program
Components (EPC) written by the California Department of Education (CDE), is
allocated for language arts and math instruction. The school uses District adopted Open
Court curriculum for teaching English language arts and Envision curriculum for
teaching math. The teachers follow the content standard aligned pacing guide and fully
implement the adopted curriculum. Teachers at FF use standard-based instruction to
ensure students are learning all the grade level standards.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure FF.4 Math AYP for FF Elementary
School Wide
Hispanic
White
EL
SED
225

Appendix M continued

The language arts block is during the first few hours of the school day. The
students receive direct instruction during this period with clear emphasis on the key
standards. Several instructional aides assist the teachers during this period. The aides
primarily work with EL and at-risk students.
The EL students at FF receive additional instruction to help with their language
development. Depending on their language ability level, the students receive the Into
English or English at Your Command curriculum to enhance their language skills.
However, the key to the success of EL students at FF Elementary is the fact that the
school believes on focusing on the needs of EL students throughout the day. Even during
regular instructional blocks teachers tailor their lessons to meet the needs of the EL
students.

Assessments & Data Analysis
The standard-based curriculum used at FF is nicely aligned with the benchmark
assessments. The school uses District mandated benchmark assessments. These
assessments are administered 3 times a year to monitor student learning in relation to key
concepts. In addition, FF Elementary uses a variety of assessments to evaluate student
progress and tailor instruction according to student needs. These standards-based
assessments are formative in the sense that teachers use them to plan their instructional
approach for the class or individual students. Teachers also use self-made assessments to
regularly monitor student progress and guide their lessons.
FF Elementary also uses state assessments from the STAR program to monitor
student progress toward accountability goals and to measure progress toward closing the
achievement gap between disadvantaged subgroup populations and schoolwide
performance. Teachers use the results of the state assessments to plan their instructional
focus and to monitor their progress toward meeting state goals in achievement.
Throughout the year, the assessment data is analyzed in variety of collaborative
meetings. The school holds two grade level meetings each month to discuss assessment
data and instructional strategies.

Professional Development & Coaching
Professional development is based upon identified deficiencies within student
performance, particularly subgroup populations. At FF Elementary, all Professional
Development is first and foremost created to support teacher in the delivery of California
Content Standards via the adopted curricular materials.
Each month, two staff development sessions are held to discuss instructional
strategies and other issues that improve instruction. The ISS (Instructional Support
Specialist) helps with the professional development and data analysis. Recently, this
teacher trained the staff on GLAD strategies. The Instructional Support Teacher also
provides staff development aligned to content standards and effective teaching strategies.

226

Appendix M continued
Help for Struggling Student
FF Elementary has a culture that has high standards and expectations for all
students. Key school personnel including the principal and the ISS meet regularly to
discuss and ensure that all students have equitable access to all the curriculum. The
students are regularly assessed to check who needs extra help. Students receive
differentiated instruction during the school day to ensure that their needs are being met.
At-risk students receive after school tutoring by certificated teacher twice a week. There
is a separate tutorial group for students in grades two through five. Student receive
instruction and assistance on English language arts one day and math on another day.
The school also hosts a county subsidized after-school program that emphasizes
homework completion, academic enrichment, crafts, art and PE. However, this program
is not run by a any certificated staff.

Parent and Community Involvement
Parent and community involvement is encouraged by the principal and staff.
There are multiple opportunities for parents to be involved in the school and get a clearer
understanding of school expectations. Some of the programs offered by FF Elementary
includes Parent Tutoring, parent Title I and Test Prep Meetings, Parent Education
Classes, Family Reading Night and Open Library. Each year, there are numerous parent
evenings that encourages parent participation with school activities.

Leadership
The principal of FF Elementary plays a huge role in all aspects of the school. He
has played a major role in all the reform and changes that has taken place in the last four
years. He has managed to create a culture where most staff members have high
expectations and set ambitious goals for themselves and their students. The principal is
involved in the data analysis process, instructional planning and monitoring classrooms
regularly to ensure standard-based instruction is delivered regularly.
Table FF.1 shows how FF Elementary implements the 10 steps that Odden (2009)
recommends for doubling student performance. It also lists other research-based
strategies employed by FF Elementary.

Table FF.1 Implementation of Odden’s 10 Steps and other research-based strategies
at FF Elementary
Odden’s Strategies
Implementation Notes
Strong Average Weak Not
observed
1) analyzing student
achievement data
√ Teachers meet regularly to analyze
benchmark and formative assessment data. .
2) setting ambitious
goals
√ The staff is refocused the school goal of
standard-based instruction and student
achievement.
227

Appendix M continued

Continued Table FF.1

3) implementing
effective curriculum
and instructional
program
√ All teachers follow the District adopted
curriculum. Struggling students use a
specific curriculum designed to address their
needs.
4) using benchmark
and formative
assessments
√ The school effectively uses a variety of
assessments to monitor student progress and
guide instruction. They use both District
benchmark and teacher-made assessments to
guide instruction.
5) employing
ongoing
professional
development
√ Teachers collaborate on a regular basis.
Teacher training days are limited
6) using
instructional time
more efficiently
√ Instructional time is used optimally at FF.
Specific time is devoted for language arts and
math. However, the class sizes are higher
than what research recommends.
7) providing extra
help for struggling
students
√ There is limited after-school intervention.
8) creating
professional and
collaborative school
cultures
√ Teachers meet regularly to collaborate on
instructional strategies, data analysis and
student achievement.
9) using research-
based and proven
strategies
√ Teachers employ a variety of research-based
instructional strategies to instruct student.
10) investing on
human capital
management
√ This strategy was not clear from the research
that was conducted.
Other Strategies
11) Family and
community
Involvement
√ FF Elementary School involves families by
various modes of communication, events and
activities. These include numerous family
nights and parent education classes.
12) Effective
Leadership
√ The principal uses effective leadership skills
to motivate and guide the staff.

Although FF Elementary employs most of strategies enumerated by Odden
(2009), the amount of resource allocated for the students is significantly lower than the
Evidence Based Model (EBM). In all areas, from the enrollment number to class size
and effective instructional strategies, the amount of resource budgeted is considerably
less than the EBM model. Table FF.2 shows a comparison of resource allocation between
FF Elementary and an EBM prototype school.
228

Appendix M continued

Table FF.2. Resource Comparison: FF Elementary School and Evidence Based
Model (EBM) for Adequate School Resources

School Element
EBM Prototypical
Elementary
Schools

FF Elementary
School

FFES – EBM Comparison
SCHOOL
CHARACTERISTICS
School Configuration
K – 5
K - 5 same
Enrollment
432
445 similar
Class Size
K-3 15
4-5 25
K 20
1-3 20
4-5 32

~27% greater than EBM
Full Day Kindergarten
Yes
No Not offered at FF
Number of Teacher work
days
190 +
10 days of PD
180 +
2 days of PD +
1 work day

8.5% less than EBM
Students with Disability
12%
9% 3% less than EBM
Students in poverty
50%
66% 16% greater than EBM
EL students
10%
22% 12% greater than EBM
Minority students
30%
92% 62% greater than EBM
RESOURCES

Core Teachers
24
20 FF needs 4 more teachers
Specialist teachers
20% more; 4.8
0
Percentage of support
teachers at FF is significantly
less.
1. An Instructional Support
Teacher provides help with
data analysis, material
support and coaching for
teachers.
3. 2 EL aides provide small
group intervention daily.
Instructional
Facilitators/mentors
2.2
1
Tutors
1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
0
Teachers for EL
1 for every 100:
0.43
0

229

Appendix M continued

Continued Table FF.1
Extended day
1.8
0.1***
*** 1. FF provides an hour of
after-school instruction twice
a week for at-risk students in
grades 2-5
2. FF hosts a program called
ASES (After School
Education and Safety
Program) that is offered by
the city County
Summer School
1.8
0
FF does not offer any
summer school
Learning Disabled student
3
2 33% less than EBM
GATE student
$25/student
$10/student 60% less at FF
Substitutes
5% of all of the
above
0 None at FF
Pupil Support
1 for every 100
poverty students:
2.16
0 None at FF
Non-instructional aides
2
0 None at FF
Librarian/Media specialists
1
0****
****FF has a
Library Technician
Principal
1
1 Same
School site Secretary
2
2 Same
Professional Development
instructional
facilitators,
Planning & prep
time, 10 summer
days, $100/pupil
for other PD
expenses – trainers,
conferences, travel,
etc
~ $22,000 is
allotted
Investment on PD is
significantly less at FF
Technology
$250/pupil
$20/pupil Significantly less than EBM
Instructional materials
$140/ pupil
$45/pupil Significantly less than EBM
Student activities
$200/pupil
$30/pupil Significantly less than EBM

230

Appendix M continued

Lessons Learned

FF Elementary School has made enormous improvement in lowering achievement
gap and improving overall student performance in the last five years.
 The school sets specific goals that focus on instruction and has made a
concerted effort to meet the needs of all students.
 By analyzing data, the school set specific goals for all students including
subgroups. Specific strategies were designed to address achievement gap.
Regular data analysis guides instruction at FF Elementary.
 FF Elementary effectively uses state adopted curriculum and a pacing guide
that is clearly aligned to the standards.
 FF Elementary holds bi-weekly collaboration among teachers to analyze data
and professional development sessions.
 FF Elementary offers after-school instruction for its struggling students.
 The principal provides focused and effective leadership that promotes a
culture of learning.
By implementing these programs FF Elementary has significantly increased the
student achievement of the major subgroups and successfully lowered the achievement
gap.

Future Considerations

Additional resources would be helpful to build on FF Elementary School‘s
success. The school offers very limited professional development. Teachers do
collaborate on a bi-weekly basis, however the actual training piece is very week.
Teachers have only three days without students and very little of it is spent on training
sessions. More coordinated and focused professional development will be helpful.
FF elementary schools intervention model is heavily dependent on instructional
aides. It may be more effective to use regular certificated teachers for all interventions.
Additional resources are also needed to offer summer school program for struggling
students.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study was conducted to examine instructional strategies and resource allocation in successful schools. The study was based on analysis of six effective Southern California elementary schools. All the analyzed schools were Title I, non-charter public schools that had demonstrated consistent student achievement, had narrowed the achievement gap and have reached an API score of 800 or more.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Navigating troubled waters: case studies of three California high schools' resource allocation strategies in 2010-2011

PDF

Successful resource allocation in times of fiscal constraint: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California elementary schools

PDF

Resource allocation and educational adequacy: case studies of school-level resource use in southern California with budget reductions

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

How improving schools allocate resources: a case study of successful schools in one southern California urban school district

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: Case studies of school level resource use in California middle schools

PDF

Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies in rural single-school elementary districts

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within an elementary school in a centrally managed school district: a case study

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of six California schools within two school districts

PDF

Evidence-based resource allocation model to improve student achievement: Case study analysis of three high schools

PDF

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

PDF

The impact of resource allocation on professional development for the improvement of teaching and student learning within a site-based managed elementary school: a case study

PDF

School-level resource allocation practices in elementary schools to increase student achievement

PDF

Better is as better does: resource allocation in high performing schools

PDF

Resource allocation practices in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

Resource use and instructional improvement strategies at the school-site level: case studies from ten southern California elementary schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Hyder, Syed N. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/14/2010

Defense Date 03/04/2010

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

Tag effective schools,elementary school,instructional strategies,OAI-PMH Harvest,resource allocation

Place Name California (states), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert C. (committee member), Nelson, John L. (committee member)

Creator Email shyder@usc.edu,supersyed@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2919

Unique identifier UC169909

Identifier etd-Hyder-3468 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-318713 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2919 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Hyder-3468.pdf

Dmrecord 318713

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hyder, Syed N.

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